Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/26/2001 Env Bd PacketCity of Lino Lakes Environmental Board Meeting Lino Lakes City Hall September 26, 2001 6:30 PM Agenda 1. Call To Order/Pass Sign -In Sheet 6:30 PM 2. Approval of Minutes (6:30 -6:35) 3. Approval of Agenda (6:35 -6:40) 4. Citizen Comments (6:40 -6:45) 5. Appoint new Chair/Vice Chair 6. Project Review A. Market Place Update /Michael Grochala B. Raske Building Systems, Apollo Business Center, Minor Subdivision, Site Plan Review C. Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addition, Preliminary Plat/PDO, Comp Plan Amendment — MUSA 7. Environmental Board Business A. Joint Meeting/City Council B. Wildland Urban Interface update C. Xcel Energy/Tree Trust/ "Trade A Tree" Program/Sara Smith D. Project NEMO 8. Program/Project Updates A. Solid Waste/Recycling Updates B. Forestry C. Other Environmental Project Updates 9. Close Meeting and Confirm Next Meeting Date ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING AUGUST 29, 2001 DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT CITY OF LINO LAKES MINUTES : August 29, 2001 6:32 P.M. 9:10 P.M. : Amy Donlin, Constance Grundhofer, Rod Kukonen, Chair Scott Lanyon, Theresa O'Connell, and Mike Trehus. : None. Staff members present: Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson and Community Development Director Michael Grochala. CALL TO ORDER Chair Lanyon presided and called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. June 27, 2001 — The following corrections were re Page 2, sixth paragraph: " Trehus inquired about a newspaper article that cited tax abatement for th oject." Page 3, fourth paragraph: "Trehus urge the Council decide, for instance an anal volume of runoff into Geor ,_= h Lak o make the recommendation, and let computer modeling on the increase Page 4, third paragrap ". uk. "in i` red, and Trehus submitted..." Page 7, first par s -'h: "Tre y- a ' eed that was a major drawba Page 7, second paragrap " Donlin stated the Mayer City was using..." Trehus moved to approve the June 27, 2001 meeting minutes as amended above. O'Connell seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. B. July 18, 2001 — The following corrections were requested: Page 6, eighth paragraph: "Trehus indicated that three agencies stated the-inmeeet-s-vmre concerns with the proposed project." ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING Page 7, fifth paragraph: GG AUGUST 29, 2001 !! Trehus moved to approve the July 18, 2001 meeting minutes as amended above. O'Connell seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The following item was added to the meeting agenda: • Discuss 5E the MarketPlace Update as a part of 5A the Ryan Target Update. The agenda was approved as amended above. CITIZEN COMMENTS Donlin indicated that two residents had called her by phone stating their desire to comment on Board Business, but had scheduling conflicts and may be late. PROJECT REVIEW A. Ryan/Target/Target Super Store/Update — G ": a s that throughout the life of the project there had been dramatic change, ev r the Co il denied the project with two abstaining. Wetland mitigation had be �.' + i�� sion item. There had been two meetings concerning the reduction of ponding . #;_ ` creasing the infiltration basins. The landscaping plan indicated 788 trees be mo New improvements would have been necessary to Lake Drive, in additi sidy issue. Chair Lanyon inquired abo atersh «;• istrict's response. Grochala responded that the technology panel did �� �,,,� with the volume issue, but with rate control. They were seeking to r � e i + a on areas and keep the ponding area Chair Lanyon p + __ a ques 'A + n " it became a project again, what would be the role of the Environmental chala answered that the Environmental Assessment Worksheet was still in e • proval process. Donlin stated previously Asleson lead several Environmental Board members to the site, which she revisited recently and noted the biodiversity, such as mature oaks, black cherries, pheasants, and tamaracks. She added that there was considerable neighborhood opposition to the project. She visited the SuperTarget at Lexington and Highway 694, and described it as a vast asphalt expanse. She noted some small saplings, the infiltration pond was fenced off because it was deep, and had garbage in it. Chair Lanyon stated that the Board tried to move the project toward an ecological balance. He indicated the Board was not displeased that the project was stopped. Donlin explained that the outcome represented the 20/20 vision, with a prairie -rural flavor to the 2 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING AUGUST 29, 2001 town. If the project had been completed as the last plat indicated, the City would resemble Oakdale or Lakeville. O'Connell posed the question if the Council reopened the project, would the Environmental Board review it and pass on recommendations. Grochala responded that except for the infiltration issue, the bigger picture with a reduction in the tax rate made it primarily an economic issue for the Council. Asleson stated that the environmental issues were pushed as much as possible. Donlin explained that because the supermarket - discount store merchandise was inexpensive, it could put smaller retailers out of business. Grochala commented on his experience in Cambridge where a large retailer caused a turnover in businesses from town, but the smaller businesses created niches which benefited from the draw the larger store brought to the area. Donlin stated she did not want outsiders coming into town to shop, and other neighbors she spoke with agreed. Another issue would be that low- income housing would be necessary to accommodate the workers. Grochala introduced Tanda Gretz the new Associate ' er for the City. B. Centennial School District/New Elementa Use Permit — Asleson introduced John C Schools, and reviewed the site which is located reviewed the background for the site G • s eluded protection area where the soils were s Isanti wet soils on a floodplain. of Site Review/ Conditional uperintendent for Centennial 4th Avenue and Highway 35W. He ite being located in a lake past, there had been concerns with Chair Lanyon asked if th answered that it did, had since been rero the building and the land. Asleson ay was previously located through the area, but Trehus inquired as t . -' Greenway had been initially proposed. Asleson responded that it was p •o ed in the 1992 City Plan. He continued, the landscape plan showed that there were n " significant trees, however there were many cedars that could be moved. The landscape architect also suggested it. The salt spray from the adjacent highway would inhibit the growth of the cedars, and staff suggested a hardier species would be Colorado Blue Spruce. Infiltration areas were planned in the northwest and there was a recommendation for a study on the surface water treatment. Native plantings were suggested that would be resistant to salt spray. He indicated the school district wanted to preserve the trees on the ends for a shelter break. Chair Lanyon expressed concerns over water treatment and infiltration on site and specifically as it related to the parking area. He suggested water quality issues were straightforward enough for elementary students to grasp, and the district could create a 3 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING AUGUST 29, 2001 water treatment train on site as a lab and receive assistance in funding it. Donlin concurred with Chair Lanyon that with the school's proximity to the highway, educational opportunities to incorporate water treatment and native plants into the classrooms would be beneficial. Trehus asked what was the timetable of the project. Mr. Christiansen noted it was going to be discussed with the Council at the end of September or October, then the specs would be sent out for bids, followed by some winter construction. Chair Lanyon questioned the meaning of the first bullet on the background sheet. Asleson responded that a surface water management plan was necessary because he was unaware of the movement of the water, and indicated that it was essentially a global study. Grundhofer had questions on the plant list, where the sugar maple was planned, but she found that it was not hardy for the area. She also noted concerns over the planting of the thornless hawthorn and suggested that the thorny variety would increase habitat for shrikes. Asleson answered that there would be no thorns on school grounds, and he had success with the thornless variety under the wires. Trehus expressed a concern for the wetland. Asles infiltration area around it. Mr. Christiansen stated the wetland was lo school. In addition there was to be a cutback o cated that there would be an : d it might be improved with the fields. O'Connell asked if there was any feedb he was not aware of any. Grundhofer stated that th lighting for the elemen middle school was lighting needs th Trehus recommended a esses nearby. Asleson responded that as always lit up, and inquired about the hristiansen answered that the lighting at the , but the elementary school would not have as a requirement no spill, shoebox lighting. O'Connell moved to approve the project with staff and Board recommendations. Trehus added that the recommendations should be upgraded as requirements. Grundhofer seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. C. Saddle Club/ Preliminary Plat Review — Asleson reviewed the background material. After the denial of the project, a new plat had been submitted for consideration. The new plat includes only the area included in the MUSA and a Greenway dedication. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING AUGUST 29, 2001 O'Connell stated that the plat showed a cul -de -sac, but no houses. Asleson clarified that the cul -de -sac was shown as an outlot. Mr. Hill stated that the plat was the same in the northeast corner, but the southern part was excluded. Grundhofer asked if the southern cul -de -sac was going to be built. Trehus inquired about whether the other cul -de -sac met the R -1 specifications. Mr. Hill responded it did meet the requirements without a variance. It had been resubmitted to the Watershed District because of a change in the grading plan. Chair Lanyon stated that Lots 2 and 3, Block 2, were the same as previously seen. He asked if the developer was planning 17 lots in the southern part. Grundhofer asked if the ponds were part of the lots. Mr. Hill answered that they were not part of the lots, but part of the easement. O'Connell questioned where the lots ended. Mr. Hill res onded that the ponds were south of the easement, but on the lots. Donlin inquired if the residents would mow aro e p and preserve the trees. Mr. Hill answered that there would be a distributi• ° of nformat to the residents. He assured the Board that the area next to the remain undisturbed. Chair Lanyon recommended that sign in the area for subsequent residents. Donlin indicated that she ha phases involved evidence opposition at the Mond the southern part, there might be tr en a project comes up for review with two . She noted there was neighborhood Donlin continued that there were plans to grade e action was premature. Grundhofer agreed that Mr. Hill claimed that d ing only half of the land was a risk he was willing to take. Donlin stated that he was expecting a commitment of MUSA, and she has heard of developers who were willing to take the risk, then filed to sue the city if the project was denied. Trehus inquired about the wetland buffering, noting there appeared to be considerable wetlands, but no buffering. Mr. Hill answered that there was a fifty -foot setback from the houses to the wetland. Trehus stated that the setback should be from the property line. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING AUGUST 29, 2001 The Board discussed the placement of the road and the possibility of shifting it north to save the trees. Shifting the road would encroach on the wetland, which was on a floodplain. O'Connell asked if an association was planned. Mr. Hill responded that there was none planned, just signage. Asleson stated that signage was being used successfully in other developments including Spirit Hills. Chair Lanyon expressed concern over the wetlands and the actions of subsequent homeowners. Trehus noted the plan was to develop 80 acres in the southern part. Mr. Hill indicated that 17 units would be built on that 80 acres. Asleson stated with the plant diversity, the wildlife would return. He noted the past recommendations included native plantings and signage in buffer areas. 0' Connell made a motion to recommend approval with the previous recommendations. Grundhofer seconded the motion. The motion carried • 3 in favor, 1 opposed (Trehus), and 1 abstain (Donlin) because of the two p .° es in the plat. D. Molin Concrete /Site Plan Review — Asleson re ed • ackground information. Concerns centered on elevated pH levels, the � ° ed or infil i .6n area, and the need for the berm to be planted and irrigated to scre .. A we lhead was supposedly located on site, and if it was not being used, it d be capped. Chair Lanyon noted that they did not h pe plan, so there was no point in commenting due to lack of data. Asleson reiterated that th'�� f� • ro . visual barrier and needed infiltration so it could support plantings. Donlin inquiredt the sit `;r. 1 ation. Grundhofer stated she ouncil meeting, and the neighbors claimed that the company did not fulfill p omises. Grochala explained that the site had two zoning designations, General Industrial, and Light Industrial in the north which has been used for storage in the past. Recently there have been violations in regards to hours of operation, and doing some work in the Light Industrial area. The promises unmet dealt with the Conditional Use Permit. Trehus suggested connecting 77th Street. Asleson noted that there were two wells on site which should be capped if they were abandoned. 6 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING AUGUST 29, 2001 O'Connell inquired about an automated gantry elevator. Asleson answered that it was an elevator with a rail. Donlin stated that since the company had unfulfilled promises, they should not receive approval until those promises had been fulfilled. Since the company preceded the housing developments —Buyer Beware. She did not want Molin to be alienated, because they have given back to the City. Grochala addressed the issue assuring the Board that the company has worked with staff, and the Conditional Use Permit processing caused misunderstandings. He felt that Molin had tried to comply and would continue to do so. Trehus questioned if there was any information regarding the environmental impact submitted, dealing with the issue of high pH, or a treatment system with the Rice Creek Watershed District. O'Connell agreed with Chair Lanyon that there was a need for more information. Trehus recommended tabling the project until the information was submitted. O'Connell inquired about any new chemicals Molin t •e using, and their environmental impacts. Trehus asked about the location of the wed Chair Lanyon posed the question as to why no cape plan was submitted. Asleson responded that there were no trees to r Grundhofer noted that landsca. e .lans req fired for additions such as garages for residents. Grundhofer made a mo iscussion until Molin submitted a tree inventory, a landscape plan, e , and a lighting plan. Donlin seconded the motion. motion carried E. Market Place Update cussed as a part of the Ryan/Target update. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD BUSINESS A. Comprehensive Plan Update — Grochala commented that the Plan would be submitted to the Metropolitan Council early next week. The delay was due to outdated maps from 1988 needed updating. Gretz was working on the Surface Water Management Plan, and John Powell was working to make the Comprehensive Plan compatible with the Watershed District. B. Environmental Board Goals 2001— Asleson suggested that the Board discuss the special meeting with the City Council in this section. A date for the meeting was ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING AUGUST 29, 2001 discussed. Chair Lanyon stated that the Board Members should provide suggested dates to staff by Friday, specifically Mondays or Wednesdays at 6:30 p.m., or Saturday mornings. C. Xcel Energy/Tree Trust/"Trade a Tree" Program — Asleson indicated that the Board needed to make a motion to accept the program. The program dealt with the trees under the high power lines, which would be removed, leaving the City to remove the stump. It is seen as a win -win situation. The cost for the City is one dollar /inch for the stumps. D. E. F. Donlin expressed concern over Xcel Energy taking advantage of the situation through the program. Asleson responded that the trees would not be removed unless the resident wanted it removed. Chair Lanyon asked about a tree inventory. Asleson indicated about 30 trees would be affected. He continued that the tree trimmers working for Xcel were learning, using good horticulture techniques, trying not to top the tree, and exploring the use of prairie plantings directly under the power lines. Grundhofer inquired about a tree list. Asleson answered . at the homeowner or the City would choose the trees. Chair Lanyon stated that it would be good to ha tative from the program meet with the Board. Special Council Meeting with the City Counc nvironmental Board - Discussed as part of Environmental Board Business ironme : oard Goals 2001. Resignation/Dave Mach — The Board n and members should let inte r:ndivi Surface Water Mana NEMO. th the position had been advertised for, s know of the opening. is item was discussed as a part of Project G. Project NEMO — A on s`ed he went to a NEMO conference, and Lino Lakes was chosen to participate in •rojects. They won't do a build out model, but will discuss the need for one. Staff r ommended that the City collaborate with NEMO. He needed a consensus from the Board that it was a good opportunity. Donlin inquired about the cost. Grochala indicated that the cost was expensive, but it could be reduced if the City went in as a pilot project. Donlin made a motion to recommend the City pursue involvement with NEMO. Grundhofer seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 8 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING AUGUST 29, 2001 Trehus stated that the City needed to pursue volumes, not merely rates in the Surface Water Management Plan. Asleson stated that NEMO would demonstrate the necessity of volumes. Trehus questioned Grochala if he had begun reading the handbook, and stated that the concept of the Greenways tied into it. Grochala stated he had begun to read it and believed that opportunities were coming together. He noted that John Powell could shed some light on the topic. Trehus wanted to know a timetable for the ordinances. Grochala mentioned that staff was waiting for Council comments, and there were issues with the Metropolitan Council. Trehus asked when the Council would finish the Comprehensive Plan. Grochala responded that it would be 60 days from next week. Trehus expressed concern for the Conservation Subdivision. Donlin noted that Clearwater Creek did not have many viewsheds. Trehus asked how the ordinances would be developed would do most of the legwork. He preferred a me from all the Boards to work out the problems. the Council, Planning and Zoning Board, and knowledge. Chair Lanyon stated the Environment were: • Communication and Proced • The Comprehensive P1 • The Ordinances. • The Role of the H rochala answered that NAC t would allow representatives to see a joint meeting with oard to establish a base of d's go f or the joint meeting with Council PROGRAM /PROJEC A. Grant Updates/Minne �- 1 NR Urban Interface — The final reports on the Wildlife Inventory, Fire Invento and GIS for 75% of the City at the DNR would be available at the end of September. B. Solid Waste/Recycling Updates — This item was tabled to the September 26, 2001 meeting. C. Spirit Hills Update /O &M Plan — This item was tabled to the September 26, 2001 meeting. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING AUGUST 29, 2001 OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS O'Connell mentioned that she attended the Economic Development Advisory Committee, and they did not support a moratorium because its effects on the City. They also wanted to be informed of the length of the moratorium if one was put into effect. The Board agreed that O'Connell would represent the Environmental Board in choosing the Citizen of the Year. CLOSE MEETING AND CONFIRM NEXT MEETING DATE It was noted that the next meeting of the Environmental Board will be on September 26, 2001. There being no further business, Trehus moved to adjourn at 9:10 p.m. O'Connell seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Transcribed by: Brigette Blesi TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 10 AGENDA ITEM 6B STAFF ORIGINATOR: Marty Asleson DATE: September 26, 2001 TOPIC: Raske Building Systems Inc. BACKGROUND: This parcel and the parcel to the west of Raske Building Systems Inc., are the last buildable sites left in the Apollo Business District. Raske Building Systems Inc. is a building cleaning supply business. The site is zoned Light Industrial. The Environmental issues have been extensively discussed in the past concerning this area of the Apollo Business District. Surface Water from this building site and the adjacent buildable site flows to the artificial pond to the west. This is an isolated pond, has high infiltration potential and is more than adequate size to contain all of the surface water from the two remaining sites. There is a 90% allowable impervious for light industrial areas. Raske falls within the guidelines for this. There is a recently developed mixed hardwood stand to the west. Drainage swails may effect a portion of this stand. OPTIONS: 1. Recommend Approval with standard conditions to include: • The use of native materials in drainage and swail areas, as well as any portions of the property the owner may be open to the use of these materials such as the southwest comer of the parcel. This area would be nice to plan a transitional area from cultured sod to natives through the use design tools such as formal hedge separation, transitional alternative sod mixes, and formal flower gardens that may include both native and non native annuals. The northwest corner could carry the same flower be idea. • Change tree species on the freeway side to Oak species, preferably a mixture of Burr, Red, and Swamp white oaks. If evergreens are desired in this area, then a change to a salt tolerant species such as Austrian pine should be used. All evergreens in this area be grouped and mulched in to separate native plant maintenance concerns. • Ground cover is designed using the City schedules. • A contract is submitted to have the native materials installed by company specializing in native landscape construction. • A 3 -year maintenance agreement with a landscape company specializing in native landscape maintenance should be submitted, and dollars escrowed for this purpose. • Use of low- impact lighting. • Other suggestions of the Environmental Board 2. Recommend denial RECOMMENDATION: Option 1 SEP 1 0 2001 crry O = UN'O LAKES CITY OF LINO LAKES - LAND USE APPLICATION CHECK APPROPRIATE BOX FEB ESCROW DEPOSIT Comprehensive Plan Amendment $ 500 Conditional Use Permit . $ 350 _ Interim Use Permit $ 350 i Site Plan Review $ 500 'Soo Subdivision: Preliminary Plat $ 1,250 Preservation Development 1,250 . Planned. Development Overlay 1,250 ✓Minor Subdivision/ $ 250 41256 Lot Split Rezoning $ 350 Vacation: drainage, street, utility $ 250 Variance $ 250 Property Address So . vF Alo C.40 Qas vN i N PA CA. 611$0 01$3 5 L V lZC PIN ,# Legal Description: Lot Block Addition Existing Land Use Vpca ,f Existing Zoning _ DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST: , SKBP7vr99 6 4c. Si. ,te !wra 1= 2.05-'` 3rr6 Afwgov‘ Sera 144sw Peg. 2$5. WA t wag , a l sic.T Applicant: e,_G % 13.04010. Siioebwner f diG name G C.T. 0C,— name address 74o Serttw MILW'r WR y address PS NOS . $f+v S6zz4 phone 32.e) 13.77- 7224 phone fax 3w) fax FARCESystems, Inc. P.O. Box 98 / 240 South Milky Way Cosmos, MN 56220 Phone (320) 877 -7221 Fax (320) 877 -7222 September 10th, 2001 Jeff Smyser, AICP City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN Re: Land Use Application Dear Mr. Smyser: Raske Building Systems, Inc. is proposing to build a new warehouse office facility in the Apollo Business Park. Upon completion of the construction project Raske Building Systems intends to lease the new building to I3illyard, Inc. with an option to purchase the property. Raske Building Systems intends to diligently move forward with the permitting and land use approval process with the intention on starting construction shortly after the November 12th, 2001 Council Meeting. Once Raske Building Systems receives The City Council's approval and obtained all the required construction permits we will then make the final decision on when the construction project will actually start. The construction project could possibly be postponed until spring 2002 depending the weather conditions and our tenants needs. Enclosed, you will find the construction documents as required for the Land Use Application. Please note on plan Sheet A2 the exterior walls of the building will be a pre- cast concrete panels. The quantity of windows and the location of the exterior windows will be subject to change pending tenant approval. If you have any questions or need more information please give us a call at 320 - 877 -7221. Sincerely, Raske Building Systems, Inc. Andrew T. Larson Project Manager Design / Build Contractors 20641 Hwy 7 West Hutchinson, MN 55350 324587.6650 Raske Lease Building SEP 1 0 2001 1 Construction Notes: - Rock to placed in areas between building and sidewalks at a depth of' three (3) inches deep with fabric. - Six (6) inch rip rap rock to be placed in a six (6) by ten (10) foot area at the 5 downspouts located at the South end of the building. - Sod to be installed in the front (North) boulevard of the building with the remaining turf areas to be seeded. - Plantings ( see plant list ) einer andscaping 20641 Hwy 7 West Hutchinson, MN 55350 320.587.6650 Raske Lease Building Plant List Group Quantitiy Species A 3 Marshall's Ash B 4 Black Hills Spruce C 3 Red Splendor Crab D 2 Autumn Blaze Maple SEP I 0 20.01 Size 2" B&B 4' B&B '1.5" B&B 2" B&B 1 1 (10e114C0 NIAI/N I cid H5 q:*177rE 1 AfigITMlia% , ,3ez_LifZ&7_ C/520=543-44)- cAliDscAPE PL /AL._ Sm. 4. 104_1_0 rp- 30 • AslisgE 8(4/41.1)//ver St% 8till.b114)6 0 INTERSTATE 35N laziLAN Neer To SCA S LOT COVERAGE TARCEL SIZE (22%296') - 57,120 S.F. OUILDING ARE - 26,666 S.F. CONCRETE ARE - 1I1630 S.F. �ITJININdJS �><RJ � • 56 6.. • - , (67,120 S.F. X e0x - N,i96 s.F. gib 1 =it •0066 purr acs .vi0 /01 BEYOND CAP � METAL ..9 ELEVATION GAP- FLASHING METAL ❑ ❑ ❑ yr—SLOPED ROW OCTOND —Z13.51111.—. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 'MEAT $j.EVATION FINISHED METAL FLASHING ENNISMONESSEEMBEIMUMEON -. -..v: gang -- -----WWIAlilii461 -- D! Ds C {!t - f' "•y._ D• '•v .,•. {JI '!�)f is .4•. e _ -. r.ti.s• LY•: .:�.. - •. �•:!e _ ❑ ❑ ..9 ELEVATION GAP- FLASHING METAL ❑ ❑ ❑ yr—SLOPED ROW OCTOND —Z13.51111.—. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 'MEAT $j.EVATION FINISHED METAL FLASHING ENNISMONESSEEMBEIMUMEON -. -..v: gang -- -----WWIAlilii461 -- OF�"[F� ELEVATION I 30�-0� TO! t DOWN SPOUTS GRADE W RIP/RAP I. D! Ds a D• DO g01iT g ,EVATION •1.] ■ [.l ormolu. 1001111100 MIINMri ryy r „w., %�►�r �j reet4,40, ;r . CCN.,.CrtCN IF al - FLOOR PLAN liter T. ScA .a BUILDING AREA OFFICE/TRAINING 6,000 SF REPAIR/SERVICE 3,200 SF WAIR810USE 17,3A6 sF TOTAL AREA 26,646 SF STORAGE MEZZANINE 5,000 SF PARKING TOTAL SPACES SPRINKELING sI BUILDING FULLY SPRINKELID ■ tats. '0016 par 01/10/01 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN 11 �,,,, off, � ' • • NOQM IIMMOIC —�— NORM VAIMINII SEP 1 0 2001 1 GRAPHIC SCALE .. . • NB (ui rierl tw -r a 111 Z U 1 ui 4F X Qm to • 4 w o Iii; w 10 wI• slat 0 m a di; v 1 1 4 1 D OOM CIENTONE ▪ COMM ROQAO '3, 0EMITEO m s a& NORM IRO/NASE ANON ORONL IaRO NI /" 8' VATERMAIN /" SCE RP RAP DITCH CHECK DETAL =S. SMIEMMISIL MAKE PRELIMINARY EROSION + GRADING PLAN is\A EX 3515 28x44 FES RCPA TOP .84 901.22 3 "e; IVAILENEI ea"' ara»IIvae -•Orr SAS FINCE NNINLImm ORO � IMAM h N 1 ROL BALES SEP 1 0 2001 GRAPHIC SCALE • • s • • (M ENT) V . M L UNE FFI TAATION TFEN H NOTES FMOR 10 ROUEN 014N0. INSTALL 1 .T FENCE N LOCATIONS SRIOMI OR Al OI ECIED OE 134E ENGINEER. AMNION11. SU M LL MI E BE REQUIRED MERE CCMCITIOS MAN MOON NWL PROCEED ON 834 ARIA BY AREA OASIS 10 IMIEMO UNCOMPLETED AREA& AS EA04 AREA 0)TSDE DE SWEET IS GRADED. PRONE NATRE TOWN SEEN AND MULCH ANCHORED WIN A SIRAr1T OET ONO M11N MI NOUN OF FINE ORAp14 MANTAN 8340 RVM3 SLT FECES (210.13346 AENOVM. OF AOCIMRAIEO 11.1) 1NIE. IE8ETA110N N ESTA011NED. SOO TO OE 11200T Tat 004 WWI 110 I (2 S® FOR PO13 43 AREAS 10 ! MOOT TIDE 1112. oar MEOW NE). TOPSOIL 10 EE MOROI TO A WPM OF • RIM ON AREAS 10 OE SEEDED. ENTAIL END ENO KNEE! AT SASE CV g8L13ATON ONO 10 NORMAL WATER 513889514 NINDOT 7888) 1 • . • ..I.1111Il. Mann 11111ssws•.s i11•li,11hi11~1,Ri1111 wawa SEVER HANIIO.E. TYPE 30i WPCS v a Unto MINIIIIS f1� 301 GATE VALVE DISTALLATIDI srl/ta.s 203 _.Mlle sRDin. mos i.. f-1 iRN110>i� PIPE /ORIDATD011 DETAILS irratadaisur DRG • • .sr s.iww.l..a..s.s sas Mr 111.11111111•111111•1MIUM11111 .rwwsssSIM.lawn M ONMen CATCH DA3D1, TYPE 162 1 were e.lww 402 sw PIM CONCRETE REACT= DACIWIG fUlt RRa .el ms► w afrir 205 01 INSIE OBE PVC DEDDING DETAILS ss 102 • • • .1N — r a s< �.w a J JIM NI - AN.— me art saassl.sa.s.MIIIVswMIS s.als..s. sal. ssw !U6!°Qi11A MtiEiNI"mwm 11/111/11 111111• MINI NM amarmlr.asrs• CATCH RASDVMiN OLL TYPE 406 UMW =CRETE REACTION DACIIS me MOD Iss >� 206 Efiarallra a ma am a .ssor swam sL ssss..wa t.a s.a. 02N1.LAR MATERIAL DEDDDIG ICT1 D Not tie PIM 103 t • • • .sMI. MNT°'.ss.111•11s... a.a..s..e.sr.l.s� s.ss w.es;.s. sue. s Segel NB .w STORM SEVER MANHOLE, TYPE 407 OlRS v. 0R' LEM rr 407 rc aBMa r s•a S. / -J MI as a =MIMI& EMI IN 01•11111111111111.111•11 Mil MA immalairszanstarammar- s•ff wssslss•.s".l.s•s s.rs.sss..sarw sis.wu.slss STOiI SEVER MANHOLE, TYPE 409 MIIIMP UM= 109 SPECIAL MOAT= FOR • STAMLITING OR DEVATERDIG OF TRENCH souses Nam 105 • • • ff 71' 11011.1% ran SILT PEKE MEM =Me IS 601 • t o CD N J Lid Q 1' 0 N ii w O1 0 • Z Gt SE? 1 Q 2a' warm TYPr.AL HYDRANT LAYOUT WALK N KtuV.l. GIs • AGENDA ITEM 6C STAFF ORIGINATOR: Marty Asleson DATE: September 19, 2001 TOPIC: Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addition, Preliminary Plat/PDO, Comp Plan Amendment - MUSA BACKGROUND: Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addition is the area in the Wards Lake Subwatershed district known as the "island ". Intentions of the developer are stated in the September 10 cover letter to Jeff Smyser from Loucks and Associates. This is a planned development overlay proposal. The island is in Wards Lake. Wards Lake is public water. Access to the island is proposed through the construction of a bridge. A DNR permit has been issued for this bridge crossing and stormwater outfalls. Tom Hovey from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources points out that this permit should not be interpreted as support for the proposed development. The site is within the shoreland district and is subject to the City of Lino lakes shoreland ordinance. Our shoreland ordinance lists this lake as a Natural environment basin. Setback requirements are 150 feet from the ordinary high water for any building structure. The shore impact Zone is 75 feet from the shore is an area defined as that area where no vegetation removal is allowed, and house setbacks must be at least 50% of the distance from the structure to the Lake. It is virtually impossible to meet the City Shoreland Ordinance with this development proposal. The grading plan shows literally every part of the island graded for eight single - family dwelling lots. All vegetation would be removed. According to the Anoka County Sand plain pollution sensitivity cover, the area to the north and west, and heading to the south is very sensitive to potential for aquifer contamination. This area has an estimated travel time for contaminants to reach the uppermost aquifer in the "hours to minutes" range. Mr. Hovey makes a recommendation consistent with previous Environmental Board recommendations to reduce impervious surfaces and maintain runoff volume and rate discharge rates to pre - development levels through appropriate landscaping, impervious reduction, and ponding use. Tom makes an additional point to say that in all likely hood homeowners will want to excavate the wetland in the shoreland area to have open water close to their houses, and avoid planting vegetation that would block their view of the lake. He recommends covenants to be put in place that would further restrict landowner activity in the Shore Impact Zone and Lake if development proceeds on the island. Topography shows the island consisting of two hills. Elevations range from 895 to 885. FEMA floodplain maps show the entire Wards Lake area as 100 -year floodplain. Our Ecological Delineation describes the island as a 3c, "recently developed forest ". Observations from the Quail Ridge Development or the Pheasant Hills Preserve Development sides looking in to the island would lead one to label this as 3c. However, upland portions of the island have many old growth trees. Lino Lakes Management Handbook recommends as much buffering as possible around the Wards Lake wet areas. The island is a unique element within the Wards Lake watershed. The island should follow the same recommendations for the buffering as are recommended for the wet areas around the edge of the island. From an ecological standpoint, this site would be better suited to building one or two house sites. The Conservation Development Modal starts with the land, and what the land can support as a starting point for development. Usually, PDO's better enable this modal. Perhaps the developer can re -look at his proposal and start with the sensitive nature of the land in this area. OPTIONS: 1. Approve as is. 2. Table with approval pending further administrative action 3. Recommend denial. RECOMMENDATION: 3. Recommend denial as the plan stands right now. September 10, 2001 Mr. Jeff Smyser City Planner City of Lino Lakes 1189 Main Street Lino Lakes, MN 55014 RE: Pheasant Hills Preserve Outlot D Application Dear Mr. Smyser: 72D icm1c.ck Lan.. Planning Civil Engineering We are resubmitting plans for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Planned Development Overlay to allow for the development of eight single - family dwelling lots on the land currently described as part of Outlot D, Pheasant Hills Preserve. A copy of the original submittal letter is attached. Also attached is a copy of the response letter to Ms. Cindy Sherman regarding the notice of incomplete application. Regarding the fourth item of that letter, we have received verbal approval from Mr. Tom Hovey of the DNR for construction of the necessary bridge over public waters. Mr. Hovey stated a written approval would arrive within a few days. He said the City should call him with any questions. We are also submitting storm sewer calculations. We hope this satisfies the requirements for a complete preliminary development plan application as well as rezoning, comprehensive plan amendment, and MUSA allocation. If you have any questions please call. Sincerely, LOUCKS ASSOCIATES d itiabZ Paul C. Wallick, P.E. Civil Engineer Enclosure: Storm sewer calculations Copy of original letter of request Copy of response letter 10 sets of plans SEP 1 0 2001 CITY OF LINO LAKE Land Surveying Landscape Architecture Environmental Archaeology 25th Anniversary 1976-2001 April 9, 2001 Mr. Jeff Smyser City Planner City of Lino Lakes 1189 Main Street Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Dear Mr. Smyser: This letter of request is accompanied with applications and fees for Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Planned Development Overlay to allow for the development of eight single - family dwelling lots on the land currently described as part of Outlot D, Pheasant Hills Preserve (see attached plans). Also requested is the allocation of four (4.03) upland acres of available MUSA acreage. Preliminary lot layouts with building pads are shown on the preliminary development plans attached. Although you indicated the rezoning will be handled through the Planned Development Overlay process, I have addressed Section 2.Subd.1.E. of the City Zoning Ordinance (Attachment A) to justify the change in land use designation. Construction commencement is expected to begin in June of this year. Currently, the property is guided for rural use in the adopted 1991 Comprehensive Plan. This request is to change the designation to Single Family, which would coincide with the Low Density Sewered Residential designation in the more specific 2001 Draft Comprehensive Plan, once it is adopted. This proposal will also require the change in zoning from Rural to Single Family Executive with a Planned Development Overlay (Rl -X PDO). We are currently working with the Rice Creek Watershed District to receive TWAFA approval. The proposal includes the building of a bridge, as well as storm -water collection system to avoid any impact on the surrounding wetlands. • The preliminary development plan shows eight lots on 9.48 acres (412,952 square feet) for a density of 1.2 dwelling units per acre. Due to the narrowness of the available upland, some variation to the shoreland regulations is required, specifically setback from ordinary high water level. In addition, a 24 foot paved road is proposed to serve the eight home development in an effort to maximize the amount of pervious upland area. The amount of gross open space excluding roadways and buildings is 8.19 acres (356,952 square feet), with a net open space (excluding wetlands) of 2.75 acres (119,632 square feet). If you have any questions regarding this application, please call. Sincerely, LOUCKS ASSOCIATES /.11/4-/ Jared D. Andrews, AICP SEP 1 o 2001 CiTY 1 LisA?t,) LAKES Planning EMI Engineering Land Surveying Landscape Architecture Environmental Archaeology LOUCKS • ; April 26, 2001 Ms. Cindy Sherman, Senior Planner Northwest Associated Consultants 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, STE 555 St, Louis.Park, MN 55416 RE: Pheasant Hills Preserve Outlot D Application Dear Ms. Sherman: -200 Hem lock Lane • fr t'r .y� {.', *7, Juilc.11l} w =r : Minneapolis. MN 55369 Fla�nin Td 763.424.5505. Civil Engineering lax 763.424.5822, •• Land Surveying hone(?Iuucksmclagan.rum Landscape Architectu u uw.lo:.cksmdagan.com Environmental This letter is written in response to your notice of an incomplete application. The information herein is intended to satisfy your request for additional information, and allow the request to be heard at the next available Planning Commission meeting. The following is in response to the four items outlined in the letter: 1. Construction plans for streets and the necessary bridge have not been provided including details on extension of sanitary sewer and water service under said bridge. The site layout sheet of the submission shows the layout for the street and bridge as well as proposed location of waterline, sewer and lift station. Construction details such as road section details, pipe orifice sizing, catch basin details and bridge construction details will be submitted to the City and be approved prior to the release of the final plat as customarily required. Submission of construction plans, specifications and details at this time would not be appropriate, considering that the preliminary layout, variances, MUSA allocation, comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning has not yet been approved. 2. The submitted plans do not include storm water runoff calculations or identification of 100 -year flood elevations. Storm water runoff calculations have been attached for your information. The 100 -year flood elevation is at 887.6. 3. The application does not include wetland mitigation and replacement plans, assuming that the bridge will encroach into existing wetland areas. The development as proposed anticipates a bridge the entire length of the wetlands delineated, therefore the project will not encroach on any existing wetland areas. Archaeology 4. • Approval from the DNR and Rice Creek Watershed District for construction of the necessary bridge over public waters is required. We have been working with the DNR and Rice Creek Watershed District for approval. However, approval from these agencies cannot be obtained until the preliminary development plan is approved. Comments from the Watershed District have been received and we are currently working to address them. One of the comments requires local approvals prior to Watershed District approval. We hope this satisfies the requirements for a complete preliminary development plan application as well as rezoning, comprehensive plan amendment, and MUSA allocation. If you have any questions please call. Sincerely, LOUCKS ASSOCIATES Jared D. Andrews, AICP Senior Planner Enclosure: Storm water calculations CC: Jeff Smyser Ed Vaughan sr 01- Je Shopek, P.E. Principal Engineer SEP 1 0 2001 CB4 co to 0 h, 0 co — -n 3 3 (Segment PROJECT NO.: 911331 CALCULATIONS BY: PCW LOCATION: Lino Lakes CHECKED BY: PCW FILE: StmpipexIs STORM FREQUENCY: 10 year ASSUMED VALUE: n = 0.013 m m : 0 co , -,1 m co is, _. 0 0:1 ;I 0 0 -. 11' P P P 8 g ° p 8 : 0 P = c & :0 0 ... P 0 ..,, 0 0 -• P 0 C - P -I 0 p0 0 -• op -- I. 4 -- ..i _. E') _. . :-• :6- -1 GI P 8 P 8 P 8 P 8 I- 0. — g ..f _ i . m ' 0, 0(0 (00 `11 cf, Co@ 0 0 P 0 P 0 P 0 11 CI _, .... t. lu .0. (0(0 +4 & -n ' i a2 6 — t. — 0 t. hi F 0J 1 00 t 8 0 8 8 co -13. p 0 .1. ki P -4 # u' -4 m -0 I. ..1 b 6.4 :1.• .1. 0 0 i:6 0 -fl 0) (2 .0,31 • • 0 L. '''' k. 0 L.I 0 6. 0 1.1 0) on 11 SI IS • (0 0 to .. 0 w w 0 m t. C) co — 0) g g. Upstream Structure w m e c, 3 t. $ G) 3 1010 2 .11 10 a (0 $ E g a- 10(0 3 $ 01 8 co 0 po .t. -n 0 to 2. § iS 1 $ E in 1 0 G) a ar 10(0 . 0 8 .., P 2 10(0 3 8 8 e Cream S c. 10(0 8Z g 3 p 8 $ (4 t s' g a i .26' - III cs 121 al c .. b. 12.33' drop out otCB2 12.33' drop out of CB 2 g 3 3 0 a 10- Sep-01 08:59 AM PHEASANT HILLS PRESERVE 12TH ADDITION July 25, 2001 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources DNR Waters - Metro, 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106 -6793 Telephone: (651) 772 -7910 Fax: (651) 772 -7977 Mr. Ron Peterson Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. 1355 Mendota Heights Road, Suite 100 Mendota Heights, MN 55120 RECEIVED JUL 2 7 2001 crrY OF LINO LAKES RE: DNR Permit Application No. 2001 -6109, Pheasant Hills Island Bridge Project, Wards Lake (2 -10P), PEC Project No. 2000 -087, City of Lino Lakes, Anoka County Dear Mr. Peterson: This letter is to inform you that the review for the above referenced permit is nearly complete. As we have discussed, the review went fairly well, with most of the comments and concerns being directed not at the bridge itself, but at the potential disruption of wildlife activity in Wards Lake by the future homeowners on the island. The excavation of ponds in front of the lots and channels to the open water were two of the major concerns. I have discussed these concerns with Mr. Vaughan and he has agreed to impose restrictive easements or covenants on portions of the lots to address these concerns. Other concerns include the loss of the loss of 3240 square feet for the bridge piers, the shading of the wetland vegetation beneath the bridge, and the treatment of the storm water running off of the street and bridge deck. I am ready to issue the permit authorizing construction of the bridge upon receipt of satisfactory bridge plans, including details of how the runoff will be treated; and some instrument such as a conservation easement or covenants restricting disturbance to the wetland fringe by homeowners. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, /1 '641 Tom Hovey Area Hydrologist c: Ed Vaughan, 1432 Pheasant Hills Drive, Lino Lakes 55038 City of Lino Lakes, Jeff Smyzer Anoka Conservation District, Chris Lord Rice Creek Watershed District, Kate Drewry DNR Information: 651 - 296 -6157 • 1- 888 - 646 -6367 • An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity TTY: 651-296-5484 • 1 -800- 657 -3929 A Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a liii Minimum of 20% Post - Consumer Waste Metro Waters - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106 -6793 Telephone: (651) 772 -7910 Fax: (651) 772 -7977 September 18, 2001 Mr. Jeff Smyser, City Planner City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 -1182 RE: PRELIMINARY PLAT/PDO, COMP. PLAN AMENDMENT, PHEASANT HILLS PRESERVE 12TH ADDITION, WARDS LAKE (2 -10P), CITY OF LINO LAKES, ANOKA CO. Dear Mr. Smyser: We have reviewed the site plans for the above - referenced proposal (NW 1/4 section 27, T31N- R22W) and have the following comments to offer: 1. The island is in Wards Lake, a public water. DNR permit No. 2001 -6109 has been issued for the bridge crossing and stormwater outfalls. Please do not interpret the issuance of a bridge permit for support of the proposed development. Other wetlands on the site may be under local or federal regulatory jurisdiction. 2. The site is within the shoreland district of Wards Lake and is subject to City shoreland ordinances and regulations. It is listed in the City's shoreland controls as a Natural Environment basin and has a structure setback requirement of 150 feet, and a Shore Impact Zone of 75 feet. It appears that the entire island will be graded to some extent, leaving no original vegetation. Due to the width of the island, no structure will be able to meet the required setbacks. The variances needed to proceed with this project are considerable. 3. The development of the island will increase the percentage of impervious surface. We recommend that the runoff volumes and rates be held to their pre - development levels through appropriate landscaping, minimizing impervious surface, and adequate ponding. 4. During the review process of DNR permit No. 2001 -6109, there was considerable concern over the development of the island, specifically the additional work in the wetland that often follows when houses are built adjacent to wetland. We anticipate that landowners will want to excavate in the wetland to have open water close to their houses, and avoid planting vegetation that will block the view of the lake. If approved, we ask that covenants or easements be put in place that would restrict landowner activity in the Shore Impact Zone and Lake. Mr. Smyser September 18, 2001 Page 2 5. Considering the proposed grading of the entire island, the loss of virtually all vegetation on the island during grading, the disturbance of the entire Shore Impact Zone, the location of the proposed road entirely in the Shore Impact Zone, the failure of all structures to meet the 150 foot required setback, it is hard to see how the proposal is consistent with the intent of the City's Shoreland Management Overlay Ordinance, or the Statewide Standards for Management of Shoreland Areas. We do not support the granting of a variance for decreased setbacks as proposed. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please feel free to call me if you have questions. Sincerely, Tom Hovey Area Hydrologist • AGENDA ITEM 7C STAFF ORIGINATOR: Marty Asleson DATE: Sept 26, 2001 TOPIC: Trade -A -Tree Program/Tree Trust/Xcel Energy /Approval BACKGROUND: This program was introduced at the July Environmental Board Meeting.The Board requested a representative from The Tree Trust come to the September Environmental Board Meeting. Sara Smith from the Tree Trust will be at the meeting. The Trade -A -Tree Program is a partnership opportunity between the City of Lino Lakes, The Twin Cities Tree Trust, and Xcel Energy. The goal of the program is to increase the quantity and quality of trees in the community while reducing power line maintenance and power outages. The Power Company has line clearance safety standards that have to be maintained. When inappropriate trees are planted under these lines, costly and repetitive pruning visits, and disfigured trees are the result. The Trade -A -Tree program replaces each tree removed with two new trees. The • additional trees can be planted throughout the City. The process involves an initial tree inventory and identification of the trees under three phase power lines that we would like to replace. The Tree Trust assists in selecting trees and provides other assistance as needed. The Tree Trust works with community residents by contacting them, explaining the program and addressing concerns. Xcel Energy removes the above ground portion of the targeted trees at no cost. The City would have to remove or treat the stumps and plant the new trees. A formal recommendation to proceed is needed. OPTIONS: 1. Recommend Environmental Board support for this program and City Council Approval. 2. Table for further consideration. RECOMMENDATION: Option 1. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 27, 2001 DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT CITY OF LINO LAKES MINUTES : June 27,2001 . 6:34 P.M. . 9:41 P.M. : Amy Donlin, Constance Grundhofer, Rod Kukonen, Chair Scott Lanyon, Theresa O'Connell, and Mike Trehus. : Dave Mach. Staff members present: Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson, Community Development Director Michael Grochala, and Economic Development Director Brian Wessel. CALL TO ORDER Chair Lanyon presided and called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. May 30, 2001 — The following corrections were requested: Page 10, eighth paragraph: "Kukonen pointed out that he spoke -with Elk River, and had a copy ordinance of North Branch ;n,. , but that it needed to be reviewed. Page 11, third paragraph: agreed to appoint Trehus to the position? Kukonen moved to approve the May 30,2001 meeting minutes as amended above. Grundhofer seconded the motionMotion carried unanimously. The Board unanimously APPROVAL OF AGENDA ems. The following items were added to the meeting agenda: • Discuss Pond tamination under updates. • Discuss resolution ruder Draft Comprehensive Plan. emended above. The agenda was ip rtav, CITIZEN COMMENTS No citizen comments were made. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 27, 2001 PROJECT REVIEW A. Ryan/Target/Target Super Store/Update/ Brian Wessel — Wessel reviewed that on July 11 the Planned Development Overlay (PDO) and Preliminary Plan was going to the Planning and Zoning Board in its complete form. The wetland mitigation process was going to be discussed at the July 25 Watershed District meeting. Donlin stated the project had been a package from the beginning, so it had been difficult to have effective comments. Wessel answered the developers' response was it was the only shopping center zoned in the City, so the developer wanted to maximize the use of the area. The Council would make the final decision if the project is appropriate for the City. Chair Lanyon indicated that there have been no major changes, so there was no need for further discussion. He summed up that the Board wants Ryan/Target to maximize the environmental amenities, and that the Board wanted to comment on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet when the comments were in. Trehus asked the reason for putting the project on the agenda twice. k Wessel indicated that the Environmental Assessment Worksheet could be commented on in this section if the Board wished. Trehus stated the Board could comment on the Environrmental Assessment Worksheet itself. Wessel submitted that it would go to Council on July 23, 2001. Trehus inquired about a newspaper article that t'eited tax abatement for the project. Wessel stated through the public participation project of three- quarters of a million with options to pay for tax abatement, and only the'ity's portion would be deferred. Donlin noted it is $450,000 of tax abatement yeairy for 15 years. She asked if tax the developer has requested a subsidy explained that the developer, Ryan Companies tining one year ago. increment was involved. Wesselespon because the market was premature,` " °' was seeking tax abatement from the Trehus reviewed that the impact of his development necessitated wetland abatement, and asked if the situatio had' hanged according to the Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Mt Payn answered questions asked about previous activity in the area. According to the,aerial photographs taken prior to the construction of Interstate 35W, showed the highway4 neatly impacted the tamarack forest that was present at the time. �s flyµ Trehus notect,the tees had been maintained, but the impact from the volumes remained unknown. 'e urged an analysis be performed. Mr. Payton explained the stormwater runoff rates and water quality were under the review of Rice Creek Watershed District, and it was their decision, not the City's. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 27, 2001 Trehus indicated the Watershed District was reviewing their standards, and only dealt with average rainfall but the lakes would be impacted. He indicated he spoke to representatives at the Watershed District who agreed with his recommendation. Mr. Payton responded that the request was moot, because the Watershed District was the qualified party to deal with those issues. Trehus pointed out that the Watershed District did not have the financial resources to do the study. Mr. Payton answered that the Watershed District regularly reviews their standards. Chair Lanyon explained that the study would be relevant to the City. Trehus urged the Board to make the recommendation, and let the Council decide, for an analysis using computer modeling on the increased volume of runoff into George Watch Lake. Chair Lanyon agreed and added the message the Board wants to send is that a study needed to be done, and given the size of the project, with the impact remaining unknown, it needed to be addressed explicitly. Mr. Payton stated that issues such as infiltration, ponding, retainmen all being dealt with by the Watershed District. treatment were Asleson explained all responsibility for the impact should not be placed on the Ryan Target project. He commented that the Watershed District had studies on the lower but not the upper part of the district. Chair Lanyon commented that the Board wanted to ensure the Watershed District specifically addressed the impact of volumes. Trehus noted the report, which had been submitted, showed significant phosphorus loading. Kukonen stated all the numbers and'studies were still pending, and the Board did not know what the Watershed District was dealing with. Chair Lanyon reiterated that the message to the Council would be that because of the scope of the project, the issue of water volumes of runoff needed to be addressed specifically. Mr. Payton explained that the public value credit and the creation of the wetland were already planned.' Chair Lanyon indicated the issues of concern for the Board were the water volume and Water quality issues. Donlin assured Mr. Payton that the Board appreciated the graciousness in which he had dealt with the criticisms of the Board, however, the Environmental Assessment Worksheet caused the Board to have some real concerns about the impact of the project. She indicated that compromises occurred all the way down the Mississippi River. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 27, 2001 Trehus noted that the draft Environmental Assessment Worksheet stated the impact on wetlands and George Watch Lake is unknown at this time. Trehus moved that the Environmental Board recommends an analysis be conducted to determine the impacts of water volumes and water quality on the Chain of Lakes, George Watch Lake, and nearby wetlands. This analysis should utilize computer modeling, and if the Watershed District is unable to provide this it may be appropriate that the applicant contribute financially. Donlin seconded the motion. Kukonen inquired, and Trehus submitted that he did not initiate the discussion of computer modeling, but someone from the Watershed District mentioned it. Motion carried unanimously. O'Connell indicated the Environmental Board was concerned with what the City was losing, and inquired about environmental education possibilities. Wessel stated that the subject was in review. The final decision would be in the Planning and Zoning Board meeting. The Environmental Board would have to respond in the next meeting. He offered that the document be sent to the Environmental Board the same time it would be sent to the Planning and Zoning Board. Trehus pointed out that the Environmental Board had not seen the project for two months. Wessel responded that the most recent updates had been shown to the Board. Mr. Payton explained that he had been meeting with the Ryan representatives, and they had commitments from a bank and the adjacent stores.,-, Grochala noted he had been working on open space, pedestrian traffic, signage, lighting, power, and impacts on adjacent properties. Trehus asked if it would be possible to find swage which could be used as a model. Donlin expressed concern that the ne 'tenants might not be aware of the concerns of the Environmental Board „Aesthetically, speaking, the beauty and vegetation needed to be brought together. She inquired with tax abatements, could the representatives of the project assure the Br ardthat the recommendations on vegetation would be followed through., °:..:° Wessel indicated that there were no ordinances to dictate, but assured the Board that these issues were,beindnegotiated, and that Ryan had made a commitment to reflect the character of the City. B. 8075 20th Avenue N. — Asleson reviewed the background on the project. The homeowner wanted to build an unattached garage in a lake protection zone and 100 -year floodplain. He recommended checking with the Rice Creek Watershed District to ensure no wetlands would be impacted. There was no proposed size of the garage, but there 4 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 27, 2001 could be an issue of exceeding the allowable fill for a wetland if one was found to be present. Kukonen indicated he had driven by the property and believed the Watershed District should be contacted. He indicated he thought there could be other places to build. Chair Lanyon indicated the two issues were that they may need to fill the area, and they would be adding to the impervious surfaces. Kukonen inquired if there was a model to look at such as Clearwater Creek with the swails. Chair Lanyon stated that the Board should approve the second paragraph as the recommendation, with the addition that the City come up with examples in the City to show homeowners. Kukonen moved to pass the second paragraph as the Board's recommendation. Trehus added that the concerns should be a condition of approval.; He noted that the Planning and Zoning recommends approval or denial, and do not limit themselves to passing on recommendations. He urged the Board to be clear in its recommendations, and submitted that an addition to the recommendation could be that it did not support or opposing the variance request. Grundhofer inquired at what point the Watershed District come into the process. Asleson answered that they would be contacted if a wetland were built over a certain number of feet. O'Connell added if the project is 5,000 -sq. ft. or less the Watershed District did not have to be contacted. Grochala stated that the request was for a variance, so the recommendation could be denial if the project impacted a wetland. " � Ym °ti Trehus noted that they were asking for a variance in setback and could possibly be a drainage easement. Grochala presented a diagram of the plan and explained that the proposed building was not located within a drainage easement. He explained that the zoning ordinance required accessory buildings to be located no closer to the front property line than the principle building. Grundhofer stated the map had no scale. Grochala explained the ponds were somewhat limiting the placement of the structure, he was estimating the placement at about 30 -ft. from the main structure. 5 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 27, 2001 Chair Lanyon pointed out the Board could make a statement such as "We do not recommend this project goes forth until...the Watershed District is contacted. Trehus asked if it could slip through the cracks without contacting the Watershed District. O'Connell answered it would be possible if the garage was under 5,000 -sq. ft. Chair Lanyon stated that since they were asking for a variance they could be asked to contact the Watershed District. Asleson suggested also inquiring on the effects of the additional impervious surfaces and water volumes. Trehus summarized the motion is to indicate that the Board does not support or oppose the variance request, however, because the proposed project lies within a lake protection area as described in the Environmental Handbook, the Board recommends: • The homeowner should contact the Watershed District to ensure no wetlands would be impacted. • Without knowing the exact size of the building it is unknown if the project would exceed the allowable fill limits. • Landscape for surface water management to minimize impact on wetlands. Motion carried unanimously. C. Pinnacle Towers Update — Asleson stated the application had been withdrawn. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD BUSINESS A. Draft Comprehensive Plan — Grochala stated the CityCouncil had adopted the Comprehensive Plan, which the City had been working-On for several years. He believed the Plan was a unique work that would be a document that staff could work with It had set goals for total population and housing units.. were still several issues that would need to be dealt with as part of the of the plan. Grochala commented that the council has reviewed the Environment Boards goals and tabled discussion until the next council meeting with the intent of having a board representative present. He also directed the boards attention to the letter from Linda Waite -Smith which indicated that the Council's desire to meet with the board and discuss its role, goals and interaction with other boards Chair Lanyon noted this item had been tabled until the July 9, 2001 meeting. He asked if anyone could be at the meeting. He stated that it could be discussed at the joint meeting and inquired about the mechanism to keep the cap at 147 units/year. Grochala pointed out that the Council approved the Comprehensive Plan, but it still needed Metropolitan Council approval. The Comprehensive Plan becomes the basis to draft ordinances and other laws. The Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance will be revised as part of the implementation strategy to provide the necessary growth controls. 6 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 27, 2001 Donlin explained the disparity for a 500 -unit development but allow for only 50 units /year. Trehus agreed that phasing was a major drawback. Donlin stated the City was using a 20,500 population cap, and the concern was the need to build new schools. She asked how they were to respond. Trehus stated that if the numbers were adjusted it would be 38 homes /year. Grochala stated that when the Comprehensive Plan was started the population was12,000, and there had been dramatic growth recently. The council will need to address this issue as the city begins working on the plan implementation. Chair Lanyon indicated that the caps were very important, but so were the rates. If the rates were too fast the Boards begin to lose their effectiveness. The Board wants to help staff to develop ordinances. Grochala responded that the ordinances would enforce the goals and with the Comprehensive Plan there was a consensus to build on. The Conservation Development Ordinance could be a first step. Trehus stated that the Comprehensive Plan was limited because the language creates no impetus to make it happen from the developers. Grochala answered that the availability of water and sewer would be on of the limiting factors for development. Chair Lanyon asked now that the Comprehensive Plan was approved, would the City adhere to the numbers. Grochala answered that a policy decision would need to be made clarifying the 147 units per year versus the 2020 population. Grundhofer pointed out that the new Subdivision Ordinance was not in place yet. Grochala agreed that a lot was dependent on the Metropolitan Council's approval. The majority of issues deal with housing density and affordable housing. Chair Lanyon suggested having a priority list of which ordinances to work on. Grochala added it may be practical for the board to work on components of ordinances. Kukonen expressed concern over the expansion of the MUSA with the proposed growth scenario. He was hoping for a'separation.of MUSA and non -MUSA. Grochala responded that the cost effectiveness of extending utilities to certain areas may provide for the limitation of growth in certain areas, and could encourage clustering and setting aside open space: Kukonen indicated that two hot topics were MUSA expansion and Metropolitan Council. Chair Lanyon stated that the Comprehensive Plan had been passed, even though it was not exactly what the Board wanted. He pointed out to the Board that it can still affect the implementation of the Plan through ordinances. Trehus asked Grochala if he had seen the Environmental Handbook. The Handbook outlined the process, and would become the basis for the ordinances. He asked what would happen when the Handbook and Comprehensive Plan did not agree. 7 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 27, 2001 Chairs Lanyon noted that at some point the ordinances should be tested against the Environmental Handbook. He reviewed that consultants had worked with the City trying to create a win/win situation. Grochala stated that power was not in negotiating to take it or leave it, but using the ordinance to encourage compliance. Donlin inquired whether the taxes would increase once the MUSA was established. Grochala answered that while growth boundarys are established by the plan, it did not designate MUSA. MUSA would be held in reserve until development takes place. Trehus stated that there were different zone categories for the land not in the growth zone. Grochala responded with the example of an area north of Centerville. The land use plan showed it at low density residential, however the sewer and water were two miles away and is currently zoned Rural, it would remain at that designation. Donlin commented that as soon as the MUSA becomes available, if people were taxed as MUSA, they would be encouraged to develop their land. Grochala answered that the MUSA would be banked until as development projects were approved. In this way land would be classified as non -MUSA until development takes place Chair Lanyon indicated that agenda items A, B, and E meld so`fhe asked Grochala what his goals were. Grochala explained his goal was to it volve,the Environmental Board in defining roles, so that recommendations would be accepted and passed on. He admitted that there would be times when he and the Board would conflict. Chair Lanyon stated that the Environmental Board would be more helpful to the City if it could be more proactive than reactive!Grochala'explained that some of the frustration with being reactive is the development process itself. Chair Lanyon pointed out if hewasln need of help, the Board would like to offer support. On the side of the Environmental "Board, it would be gratifying to know if the Board made a difference. Grochala stated the'deadliies that limit the influence of the Board may be the meeting time, and a change in the meeting time might be considered. Chair Lanyon suggested that there needed to be a set of procedures developed, so those mutually beneefcial situations could be created. F5' Trehus presented a recommendation to implement a moratorium on all new residential developments possibly to be extended to all development. A copy was submitted to staff. Trehus moved to adopt a moratorium as written, to be forwarded to Council. Donlin seconded the motion. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 27, 2001 Trehus explained that Target would not be affected, only new submittals. Kukonen mentioned that a moratorium would inhibit arguments with developers. Donlin reviewed that several years ago the City enacted two back to back six -month moratoriums. Trehus added that with 450 units already in process, a moratorium was a needed step for the City. The motion carried unanimously. Trehus inquired of Grochala to review the Preservation Zoning District. O'Connell suggested the letter be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Board. Asleson indicated the Board could meet July 18, however it would be too early for comment on projects and applications. Chair Lanyon explained in order to comment on the Environmental Audit Worksheet, the Board should meet before July 23, 2001 with either a special meeting or an additional meeting. Since the Board was not having an impact on projects, the meeting could be moved to July 18, 2001. Grochala stated the Board could move the meeting to July 18, 2001 for comments on the Environmental Audit Worksheet, with the following meeting the second week in August because the Watershed District is meeting on July 25, 2001. The Council meets on the 13th and the 23rd for the Environmental Audit Worksheet. Chair Lanyon noted the Board would meet on both July 18, 2001 and July 25, 2001. B. Environmental Board Goals 2001 — T s item was discussed as part of Environmental Board Business A. C. Environmental Assessment Worksheet Comments/Target/Ryan — This item was discussed as part of Environmental; Board Business A. D. Shade Tree Ordinance/Tree Preservation/Discussion — Asleson wrote the document with models used in the East because there was no working model in the State. The document included a tree preservation policy that was bound by the Council. It required the developer to replace the trees in public areas and developments. The City attorney advised against banks, and opposed the tree replacement. The issue of policy versus ordinance could be revisited. Grundhofer indicated that the definition of wood lot was a tree area of one acre and was under the tree preservation policy, with 25% of the area having large trees. She asked staff if the policy could apply to the oaks in Highland Meadows. Asleson answered it was included as a part of the zoning code in policy form and the developer had not complied. The policies were guidelines, but there was no means for enforcement. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 27, 2001 Trehus noted if the tree preservation was an ordinance, and not merely a policy, the number of units could be reduced by one - third. Asleson stated that the City could not legally enforce the replacement of trees, according to the City Attorney. Chair Lanyon advised the Board to leave out the replacement sections from the document and recommend it be adopted as an ordinance. Grundhofer moved to have the tree ordinance revised by the Board and to move forward on the Tree Preservation Ordinance without reference to the replacement of trees. O'Connell seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. E. Introduction/Michael Grochala/New Community Development Director — This item was discussed as part of Environmental Board Business A. PROGRAM /PROJECT UPDATES A. Grant Updates/Minnesota DNR Urban Interface — This item was° "tabled to the July 18, 2001 because the meeting was cancelled due to the possible shutdown of the government. B. Solid Waste/Recycling Updates — This item was tabled, to the July 18, 2001 meeting. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Osprey nest — Asleson stated he met with a scout troopto put up an osprey nest in August or September. B. Trees from Xcel Energy — Asleson reported that;Xcel Energy had agreed to give the City two trees for one for those damaged while repairing wires from storms. C. Spirit Hills Update — Asleson stated that Spirit Hills was required by the Rice Creek Watershed District to develop a maintenance plan to sustain the permeability of the soil. This action supported the recommendation given from the Board. D. Pond Contamination Asleson indicated the results from the lab showed the presence of coliform at 200 colonies/ml with a 100 colonies/ml detection limit. The second pond showed no detected ,coliform. The MPCA stated the life expectancy for coliform was 1.5 days, although the viruses could remain. The septic tank would be fixed by July 9, 2001. CLOSE MEETING' AND CONFIRM NEXT MEETING DATE It was noted that the next meeting of the Environmental Board will be on July 18, 2001. There being no further business, Trehus moved to adjourn at 9:41 p.m. Donlin seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 10 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 27, 2001 Transcribed by: Brigette Blesi, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 11 • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 18, 2001 DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT CITY OF LINO LAKES MINUTES : July 18, 2001 : 4:48 P.M. : 8:18 P.M. : Constance Grundhofer, Rod Kukonen, Scott Lanyon, Theresa O'Connell, and Mike Trehus (arrived at 6:27 p.m.). : Amy Donlin and Dave Mach. Staff members present: Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson, Community Development Director Michael Grochala, and Economic Development Director Brian Wessel. CALL TO ORDER Chair Lanyon called the meeting to order at 4:48 p.m. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved unanimously. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD BUSINESS A. Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Ryan Cotnpanies/Marketplace project — Grochala reviewed the background of the project timeline and the rationale for the Environmental Assessment Worksheet. The Worksheet was not an approval process, but a means of identifying issues on the impact a particular project in several areas including traffic, noise, and biological factors. The ;;.City Council was the Regulating Governmental Unit (RGU) and would either approve or deny the project. The 30 -day reviewal period ended on July 114,42991 , and , the City had 30 days to act. Comments were received from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Transportation, the Minnesota Historical 4Society, and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. There were four factors that evaluated significant environmental effect: • The extent and reversibility of thetenvironmental effect. • The cumulative potential effects of future projects, according to a defined area and time frame. 4 , • The extent the project was subject to mitigation by a public regulatory authority, and the rationale for not'requiring an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). • The extent the =environmental effects could be controlled. Grochala explainedsthat there were three options for the Environmental Board to recommend. • Motion to - recommend a finding of no significant impact. • Motion to recommend a finding to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. • Motion to recommend tabling the decision until additional information was submitted. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 18, 2001 Chair Lanyon asked if the City Council approved the resolution, was it still contingent on approval by the Watershed District, and could the District call for an Environmental Impact Statement. Grochala stated the RGU (meaning the City Council) would make the final decision, with a probable yes or no addressing potential impacts. Chair Lanyon explained the Board had concerns that the Council was deferring to the Watershed District on certain issues. Grochala indicated the City would base its approval on how the issues were addressed. Chair Lanyon questioned if the Environmental Impact Statements were for large projects only, and not usually done on smaller projects. Grochala answered they often take about a year to complete, but the City did not want to miss anything. If Rice Creek and other agencies with their standards were not a part of the process, more studies would be required. Grundhofer asked if there were permit requirements to be met, specifically on p. 2 of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency comments regarding what standards of infiltrations were used for stormwater. Asleson stated that in terms of amounts, the Watershed District had extended the standards as much as possible, however with regard to design, there were many models that could apply. Grundhofer inquired if they decided on a model. Asleson responded that a design was being considered for Spirit Hills, and a similar one would apply here. Grochala stated requirements could be made as conditions for approval. The islands in the parking lot for vegetation were being planned for - infiltration areas, however, the planned grading needed to be inquired about. Asleson indicated the quantity would be answered, but the quality would need to be maintained. Grochala commented on issues:( regulatory control which would be written up in an operation and maintenance agrement'and'discuss how the costs would be split. He indicated that best management practices would be recommended to reduce phosphorus loading. Asleson noted that the Watershed District may require them. Kukonen questioned ifthe gre islands would be basins with curbs around them. Asleson pointed out the islands'at City Hall were supposed to be basins. Grochala explained that'iere was a risk of backing up in the spring. Maplewood had basins, which plld-4 with runoff debris. Asleson commented that in the spring or times of rainfall, there was little puddling. Chair Lanyon referred to p. 2, top of p. 6, and p. 8 the fourth paragraph, where the City's response indicates that 29 acres or less would not significantly affect the wetlands. Grochala added there was a similar comment on p. 6 response #4, "the loss of significant ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 18, 2001 trees," but the City had zoned it for commercial. The total volume of runoff leaving the site would increase. Staff indicated it would be difficult to separate out and measure the future potential impacts and its contribution to global impacts. Chair Lanyon stated his concern was the precedent the City was setting with those statements. Grochala responded that the City had only one commercial district zoned, but acknowledged the necessity for word usage to inhibit ambiguity on subsequent projects that would come before the City. Chair Lanyon noted the rate was not going to change, but the volumes could be accepted for the specific project, then inquired about comments from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency or the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Grochala explained the comments of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources were similar to the Watershed District. Grundhofer asked if they were planning to remove the soil and replace it. Grochala answered that with peat soils, they would excavate and fill with more suitable soil. O'Connell stated on p.10 section 20011.18 at the top right there was a map showing the boring locations. Grochala noted that it must be worth it to Target. A' discussion followed on the parking lot ratios versus a parking ramp. Kukonen noted 1,747 parking spaces in the plan, and inquired if they lost any. Grochala stated he did not recall the exact number, but it vas reduced. Grundhofer asked where the soil would go after was removed, and had concerns about compression of the soil. Asleson indicated it was addressed in the discussion of infiltration areas. Kukonen reviewed the comment from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources concerning parking in the southeast w 'here =;Wetland A was located. Grochala stated that they had brought the number of parking spaces down to the minimum the City would allow. . 3` Chair Lanyon questioned comments by the Minnesota Department of Transportation on page 4 concerning the Chain of Lakes Park, which was not adjacent, but across the highway. Grochala answered that they look for rate control of runoff onto the highway. Chair Lanyon noted that it was another example of a statement made which could be precedent se ttng. Grochala responded the sentence on top of p. 5 should be eliminated. O'Connell indicated that there was a comment that there would be a loss of bird habitat, but there was no mention of deer. She noted there were many deer in the area, and it would increase accidents with cars. 3 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 18, 2001 Grochala stated the wetland adjacent to the property was about seven times the size of the plat, and asked if there was a connection for the animals to go. Chair Lanyon answered that initially there could be an increase in the population, but ultimately they would die. Grundhofer expressed concern that the temperature change as a result of the runoff could cause problems for the frog and dragonfly eggs. Asleson stated that it would be difficult to measure, but the shading in the parking lot would help cool the runoff. Grochala suggested that it might bounce in the outlet. Asleson answered that the effects were unknown. Chair Lanyon stated that it would be worth it to monitor the outflow temperatures. Grochala concurred that a case study could be done. Asleson stated he took surface temperature readings on two occasions at George Watch Lake and Marshan Lake. He found that the water temperatures did not fluctuate much in George Watch Lake because the lake was so shallow it would never stratify. Chair Lanyon concurred adding that freshwater systems were adapted to sudden changes; He continued that most of the water would go through the infiltration ponds O'Connell noted the area was zoned for intense commercial development. Grochala responded that it was technically zoned a shopping center:, Wessel pointed out that it was the only site in the City chosen for a shopping center. Previously, there had been at least twelve plans, but no one was interested. Chair Lanyon mentioned on p. 6 at the top there was another example of similar language, and asked Grochala to work on the language for runoff and use it throughout the document. O'Connell expressed concern over#he reference on p. 7 discussing filling the wetland. Grundhofer asked about studies for restorati[ urestorations on site Asleson responded that nothing significant was planned on site:. O'Connell inquired-about the City's response. Grochala indicated that they needed to be consistent with the Master Plan, which called for an equal amount of public park as to mitigation. He added that Anoka County was in support of it. Wessel stated that there'was an agreement in effect where adjacent land could be accepted for the park The City had difficulty giving up land for Anoka County. Kukonen noted that a maintenance plan would go through the County. 4 • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 18, 2001 Chair Lanyon pointed out on p. 8 the Metropolitan Council was addressing runoff, however, the phosphorus nutrient loading was not mentioned. Grochala responded the City could add it to the agreement. O'Connell mentioned that increasing the diameter of the pipe would also increase the runoff. Grochala answered that they had to meet the two -inch rate requirement, but they would decide how to accomplish it. Grundhofer inquired about the disposal of oil and batteries. Asleson explained that they would be required to direct customers to off site disposals. 0' Connell asked about the acres of impervious, noting that in the document it appeared to change several times. Asleson commented that basically the entire area would be disturbed. Grundhofer questioned which plantings would be chosen. Grochala assured her it would be according to the City standards. Grundhofer described how past construction had affected the heron rookery and bald eagle's nest. Chair Lanyon concurred and asked staff to rewrite the section to keep in perspective the volume increase would be accepted in this case. He urged the to move forward with the topic of water volumes of the lakes. Grochala stated that they needed to work with zoning issues. Chair Lanyon indicated that water volumes would have an impact, but the extent would be unquantifiable. Asleson agreed that it would have an impact by destroying the upland and adjusting hydrology. Chair Lanyon suggested that the Board might want o choose option #1 the resolution of a negative declaration, and no need f;un Envirommntal Impact Statement pending approval by the Rice Creek Watershed District. Grochala stated that without these agencies present in the process, an Environmental Impact Statement might be needed. Kukonen expressed concern over stating that there was no significant effect. Chair Lanyon stated that Kukonen had pointed out that #5 should be rewritten to say no impacts were revealed that were not under the jurisdiction of other agencies. Trehus arrived at 6:27 p.m. Chair Lanyon summarized the comments for Trehus. Trehus pointed out that the Metropolitan Council stated on p. 3 third paragraph, last sentence, that there must be an analysis of the impacts on the wetland before a determination could be made. Chair Lanyon responded that the concerns were under the requirements of the Watershed District. 5 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 18, 2001 Trehus mentioned that the Watershed District dealt with the minimum requirements of law and lacked the teeth to enforce. Asleson stated the Metropolitan Council spoke of impact to trees, but they impacted the area when the highway was located through the area. Trehus answered that was the 1967 Metropolitan Council, and the representatives have changed. He recommended the Board attach some conditions to be met, because they were maximizing development, but doing little for the environment. Asleson indicated the Army Corp of Engineers needed to approve the project. Trehus explained that the Metropolitan Council suggested more could be done. He believed they should be attached as requirements. Chair Lanyon mentioned that the issues were all on the table including the potential environmental impacts. Trehus stated that they did not comply with the Watershed District's requirements, and there were other agencies involved. Trehus moved for recommending option #3, Table the decision until the submission of additional information i.e. the Watershed District and add the recommendation that an analysis should be done to fully determine the impacts of increased runoff volumes and water quality to the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Preserve, wetlands and Lakes. This analysis should include computer modeling. The Metropolitan Council has determined this must be done prior to a negative declaration. Water volumes should be reduced to predevelopment conditions. Grundhofer seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion. Grundhofer asked who would be paying for it, and Could the Council require it Trehus indicated that three agencies stated concerns with the proposed project. He pointed out the Metropolitan Council stated that volumes should stay at predevelopment levels. Asleson mentioned that it was not a real expensive venture for the developer. Trehus explained that they would need to discuss the impacts, not just a number for water volumes, but what wasthe number going to do to George Watch Lake. Chair Lanyon stated that the concern was who would be doing the analysis. Trehus responded the Watershed District could do it Asleson mentioned that the developer needed to meet minimum requirements. Trehus urged the City not to make the decision until the Watershed District responded. 6 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 18, 2001 Kukonen suggested the Environmental Assessment Worksheet could be changed. He agreed with option #3 with the addition of until the Watershed District responded. Asleson noted that in a wetland mitigation, the second site needed to have an equal or better quality than the original. Trehus stated the City did not have a policy on Tax Abatement and so they were having a hearing on it. He suggested that runoff was similar and they should also have a hearing. Asleson answered that the headwaters were under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers. The effects of the runoff on the ecological systems on site could be predicted, but the project's effect globally was more difficult to quantify. Trehus noted the Watershed District had to table the decision because the developer did not provide the required information. Chair Lanyon responded that the Watershed District would treat the runoff issue similarly, but more carefully. Trehus pointed out the Watershed District was in the process of increasing their standards. The lakes are public property, but the public was receiving no compensation for that. Trehus advised that the Watershed District had a list of thirteen points they had not provided information for They said that the Watershed District could not provide the analysis due to lack of funds, but urged the City to ask for it. With the statement from the Metropolitan Council, they urged the City to consider that an analysis must be done before a decision. Asleson noted that there would be 13 -acre ft. additional; water volume /year added to the lake. The rate may stay the same, but the volume would not. Chair Lanyon stated that the impact of water volume of one project was measurably: insignificant because it was not a project by project issue. If a study would lie done, the elevation would not change significantly. Asleson indicated a build out of the,whole townwould be necessary. Chair Lanyon reiterated that because the issue`was not on a project by project basis, the numbers probably would not be significant. Trehus posed the question why would the Watershed District recommend requesting it, and the Metropolitan Council would require it before a determination could be made. He noted the City was willing to have a hearing on Tax Abatement, why not a Surface Water Management Plan also The City could put the policies in place, and then address the development. He noted that the comment made by Kukonen echoes that of Metropolitan Council. Trehus submitted option #3 with the addition of calling for an analysis of the runoff impacts, an evaluation of surface water, and that the results and comments come back the Environmental Board for comments. The motion passed 3 -2, with Chair Lanyon and O'Connell voting against. 7 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 18, 2001 The Board members in favor worked out the language of the motion. The motion stated that the Board recommends: • Tabling the decision until the submission of additional information, i.e. Rice Creek Watershed District and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. • Metropolitan Council states an analysis of impacts of water runoff from the site must be completed before an Environmental Impact Statement determination can be made. • Metropolitan Council recommends the applicant try to reduce runoff volume to predevelopment conditions. • The Environmental Board should review and comment following the submission of additional information. Trehus moved that prior to a negative declaration, the City should adopt a policy that defines how the City will address development projects with more than ten acres of impervious surfaces. O'Connell seconded the motion for discussion. O'Connell pointed out she did want the policy, but it would not impact this project. Chair Lanyon indicated that making the motion would diminish the impact of the prior motion.`` Trehus amended the above motion to remove the phrase po"or to a declaration." O'Connell seconded the motion to amend. Chair Lanyon explained that he voted against the first motion because it would not say why or where it was going. Grunhofer stated that there were many on the Council who did not understand the importance of it. -. rr Kukonen noted that a meeting was planned with the City Council and the Board was going to raise the issue as a goal. Trehus withdrew on, with the understanding that it be put on the agenda for the next meeting. Chair Lanyon suggested the goals move from a global perspective to a project by project basis and then have the Board prioritize them in order of importance. ,4° CLOSE MEETING AND CONFIRM NEXT MEETING DATE It was noted that the next meeting of the Environmental Board will be on July 25, 2001. There being no further business, Trehus moved to adjourn at 8:18 p.m. Kukonen seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. 8 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 18, 2001 Transcribed by: Brigette Blesi TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 9