HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/27/2001 Environmental Board MinutesENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 27, 2001
CITY OF LINO LAKES
MINUTES
DATE June 27,2001
TIME STARTED : 6:34 P.M.
TIME ENDED : 9:41 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT : Amy Donlin, Constance Grundhofer, Rod
Kukonen, Chair Scott Lanyon, Theresa
O'Connell, and Mike Trehus.
MEMBERS ABSENT Dave Mach.
Staff members present: Environmental Coordinator Marty Asieson, 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: le
"Kukonen pointed out that� spoke"with Elk River, and had a
copy -: ; - - ordinance of North Branch `a.1kver, but that it
needed to be reviewed. z,,,,,..
YY: 1.
Ykf,
Page 11, third paragraph: "
agreed to appoint Trehus to the position:"'
t�Y�
Kukonen moved to approve the May 3.,0 2001 meeting minutes as amended above.
Grundhofer seconded the motion`Motiot carried' unanimously.
... p4 ass ; wl
The Board unanimously
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
r_s,
The following items were added,to ,tle meeting agenda:
• Discuss Pond ontaminationtunder updates.
• Discuss resolutionunder Draft Comprehensive Plan.
The agenda was appro' ed as "amended above.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
No citizen comments were made.
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: ''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 Enviroiunenta1Assessinent Worksheet
itself. Wessel submitted that it would go to Council 'n July 3, 20,04.
Trehus inquired about a newspaper article that"cited tat abatement for the project.
'ga hree- uarters of a million with
Wessel stated through the public participation projee�'Af�� q
options to pay for tax abatement, and oply tl'e,l ty's portion would be deferred.
tin
Donlin noted it is $450,000 of tax abatement yearly for 15 years. She asked if tax
increment was involved. Wessel respoilOd.:;thatkhe developer has requested a subsidy
because the market was prernlure,:and explained that the developer, Ryan Companies
was seeking tax abatementfrom the beg nr ing one year ago.
Trehus reviewed that th e,.impact othis development necessitated wetland abatement, and
asked if the situation had changed according to the Environmental Assessment
Worksheet. 14,Payton answered questions asked about previous activity in the area.
According to the photographs taken prior to the construction of Interstate 35W,
showed the highway impacted the tamarack forest that was present at the time.
+eat 02'.:.4
Trehus noted^` he`rites had been maintained, but the impact from the volumes remained
unknown. -He urged an analysis be performed. Mr. Payton explained the stormwater
T�. d
runoff rates arid 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.
argil ,treatment were
Asleson explained all responsibility for the impact should not be placed ori 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 andstudies were still pending, and the Board did not
know what the Watershed I)istrict`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:nee$ded 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 iVlr '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.
3
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.lhe project for two
months. Wessel responded that the most recent updates had een shown to the Board.
Mr. Payton explained that he had been meeting tth the Ryan representatives, and they
had commitments from a bank and the adjacent sto"res� Grochala noted he had been
working on open space, pedestrian traff c; s gr age, lighting, power, and impacts on
adjacent properties.
Aid
Trehus asked if it would be possibII leto'li dsign signage which could be used as a model.
.24 Donlin expressed concern thatthel'ewf enants might not be aware of the concerns of the
Environmental Board.,: Aestetically speaking, the beauty and vegetation needed to be
tJc �. i'..c; wrt
brought together. She'inquired withax abatements, could the representatives of the
project assure thesB+oardthat. the recommendations on vegetation would be followed
through. ,
3
c
i.� -t. f�7
Wessel indicated tha#;there were no ordinances to dictate, but assured the Board that
these issiie'saWre beini negotiated, and that Ryan had made a commitment to reflect the
character of tl e C1ty.
tir,
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 coineanto the process. Asleson
answered that they would be contacted if a wetland were built over a certain number of
feet.{:......._ ,
f
O'Connell added if the project is 5,00Q+sq. ft. o less the Watershed District did not have
to be contacted. kr.5
Grochala stated that the request wasfor a variance, so the recommendation could be
denial if the project impacted a:wetland.
rya F
'f it
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 ordinanceTequired accessory buildings to be located no closer to the front
propertyline than theiprinciple 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 — Asieson stated the application had been `withdrawn.
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD BUSINESS
Ab
A. Draft Comprehensive Plan — Grochala stated:hheCity Council had adopted the
Comprehensive Plan, which the City had been workington for several years. He believed
the Plan was a unique work that wouldlbe a dcument that staff could work with. It had
set goals for total population and housing units..:'here were still several issues that
would need to be dealt with as part of the implementation of the plan.
Grochala commented that thecounccl has reviewed the Environment Boards goals and
tabled discussion until the next councils eeting with the intent of having a board
representative presentl 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 friferactilin with other boards
m41 Tei
viky
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 inquiresl•a'bout.ethmechanism to keep the cap at 147 units/year.
ref-Grochala painted 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.
i'•
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 separationof MUSA and non-MUSA. Grochala
responded that the cost effectiveress.of extending utilities to certain areas may provide
for the limitation of growth in certain areas, and could encourage clustering and setting
aside open spaces
&'
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. Grochalaanswered 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`Y:,
Chair Lanyon indicated that agenda items A, B, and E.�ireld so}he asked Grochala what
his goals were. Grochala explained his goal was to.:involve;,the Environmental Board in
defining roles, so that recommendations would be accepted ani„passed on. He admitted
that there would be times when he and the Board4
woul4. conflict.
01424,
Chair Lanyon stated that the Environmen :It— lard would be more helpful to the City if it
could be more proactive than reactiveu Grochalaexplained that some of the frustration
�h •S.
with being reactive is the development process itself.
s-'timj�Y, C ui Edi
Chair Lanyon pointed out if i. was•*in need of help, the Board would like to offer
support. On the side of the, Eriviror me ital,Board, it would be gratifying to know if the
•y,r.,
Board made a difference.'
Grochala stated th&deacid'es that limit the influence of the Board may be the meeting
nl �,_ ”; •Rta
time, and a change irthe meeting time might be considered.
Chair Lanyon sugge§ted,that there needed to be a set of procedures developed, so those
mutuallybenecial situations could be created.
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.
8
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 secondweek in August
because the Watershed District is meeting on July 25, 2001. The Council meets on the
13th and the 23`d for the Environmental Audit Worksheet .J` , a
Chair Lanyon noted the Board would meet on;'toth July 18, 2001 and July 25, 2001.
B. Environmental Board Goals 2001— This rtexn ;was discussed as part of Environmental
Board Business A.
tqcy f.,
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.
9
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 ascout troop,to put up an osprey nest in
'4' Y
August or September. ' -' 4,
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 `amainterance 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 thel'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
City of Lino Lakes
Environmental Board Meeting
Lino Lakes City Hall
June 27, 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. Project Review
A. Ryan/Target/Target Super Store/ Update/Brian Wessel (6:45-6:55)
B. 8075 20th Ave N. (6:55-7:10)
C. Pinnacle Towers Update (7:10-7:15)
6. Environmental Board Business
A. Draft Comprehensive Plan (7:15-7:30)
B. Environmental Board Goals 2001 (7:30-7:45)
C. EAW Comments/Target/Ryan (7:45-8:00)
D. Shade Tree Ordinance/Tree Preservation/Discussion (8:00-8:15)
E. Introduction/Michael Grochala/New Community Development
Director(8:15-8:20)
7. Program/Project Updates (8:20)
A. Grant Updates/Minnesota DNR Urban Interface
B. Solid Waste/Recycling Updates
D. Other Discussion Items
8. Close Meeting and Confirm Next Meeting Date