Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20260729 Environmental Board Minutes CITY OF LINO LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING DATE: July 29, 2026 TIME STARTED: 6:29 p.m. TIME ENDED: 7:16 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Alex Schwartz, Mary Jo Stevenson, Danielle Berger, Jonathan Parsons, Elizabeth Larkin, Kelli Damiani MEMBERS ABSENT: Lindsay Buchmeier STAFF PRESENT: Thomas Hoffman, Jennifer Alderink, 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Mr. Schwartz called the Environmental Board meeting to order at 6:29 p.m. on July 29, 2026. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Schwartz declared open mike at 6:32 p.m. There were no public comments. Mr. Schwartz closed public comments at 6:32 p.m. 4. SETTING THE AGENDA: Addition or Deletion of Agenda Items th Mr. Schwartz took a motion to approve the July 29, 2026 agenda. Ms. Berger motioned to approve the agenda. Motion was seconded by Mr. Schwartz. Motion carried 6-0. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES . th Mr. Schwartz took a motion to approve the May 27, 2026 minutes. Ms. Larkin motioned to approve the agenda. Motion was seconded by Mr. Parsons. Motion carried 6-0. 1 APPROVED MINUTES 6. ACTION ITEMS Robinson South Concept Plan The applicant, Twin Cities Land Development, is proposing a master planned development located on the south side of Main Street (CSAH 14), east of Sunset Avenue NE (County Road 53), and north of Carl Street. The proposed development is bordered by Blaine to the west. The development contains approximately 149.52 gross acres and consists of mix of residential housing and a proposed school. of 389 units. Tom Hoffman, Environmental Coordinator for the City of Lino Lakes, presented and was available for questions. Mr. Schwartz said that he would like to see more cohesive corridors of green space as opposed to patches in a development like this. Mr. Hoffman responded that there is an existing ditch and wetland that it looks like the developers are going to preserve on the south side of the site which runs almost all the way to Sunset Avenue. He said that they could also try and find something from the county ditch going further to the east to tie into the existing wetland complex, which is the Wetland Management Corridor for Rice Creek. He also said that they are hoping to get a mix of wetland mitigation, stormwater management, and some upland to have a variety of habitat types for all sorts of different recreation, pollinator habitat, wildlife, and water quality benefits. Mr. Schwartz said that he did notice a tremendous amount of floodplain, so his concern is that all the open space is going to be open water. He asked if there is an opportunity to go deeper in those borrow pits to reserve some upland area. Mr. Hoffman said that the nice thing about the floodplain mitigation is that it requires you to have the your high water level. He also said that a lot of it will probably be stormwater ponds, and then it will hav s amazing habitat for migratory birds, nesting waterfowl, and everything else. Mr. Parsons asked how we are keeping track to achieve the higher density area with more open space like it is shown in the AUAR Master Plan. 2 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Hoffman said that the AUAR mitigation checklist will have open space requirements, density requirements, storm water requirements, etc. The checklist is how the City verifies and confirms that the developments meet the master planning document requirements. Ms. Larkin noted that in the AUAR Master Plan, there was a call for more green space as you enter the City of Lino Lakes. She said that she is not seeing it on the proposal document. Mr. Hoffman said that one of the comments was about the buffering along Main Street with the setbacks the setbacks for the ditch corridor and the wetland conservation area. He also said that one of the big comments to the developers is to make sure we can meet those setbacks. Ms. Larkin said that one of the concerns that she has is that the K-12 school will take up a large footprint and greenspace. any of the other public schools or commercial developments we have. He noted that the developer will have to show if they can do with some pretreatment for the parking lot. Ms. Larkin said that the increased runoff is a concern. goes on to say that the runoff will actually decrease Mr. Larkin asked if the City would have the water capacity and infrastructure in place to sustain the increase of 389 more units. Mr. Hoffman said that we have the water available right now for this development and other developments that are in the queue. Engineering is working on some additional wells for when the City gets to that point through DNR, but right now the infrastructure is in place that would accommodate this development. Ms. Berger commented that the sod farms are a spot where a lot of migrating birds come in the fall. She would like to know if there is a way to hold off when development happens or hold off on certain actions during development to help with that sensitive time. Mr. Hoffman said that unfortunately there is never a good time to remove habitat. However, he said the City will try to incorporate those recommendations as best as they can based on the approvals and process. He did say that he does not anticipate construction out there this fall. Mr. Hoffman goes on to say that based on the timing for the developments \[in the area\], not all of them are going to be developed at once. If the 149 acres to the south gets developed, there is still 3 APPROVED MINUTES around 300 acres to the north that migrating birds can use. The new habitat that is created will be in place by the time the development to the north happens, so there will be a balance between the two. Ms. Larkin talked about habitat fragmentation and said that she would prefer a designated space that would be more inviting rather than fragments of habitat here and there. Mr. Hoffman said that along the ditch corridor, there is going to be a large open space with habitat on either side. That is going to be your largest contiguous area to get you in and out of the site within the development. He said that it is hard to set aside any large areas of land because of the density requirements and the buildability of it. Mr. Hoffman does think that some of the road networks are going to be realigned, so that will likely open up some other areas where there are going to be larger, contiguous areas. He said that the overall project goal is to keep everything tied together. Mr. Schwartz said he is concerned about the yield plan that was done for the Master Plan. The process was between a minimum of 489- wants to know if the shortage means that higher density will be forced onto future developments in the area. Mr. Schwartz would also like to know how this relates to the Met Council requirements for sewer systems. Mr. Hoffman said the Met Council has changed the way they calculate their density since the Master Plan process was done. you \[Met Council\] considers it to be, so their calculations are off. Katie Larsen, our City Planner, will have a better understanding of the planning and z about lower density and a plan to increase it anywhere else. Ms. Larkin had concerns about the K12 school and the increased traffic and lighting. She wanted to make sure the lighting is not disruptive to the native species. because the proposed school is adjacent to two county roads that will be close by (Sunset Avenue and Main Street). He said that when \[the developer\] comes back with a more detailed plan, we will talk more about the lighting plan. He did note that the developer will most likely go over a lighting plan for at night if there are special events, which will be addressed when there is more information. Mr. Schwartz asked what exactly the uplight, and backlight to the extent practicable Mr. Hoffman explained that the developers do have the requirements that they need to meet. They provide the City with a photometric plan, and during that time there are discussions to see if there is any flexibility on the types of lights, lighting, and hours while still meeting their safety requirements. Mr. Hoffman also said that the plans are site dependent. For example, some commercial buildings require lighting 24/7 and some only need lighting between certain hours. 4 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Schwartz asked if the lighting portion would come back to us as either a concept plan or possibly a preliminary plat. Mr. Hoffman said that it would most likely come back as a preliminary plat unless something drastically changes with the overall development. The developer would then come back with another concept plan. Mr. Schwartz asked if it could potentially become a strip center in six months or some other type of use. Mr. Hoffman said that the new concept plan needs to be institutional or planned residential. He does not believe it can go to commercial zoning. Mr. Schwartz asked what the requirements will be for the site. Will it remain fallow or will the developers be required to put in any kind of prairie seed, etc. Mr. Hoffman confirmed that at this point, the City does not have a staging or phasing plan for the developers. They may decide to do the school as phase one with some roads and infrastructure. Depending on what their phasing plan is, \[the City\] would come up with a plan for temporary stabilization. They would most likely do the mass grading, utilities, stormwater ponding all at once, then come up with a temporary stabilization plan for the areas that are going to sit for however long the staging plan is. Mr. Hoffman used the exa developments where they had different staging levels and were required to temporarily stabilize everything. For the areas that were going to be open space, the City had them start establishing that vegetation once it was graded and then everything else was just temporarily stabilized to meet the NPDS requirements for their stormwater management. Most likely it would be a cover crop and some native grasses in those areas until they come in for development. Mr. Schwartz asked if there was an opportunity or benefit for the City to have some kind of requirement for \[the developer\] put some native plantings or seed in the easement areas unless they will remain untouched. Mr. Hoffman said that generally, there are some road and trail connections that are allowed to go over the easements. Some of the grading can take place there but it is dependent on the type of easement. He notes that whoever owns these easements has specific types of vegetation and management that they will allow in those spots. Mr. Hoffman did say that a lot of these easements get sprayed, mowed, to the area. He said that whatever is disturbed, the City could most likely come up with a plan for some sort of a native vegetation. Mr. Hoffman mentioned that the recommendations are very high level right now. When the City comes back with a preliminary plat, that is where we would start working with specifics of each different site, 5 APPROVED MINUTES such as the number of trees for each site, the landscape plan, floodplain mitigation calculations, open space calculations, and erosion control plans. Mr. Schwartz makes a motion to approve the Robinson South Concept Plan with the staff recommendations as written. Ms. Berger seconded the motion. Motion passes 6-0. 6 APPROVED MINUTES 2. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Recycling Intern Updates Mr. Hoffman presented the Recycling Intern updates. Mr. Parsons asked if they are keeping track of the compost tonnage. Mr. Hoffman said they are waiting on the tonnage report from Walters. Ms. Stevenson asked how the Water Conservation Rebate grant is going. Mr. Hoffman said that it is going well. The first grant cycle just wrapped up, and there was st $11,000-$13,000 that came in last quarter. The new grant started on July 1, 2026. We will start doing the grant reports quarterly in the future. To market the program, the City has look at opening the grant up to some additional appliances. 3. ADJOURN Ms. Schwartz took a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:16 p.m. Ms. Stevenson motioned to adjourn. Mr. Schwartz seconded the motion. Motion passes 6-0. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Alderink Office Specialist 7 APPROVED MINUTES