Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/28/2001 Environmental Board MinutesENVIRONMENTAL BOARD -MEETING MARCH 28, 2001 CITY OF LINO LAKES MINUTES DATE : March 28, 2001 TIME STARTED : 6:30 P.M. TIME ENDED : 9:17 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Amy Donlin, Constance Grundhofer, Rod Kukonen, Scott Lanyon, Dave Mach, Theresa O'Connell, and Mike Trehus. MEMBERS ABSENT : None. Staff members present: Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson and Economic Development Director Brian Wessel. CALL TO ORDER Chair Lanyon called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES e. A. February 28, 2001 — The following corrections were requested: Page 3, twelfth paragraph: "Kukonen assured Mr‘Schr'indtglat the critique of old Vok all development practices were not aimed at him, but that . -e,g'oal was 50% 41'Cl 1,7,1 e.'"' ' conservation development." /fRAN,,,, 0, Page 5, ninth paragraph: "Donlin had,SCW'questions about the location of the ,4 infiltration ponds. ,7 nPage 5, insert after tenth paragraph: "K o cn stated that Lots 37-42, Block 1 appeared to have a stormwater TtiLfftibiem, and recommended buffering." Kukonen moved toa6DrIol'ip t e',$,..cpruary 28, 2001 meeting minutes as amended above. O'Connell seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF AGENDA • Discuss Open Spacecconservation Ordinance. • Discuss Upddining Land Use Planning Workshop. • Discuss Efty•titonniental Board activities for Earth Day. • Discuss information on Wood Duck houses. The agenda was approved as amended above. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD -MEETING MARCH 28, 2001 CITIZEN COMMENTS No comments were made. PROJECT REVIEW A. Ryan/Target Update Review — Brian Wessel commented on the changes to the plan. The three 30,000 sq. ft boxes were removed. The access remained the same with no access to 77th Street. The present conceptual plan was presented three weeks ago, and will not have an official plan until April 25, 2001. The plan included 86,000 -sq. ft. with potential to expand, and off site mitigation similar to the first plan. There was a meeting scheduled for Tuesday for staff review. Donlin noted the plan appeared essentially impervious, and considered the revised plan a step backward in terms of the goals of the Environmental Board. Chair Lanyon pointed out that there were enough accommodations in Phase II to gain support. He urged staff to address the runoff issues before the plans come to the Board. A te.4-• Wessel indicated there had been a change in the groundbyealifig from July to September. e A, A, Donlin expressed concern over the heavy irafficivhicliNrould be necessary to support a large Target store. Wessel assured the Board that the two co-anchors believed it was economically feasible. Donlin questioned if there was inactetruateepport and a loss occurred, would the building be abandoned. Wessel responded that not many Target buildings had been abandoned. • 4 . (,00414. Kukonen noted the store .in Coon Rapids had been abandoned, and inquired if it was a terrible'lcurd8qtalie city of Coon Rapids. Wessel answered dtqlf yY „ that Target had the mcist;solidt9pord of the big box stores. Chair Lanyonidantifibalthe role of the Board was the environmental focus, and in that Ryarigirsei*db8ktiacked, especially with the runoff mitigation issues. 44:4, Mat noted the'oiite mitigation which was proposed in the plan. The first pnorOAISrmipyosed to be on site mitigation, then off site mitigation. He then asked aboutthe options they were considering. Wessel responded the County Board was discussing the options, but nothing was decided. Trehus asked for information concerning mitigation on existing park land. Chair Lanyon agreed that they needed to clarify that option. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MARCH 28, 2001 B. Spirit Hills Subdivision Application — Asleson read the background from the tracking sheet, which discussed a formal application submitted to develop Spirit Hills under a Planned Overlay Development process. Mr. Goertz was at the meeting to discuss the application. There was a conservation easement in the West, and the open space was set back 150 feet. Mr. Goertz indicated that shifting the cul-de-sacs moved the two closest lots to the open space to 160 feet away. Chair Lanyon inquired of the meaning of the dotted line running from north to south across the map. Mr. Goertz answered that it was a remaining topographic line. Donlin questioned the meaning of Type B Soils. Asleson responded it was a wet hydro type soil. Trehus asked about how many acres of wetland were present in the area. Mr. Goertz answered there were 9.4 acres, and the higher site was just less than 10 acres. Asleson explained that the area could be maintained for,.a 100=year event. Mr. fr��h Goertz added there were only two fill areas planned, which added up;to less than 7000 sq. ft. Mitigation was expanding and indicateda,desire for a..11ft station in the northeast. ".0,6 Asleson noted the degraded forest had recently. beef' developed. Donlin concurred the whole area had been degraded; and`rthe‘ plan was much improved. ry? Chair Lanyon commented the southern section had been moved to the southeast to keep the ditch from being filledy4Ynti He added there was no known burial site on the property. Donlin indicated the plan had vision :but urged Mr. Goertz not to build on the floodplain. Mr. Goertz'-assure'dthe .Board that there were no plans to build on the floodplain, and exP ained'the fi11'areas were pits that may have been for garbage. Donlin ing4hed ab` out the 2 'eaning of the % inch hundred -year event. Mr. Goertz responded thate watershed engineers defined it, but it dealt with controlling the runoff.„; ` �`'A, r✓ +`K krr.=.. Donlm presented that the Environmental Board had been considering increasing the water level in the wetlands around Cedar Lake by building a dam where Highway;49 crosses the creek, and inquired about its potential impact on the development. Asleson noted that a dam was located on Baldwin Lake. 3 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MARCH 28, 2001 Mr. Goertz indicated the development area would have a three-foot bounce, with a two -foot bounce in the upland areas. Donlin asked for clarification that the water could increase three feet before it would affect the proposed development. Mr. Goertz responded that most developments in the area would be affected, especially the golf course. Mr. Goertz mentioned there were two lots, which would require a considerable amount of fill in the northeast. He received permission from the County to dig into the river. A conservation easement runs across all the lots in the west. Asleson explained that the area was a planned greenway, however, the County at present has not needed it. Trehus asked if there was a trail planned with a boardwalk through the wetland. Asleson noted that the County planned on paralleling Birch Street to connect to the County park. Trehus inquired where the upland was located. Mr. Goertz answered that most of the upland had wetland vegetation on it. .4p -r,d9 ft. ''414 Donlin inquired if the language in the owners' association accounted for a scenic trail. Asleson noted it was beneficial to have guidelines ecirthei4gpeintion. Trehus identified the area to have a high ecologicalvalueraccording to the maps, ,.. and requested bigger buffers. Asleson concurreked suggested creating swails in the area. He explained that Mr. GoerWApgineers were 'meeting with the Watershed District tonight. e , Mr. Goertz explained that the Watershed District's recommendations were four 0.., pages long, but none of them required difficult changes. qtk, I Chair Lanyon commented he was encouraged by the plans proposed, but mentioned the buildings corpe*Terelese together, and urged opening up the views. Mr. GoertzregfIdnded'ipting no buildings were closer than 70 feet. Asleson mentioned th6y,,had submitted landscape plans with native plantings in the natural areas. " * I , Trehug questioned the number ofunits in the townhomes. Mr. Goertz identified 49 urnts;and 31 single homes. t o4 4V.' Chair Lanyon stated that although the distance between the houses was no closer than 70 feet and trees were present, the connections were too narrow for wildlife. Asleson offered there was escrow money for trees. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD 'MEETING MARCH 28, 2001 Trehus indicated the total area was 40.5 acres except for the area in the southwest which had been set aside for future development, and would create an outlot of 77,000 sq. ft. Mr. Goertz explained this was a minor subdivision off of the area for a store and would be kept at 2.32 /acre density. Trehus stated that the total area of the parcel to be developed was 34.4 acres. Mr. Goertz pointed out 80 units on about 30 acres, and explained in the past they had never subtracted the wetland areas. He assured that with the present spacing, the site would remain low density. Kukonen submitted it was encouraging to see the plans for the open space, and asked about the staff recommendation for signage. Trehus indicated there was no preservation in the plans, and that the area was currently zoned R-1. Asleson responded the buffer would have infiltration ponds, and that there was a considerable amount of upland. Trehus noted a 200 -ft. buffer was recommended for wetland. Mr. Goertz explained the 30 -ft. setback left 60 ft. for the owners to work with before the conservation easement. The houses would be located at least 150 ft. Mfrom the open water. He stated that he could get an exemption Uor he ditch and`wetland. If they were single family homes they would have 80,footlots with 10,000 sq. ft. Chair Lanyon stated Mr. Goertz had responded,to theBoard's recommendations, and that he was comfortable with the changes.`}"" rY 5;3, Donlin indicated that in the project review the'' °1=`00 ,year flood level was a 2 -foot difference, not a 3 -foot difference. ,;1Vir Goertz explained the watershed district deals with those numbers. t, . j7r 4. Donlin identified less than 200 sq fill,i1 net on the floodplain. Mr. Goertz indicated his workers dug-holestan the area, and only encountered old tires. } r .r. Donlin explained that the languagemade the Environmental Board skeptical because other develop ers"had misled it. She then asked about the purpose of the weir. Mr. Goertz answered that it skims sediment out of the water runoff Asleson added infiltration;ponds also had weirs. vti5 ry,' Chair Lanyon ystated there was only half the allotted time to discuss the Comprehensive Plan. if Donlin indicated in addition to staff recommendations, buffering should be addressed, and the area should be inventoried for potential rare and endangered 5 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD -MEETING MARCH 28, 2001 species. Asleson assured the Board he would go on site to check for plant associations when the growing season had begun. Trehus asked if he had the actual lines of the conservation easement. Asleson stated that the area was interesting in its biodiversity. Mach explained that they did not want developments so near the water, and used the townhouses on the south side of the road as an example. Asleson noted the structures needed to be 150 ft. from the open water, and that number is increased to 200 ft. in unsewered areas. Chair Lanyon stated if the Environmental Board wanted to make that recommendation it would need to go to the Planning and Zoning Board at that level. Asleson indicated a compacted 600 -ft. buffer does not reduce nutrient loading, unless other alternatives are included such as water treatment train practices. He asked where the water would go. Mr. Goertz explained the water would flow to the front of the houses, and that there was up to 60 ft. of sqc13n the bdcklof the house. t.t 44s,"1:4' Kukonen asked if it was up to the builder, what typeqf driveway they could have. Mr. Goertz answered that it would ultimately be up to'il*13uilOr, and commented he was trying to create the cul-de-sacs without gutters or curbs, so the runoff flows into the sodded yards. He was waiting 1.o back from John Powell in regards to this issue. 4,04.4W, Trehus advised that because the area was considered a high ecological value zone, 444 di -a. a 100-200 ft. buffer was needed around the "tlands, and other boards needed to be aware of this number. dicitik .0-feb, • Chair Lanyon asked for a fdrinatieboirimendation, not approval, but support or non-support. Trehus clOricurr4t119 Board votes on the recommendations because the Council wattle*kriow the aspects of the proposals which are good or unacceptable. Chair Lanyon,rFyiewed recommendations in addition to staff recommendations included the curb', and gutters, re-site the cul-de-sac to change the angle, and the 100-200 Th 24' Aslesottpentioned a 50 -ft. buffer was required around isolated wetlands and 100 ft. around lakes. Trehus expressed concern for the land because according to the map, it was a high ecological zone. Asleson agreed and urged an informational sheet be distributed 6 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD -MEETING MARCH 28, 2001 on fertilizer and landscaping of back yards, specifically no phosphorus use, which would be a great benefit. He posed the question to Mr. Goertz, how the associations would deal with these issues. Mr. Goertz assured the Board that the people in the associations were the people who cared and the homeowners would need approval to trim a tree. Trehus stated the townhomes weren't bordering the lake. Mr. Goertz indicated the single-family homes had their own association. Chair Lanyon asked if staff could relay the information. Asleson explained these recommendations needed to be stated. Mach mentioned that in Fisheries at the Department of Natural Resources, the associations used peer control for aquatic plant removal. Donlin expressed appreciation for the 'response to the Board's recommendations. Chair Lanyon made a motion to pass on the recommendations with the understanding that it was not an affirmation or denial of theproject. The recommendations included staff recommendations, curbs, gutters, and swails in the cul-de-sacs, the fact that the area was an high ecological zone,; buffers as stated in the Handbook 7.12, the encouragement to open up~the ;angle in the swail area, and educational packet to be given to the hoineowiers. Motion carried unanimously. z; L;ha• ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD BUSINESS A. Draft Comprehensive Plan Review - Chair 'Lanyon stated the need to prioritize fey the other agenda items. Asleson noted that specific recommendations were needed tonight. Chair Lanyon stated that concernirigthe Comprehensive Plan, the number of houses per year would be 75 according to 20/20. Donlin explained,the`growth rate needed to be controlled, with 175 stated in the Plan. By the ;year2020 the goal was not to exceed 5000 people, which meant the rate must remam60 houses/year. With the present number of 240 units/year, the City;would exceed the population cap in 6 years. Chair ,myon- ked where the statement was located in the Plan. Asleson noted �ryr the numbers were located on page 9. Grundhofer expressed concern that in several instances, the math was incorrect. Donlin agreed it was troubling that the figures were completely off. 7 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD -MEETING MARCH 28, 2001 Chair Lanyon stated the Metropolitan Council forecasts the numbers the City Council may report. Trehus noted an inconsistency on page 64 of the framework with the number 7,900, while on page 65 the number was 7575. Chair Lanyon urged the Board to make specific recommendations. On page 25, number 9; limit growth needed a not to exceed clause, otherwise the City could be built up in 5 years and be finished. Trehus agreed there had been more than 150 homes in four months before the Board. Asleson reviewed the concerns of the Board already stated were inconsistent numbers, and the need for a "not to exceed" clause. Chair Lanyon urged a number be proposed for the latter. Donlin mentioned the projected cap from the 20/20 was 20,507:77d be a cap for the year 2020. Chair Lanyon indicated the cap 20,500 for the year 2010. Donlin noted the above quote was a typographical error. Grundhofer addressed community growth as describpd'onpag e 3,wpri 259, but in reality added up to 288. Trehus agreed the math wdni?',incoriect t • Donlin offered the number 20,500 people as the maximum -carrying capacity for the City, and suggested a moratorium may be Chair Lanyon suggested the number 180/year. eTwit,p, AO '414; Trehus mentioned the number should decrease the year to compensate for the higher growth in the previdikyear. Chair Lanyon added that it should not exceed 300 in a two-year period. 445 If Donlin asked how the,Fity*gibligtO respond when the maximum population is reached. Chair Lanyon inquired if it ever stated a maximum population. s1,4" Trehus respond.1;1141.ere was never a maximum number given, and there was no statempritor vision AOr 2010 or 2020. In addition, no maps were given to the Board with the Comprehensive Plan. 4*'13 Donfm-qqcsItypedIhe urgency to give recommendations within the month on the Comex when there are no fmished maps. Trehus indicated the Councilwas planning to proceed without comments from the advisory boards. Asleson stated the comments needed to be written down. Chair Lanyon reviewed there was no cap for any given year, 180 was suggested with 294 in a 2 -year period. He also noted the presence of a policy plan with growth management, but 8 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD -MEETING MARCH 28, 2001 an environmental goal needed to be stated within each category, and not have its own. Examples of categories that need environmental principles stated within were land use and transportation. Kukonen questioned page 40, #6, the reference to community -wide drainage, surface water management or treatment trains. Trehus referred to the existing land use map and urban expansion map with the MUSA lines. (These were borrowed from a councilperson and copied for the Environmental Board). The maps show the northeast had a rural business reserve, and would not be developed. In reference to the chart, the total acreage outside was 12,000 acres. The plan was to add 2500 acres to the MUSA, and there was no provision for denial. The stages should be in 2 -year intervals. Chair Lanyon inquired the origin of the chart, because theoretically the table and the chart 2010- 2020 should have matched. Either the numbers mean nothing, or there are a lot of wetlands. Trehus explained the areas were considered unable to be developed, but they were adding to the MUSA. Asleson added that there was upland scattered throughout the area. .. Trehus indicated the total acreage of 2504 was 2000 acres exclusiveof wetland. Chair Lanyon stated if the numbers were accurate, then recommendations should be made by the Environmental Board to the Council Trehus asked for clarification on the meaning, of hydric soils. Asleson explained the definitions were from the National Wetlan&Soils, and these were often found to be inaccurate on the field. Trehus stated that with 2500 acres"only 900 acres were available for development. Asleson submitted when theSCity, was ,inventoried, an accurate appraisal could be made. Trehus indicated the general rule was hydric soil could be built upon. Donlin indicated that if the Citydetermined it could be developed, massive growth would take place. She"urged .the maps be redrawn with the rationale to support the vision of limited growth. Chairqq.,Lanyon mentioned there was an overlap of hydric soils and wetlands. Trehus asked if all hydric soils were wetlands. Asleson responded the GIS classifications of red were not hydric, but were the Hydrological Association Classification. Chair Lanyon advised the Board to put forth recommendations, with the understanding it was impossible to give good feedback with the numbers 9 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MARCH 28, 2001 inconsistent, and several pages missing. Trehus noted all the necessary maps were missing. Trehus continued, noting that page 67 stated the City needed 359 buildable acres to allow for growth for 2010. As of August 2000, the projected growth zone for 2010 showed a difference in the numbers. Chair Lanyon asked staff to review the guidelines on pages 20-23 and make sure all the guidelines were incorporated. Asleson identified that the forested areas were scattered throughout the City, not in dense woodlands. Chair Lanyon stated the inventory needed a map. Proactively speaking, this was the only way to compare classifications. Asleson stated there was a time lag between the map inventory and the field research to confirm the map. Chair Lanyon admitted that was true, however, the learning would be a process with the mapping. Trehus commented the map would give the CitySorriething to , work from. ',..' Donlin noted noted interference with the rural goals as statecr oii:page'181, Chair Lanyon E ,d_ii. IP 'le V added that 25,000 population conflicts with them. r), Donlin suggested removing #2, because it was a f4cphole fordinlimited stage 4k. v growth. Trehus indicated page 4.2 of the hap dblitiesaan a conceptual greenway planned, however, the greenways need to be zoned g,Vch so there would be no conflict. Asleson explained the grant would allow for a better definition of the greenway. Chair Lanyon stated go9.,1*5 shilldli;1S;parate zoning. On page 26, under Land Use, a sectior9Fet'kyy:aPi—odleand policies should be added. Trehus noted seefibii2.22 in the .handbook describes lake protection areas, but .,444,44 nothing addrcsics,thasein the Plan. He asked how the conflict should be addresse4.4pairtanyksuggested a specific statement stand alone in the Plan, followed by "airieXample." .4, oz, ,,;61,v,y, ,. 01 Connell :stated .�n page 29, #7, promote community education and information to plocal prb ei, owners on home maintenance, repair, and assistance \., opportunities, should have landscaping added to it. Chair Lanyon indicated the more the City could work with homeowner associations the better the planning. 10 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD=MEETING MARCH 28, 2001 Kukonen referred to page 81 under the clustered subdivision the rationale given was to provide for more orderly development preserved for future development, which is the exact opposite of the goals of the Environmental Board. He suggested inserting an open space conservation ordinance, and then rework the paragraphs following it. Chair Lanyon asked Kukonen to rewrite the page and submit the amended page to Asleson. Kukonen suggested specific changes to the clustered subdivision section. Line 5 change the word reserving to "preserving." In addition, making #1 read "50% or more of land must be .preserved as open space exclusive of wetlands." Chair Lanyon stated the section was unacceptable in keeping with the framework of the goals of the Environmental Board. Kukonen indicated the 3`d paragraph #1, should be "to create an open space conservation ordinance." Donlin noted the three points had unclear wording, the goal of #7 used the words flora and fauna, and were not representative verbiage. Trehus stated ordinances needed to be developed to enforce the policies` He recommended a moratorium be put in place until the ordinances are formed. The resources would then be available for the ordinances • r' w. `r' ti'Fnd:. B. Environmental Board Goals 2001— This, item Was not<discussed. a4, r C. Board Member Information Responsibilities'=;This item was not discussed. PROGRAM/PROJECT UPDATES A. Conservation Partners Grant This item was tabled to the April 24, 2001 meeting. Asleson indicated the,; Conservation Partners Grant Program for Buckthorn control had beenapproved by the Council. The grant was dependent on community involvement. The project duration was 3-5 years. Donlin asked if the posts were available. Asleson responded some of the plants were three::- inches;, in diameter, and would be treated with chemicals. The branches wou'ld::.then be chipped. Roundup would be used on the stumps. Donlu stated the City of North Oaks had Buckthorn pullers available to rent at city ha1lssl a recommended they be available through the City. r. ry B. Minnesota DNR/ Wildland Interface — This item was tabled to the April 24, 2001 meeting. 11 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MARCH 28, 2001 C. Solid Waste/ Recycling Updates — This item was tabled to the April 24, 2001 meeting. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Open Space Conservation Ordinance - Kukonen stated that conversation needs to begin on the open space conservation ordinance. Chair Lanyon inquired whether other staff members were notified concerning the work on the ordinance. Asleson indicated they were not, but assured the Board he would distribute copies of the other cities' ordinances to them. B. Land use Planning Workshop — This item was tabled to the April 24, 2001 meeting. C. Environmental Board activities for Earth Day — This item was tabled to the April 24, 2001 meeting. D. Wood Duck Boxes — This item was tabled to the April 24, 2001113.eetng. CLOSE MEETING AND CONFIRM NEXT MEETING DATE It was noted that the next meeting of the Environmental Board will_i a on -April 24, 2001. There being no further business, Chair Lanyon moved to 'a.djourn yat, 17 p.m. Grundhofer seconded the motion. Motion carriedAunanimOusly. ' Transcribed by: Brigette Blesi TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 12 City of Lino Lakes Environmental Board Meeting Lino Lakes City Hall March 28, 2001 6:30 PM Agenda 1. Call To Order/Pass Sign -In Sheet 6:30 PM 2. Approval of Minutes 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Citizen Comments 5. Project Review A. Update Review: Ryan/Target ( 6:35-6:40 )/ Brian Wessel B. Subdivision Application/Spirit Hills (6:40-7:00) 6. Environmental Board Business A. Draft Comprehensive Plan Review (7:00 — 8:00) B. Environmental Board Goals 2001 (8:00-8:30 ) C. Board Member Information Responsibilities (8:30-8:40) D. Other 7. Program/Project Updates ( 8:40-8:45 ) A. Conservation Partners Grant B. Minnesota DNR/Wildland Interface. C. Solid Waste/Recycling Updates. 8. Close Meeting and Confirm Next Meeting Date