Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/30/2021 Environmental Board Minutes APPROVED MINUTES CITY OF LINO LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Mr. Sullivan called the Lino Lakes Environmental Board meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. on November 30, 2021. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Sullivan stated to approve the Agenda as it stands. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 27, 2021 Ms. Holmes made a MOTION to approve the October 27, 2021 meeting minutes. Ms. Cavegn seconded the motion. Motion carried 5 - 0. V. OPEN MIKE Mr. Sullivan declared Open Mike at 6:32 p.m. Open Mike declared closed at 6:32 p.m. VI. ACTION ITEMS A. Final Plat for MTO Properties and Site Plan Review for Thrivent Financial Building Mr. Nelson presented the staff report for the final plat for the MTO Properties Addition and Site Plan Review for Thrivent Financial office building. The site is located at the DATE : November 30, 2021 TIME STARTED : 6:30 P.M. TIME ENDED : 7:43 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : John Sullivan, Cassie Cavegn, Shawn Holmes, Ella McNulty, Jonathan Parsons MEMBERS ASBENT : Lindsay Buchmeier, Alex Schwartz STAFF PRESENT : Andy Nelson, Phillip Davis Environmental Board November 30, 2021 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES northwest corner of the intersection of Hodgson Road and Blue Heron Drive. The parcel is located in the Neighborhood Business zoning district. The report included a detailed discription of the site’s characteristics, including soils, significant resources, stormwater management and drinking water protection, wetlands and a tree preservation plan among others. The majority of the trees on site are cottonwood. Staff recommended approval of the request with the following recommendations: 1. A Natural Heritage Information System request must be submitted to the DNR to identify any rare, threatened, or endangered species that have been documented within one mile of the site. 2. Exposed soils must be stabilized within 7 days due to proximity to an impaired water (Rice Lake). This must be noted in the plans. 3. Preservation and mitigation standards require 2 additional trees to be planted. Consider oaks in the turf area between the building and Hodgson Road. 4. Open area landscape standards require an additional 42 large shrubs to be planted in open areas. 5. Buffer and screen requirements have not been met. A double row of triangulated plants is needed for the area between the parking lot and right-of-way on Hodgson Road. Also, plants should not be planted under future tree canopy. A fence might be a better option to screen the project site from 6681 Blue Heron Drive. 6. Canopy cover requirements have not been met. An additional 395 sq. ft. of canopy coverage is required. 7. Foundation landscape standards have not been met. An additional 2 large trees and 3 large shrubs will be required for the northeast building face. 8. A seed mix must be specified for the area scheduled for native seed northwest of the infiltration pond. 9. Mulch should be type 3, with MCIA tags provided to the city at time of install. 10. Rolled erosion control product shall be category 25 natural net, per city standard specifications. Mr. Sullivan inquired on the reasoning behind removing a tree on the north end of the property and why it is being mitigated with two new trees. Mr. Nelson responded that the tree removal is necessary for the grading for stormwater management, and that the two mitigation trees are needed because that tree removal is in an Environmentally Sensitive Area which has higher mitigation rates. Mr. Sullivan mentioned that stormwater management for this project included discharge to wetland, and inquired if future projects, such as development on the southwest corner of Hodgson and Lake Drive, were taken into consideration as they might also be discharging stormwater to the same wetland. Environmental Board November 30, 2021 Page 3 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Nelson responded that each project has to address stormwater concerns seperately, which includes rate and volume control for storm events not increasing due to the project. He also noted that the wetland near this project was in Wetland Management Corridor, and that efforts are made to avoid impacts to these wetlands. Mr. Sullivan noted that the project seems like a good fit for the area, provided the buffers, screening, and other landscape measures are in place. Ms. Holmes wanted to confirm that the project is essentially clearing the site of all trees and any new plantings will consist of new young trees with few, if any, existing trees remaining. Mr. Nelson remarked that it is a drastic change in the appearance of a site when the initial tree removals are done, but when looking at the long term plan for the site there will be new native plantings and a diverse set of tree species on site. Mr. Parsons inquired on the process of how the canopy cover requirements are met and if they are based on mature size of the trees. Mr. Nelson stated that the coverage requirements come straight from city zoning ordinances, including details such as the height of the tree and the location of the tree in relation to surrounding hardscape. It is generally up to project architects to solve the requirements and the city can work through requirements with them. Mr. Sullivan asked for clarification on the stormwater management and grading for the parking lot. Mr. Nelson states that the majority of runoff water will infiltrate on site before reaching stormwater inlets on Blue Heron Lake or the wetland. Ms. Cavegn made a MOTION to approve the recommendations. Motion was supported by Mr. Parsons. Motion carried 5 – 0. B. Conditional Use Permit for Precision Tune Auto Care Mr. Nelson presented a staff report that included a detailed discription of the site’s characteristics. Staff recommended the Conditional use Permit for Precision Tune Auto Care be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council with the following recommendations: 1. Mulch used for stabilization shall be type 3 certified noxious weed free mulch. Minnesota Crop Improvement Assocation (MCIA) tags must be provided to the City. 2. A concrete washout area should be established on site and identified with a sign. 3. Tree inventory and preservation and mitigation plan must be provided to the city. Environmental Board November 30, 2021 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES 4. Buffer and screen standards have not been met for the west perimeter, as a triangulated, double row of plants is required. Plants with a shorter mature height (2-3’) should be used to form this buffer. 5. Canopy cover requirements have not been met. 6. Foundation landscape standards have not been met. 1 large tree and 3 large shrubs will be required for the west face of the building. 7. Autumn Blaze maples have poor structure and are prone to defects. Replace Autumn Blaze maple with another variety of maple or another species. 8. The landscape details indicate MnDOT 33-261 will be used for the stormwater management areas, but MnDOT 33-262 is indicated on the C7 details page. This should be changed to match the landscape details page (33-261). 9. The landscape plan indicates sod will be used in all areas not planted with MnDOT 33- 261, but the C7 details page indicates MnDOT 25-131, low maintenance turf seed. Clarify which of the two turf types will be used and ensure plans match. 10. Irrigation should only be needed for the areas with turf, trees, or shrubs. The stormwater seed mix areas should not require irrigation. Mr. Parsons asked about the known flow of stormwater to the city system and if there was an estimation of what increase could be expected with this project. Mr. Nelson stated that the Engineering department looks through the project plans with more detail. Mr. Sullivan asked how deep the project’s catch basins are. Mr. Nelson answered by showing the contour lines that indicate elevation details. Mr. Sullivan wanted to know if the stormwater pollution prevention plan mentioned rain gardens or rain guardians. Mr. Nelson responsed that rain guardians would be used and briefly described them. Mr. Sullivan recommended that the Board take a trip to see some of these features in the future. Mr. Parsons asked if the trees that needed to be mitigated were part of the hardcover canopy or if they were separate. Mr. Nelson stated that they are separate. They are based on removals and where those removals occurred. Some of the planted trees can overlap to fulfill more than one requirement. He added that he will have to take another look at the calculations before the final recommendations are sent to the applicant. Mr. Sullivan asked about the process of having an applicant pay a fee in lieu of planting a tree where there isn’t room for one on site. Environmental Board November 30, 2021 Page 5 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Nelson stated he hasn’t brought the fee up in the past because it is generally a last resort option. Most sites usually have enough land but this site is particuarly small, leaving little space for grading and elevation changes that would not provide much room to replace a tree. The option that may make more sense would be to use a mitigation fee. The fee would be the same as developers for boulevard trees at $485 per tree. Mr. Sullivan wanted to know if lighting was part of the Board’s concern. Mr. Nelson stated that the city planner looks into the outdoor lighting. There is a certain threshold of light that cannot be exceed at the property line. This is a concern that the City Planner will address. Ms. Holmes mentioned that lighting issues had been covered in previous presentations, particularly when projects were close to residential areas. Mr. Sullivan asked that a description of how lighting issues are addressed with projects be included in a future presentation. Mr. Nelson confirmed that he would provide more info. They would like to understand how the City Planner decides the implementation of light pollution concerns on projects. Ms. Cavegn wanted to know more about the concrete washout areas. Mr. Nelson explained that, in accordance with the requirements for the storm water pollution prevention plan, the project is required to have an area set aside with a sign indicating that it is a concrete washout area. The idea is that none of the business’s rinsate will enter the stormwater system when the employees are cleaning their tools. There is a dedicated area to let concrete dry and prepared to be taken offsite. Mismanaged concrete can change the pH levels in the soil and can effect tree plantings within the boulevard. Ms. McNulty MOTIONED to approve the staff recommendations. Motion was supproted by Ms. Holmes. Motion passed 5 – 0. VII. UPDATES A. Program Updates Mr. Nelson provided an update on the Rainbow Tree Injection program that was approved by the Environmental Board and City Council. The City had 163 resident trees treated through the program. A total of 100 city trees were treated as well. In total, 263 trees were treated. Environmental Board November 30, 2021 Page 6 APPROVED MINUTES B. Recycling Updates Mr. Davis shared an update on the November Recycling Saturday event. There were a total of 220 residents for recycling and 60 residents for paper shredding. This was one of the busiest events of the year. The dates for recycling events in 2022 have been finalized and residents can look forward to receiving a postcard in the mail within the first two weeks of January. Anoka County’s Recycling Ambassador program will start again next spring. If members of the Board are interested in learning more about the program, Mr. Davis will provide updates on the class in the future. Staff have begun planning for the Earth Day event at Wargo Nature Center. The event will be discussed in a future Environmental Board meeting. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Holmes made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 7:43 p.m. Motion was supported by Ms. Cavegn. Motion carried 5 - 0.