HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/18/2001 Environmental Board MinutesENVIRONMENTAL 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 Companies/Marketplace
project — Grochala reviewed the background of :41eproject timeline and the rationale for
the Environmental Assessment Worksheet. ,The WOik§lje§t was not an approval process,
but a means of identifying issues on the i0Paetaf;9, 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 11, 2001, a*she,gify had 30 days to act. Comments were
received from the Minnesota NIuticiii Control Agency, Minnesota Department of
Transportation, the Minnesota Ilfsto,fiallSodiety, and the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources. There were fo4`*:etois-ihat,evaluated significant environmental effect:
• The extent and reversibility of theenvironmental effect.
• The cumulativeNtential -effects of future projects, according to a defined area and time
frame.,41,'”
41,
• The extent the project was subject to mitigation by a public regulatory authority, and
the rationale for notrequiring an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
• The extentrilenyironmental effects could be controlled.
Grochala exfilainect;that 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.
1
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.
3y1aj 3n
Grundhofer inquired if they decided on a model. Asleson responded,5that a design was
being considered for Spirit Hills, and a similar one would applyaere.
Grochala stated requirements could be made as conditions for approval. The islands in the
parking lot for vegetation were being plannedor„-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 maintaind.
Grochala commented on issues outside regulatory control which would be written up in an
operation and maintenance nreei iptif arid:;discuss how the costs would be split. He
indicated that best management practices would be recommended to reduce phosphorus
loading. Asleson noted the Watershed District may require them.
Kukonen questioned ifthe green islands would be basins with curbs around them. Asleson
pointed out the islands at City Hall were supposed to be basins.
Grochala explained`rthat=there was a risk of backing up in the spring. Maplewood had
basins, which f lledfp 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
2
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. ..
Fy
Kukonen noted 1,747 parking spaces in the plan, and inquired'ifthey lost any. Grochala
stated he did not recall the exact number, but it was,. reduced.
Grundhofer asked where the soil would go' after wit 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 fron#5the Minnesota Depaitwent of Natural Resources
concerning parking in the southeast where Wetland A was located. Grochala stated that
they had brought the numb&of parking spaces down to the minimum the City would
allow.
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.
.•�.. 1.
Chair Lanyon noted;that it was another example of a statement made which could be
precedent setting. 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 charigii'i--He continued
7.,.
that most of the water would go through the infiltration ponds.
,,5,,,,,,:-
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 ahosen for a'ghopping center.
Previously, there had been at least twelve plans, but no one was interested.
71,0,t4r,
Chair Lanyon mentioned on p. 6 at the top-fli8reqs 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 ov,eat the.refer:95s9ii p. 7 discussing filling the wetland.
Grundhofer asked about stusiiestir.,rat6itti6iis 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*.thereNvas an agreement in effect where adjacent land could be accepted
,k ,,-
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 Board to
move forward with the topic of water volumes of the lakes.,--
Grochala
akes.,: Grochala stated that they needed to work with zoning. issues
Lanyon indicated that water volumes wo cl have an im act, but the extent would be
p
unquantifiable. Asleson agreed that it would have an impact by destroying the upland and
Chair
adjusting hydrology.
Chair Lanyon suggested that the Board Might want: to choose option #1 the resolution of a
negative declaration, and no need dor an Environmental Impact Statement pending approval
by the Rice Creek Watershed I:)istrict 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'ipm:
Chair Lanyon summarized the comments for Trehus.
Trehus pointedout 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 9f-inscreased runoff volumes and
water quality to the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Preserve, wetlands and Lakes. This
analysis should include computer modeling. The Metropolitan`ouncil has determined this
must be done prior to a negative declaration. Water. volumes should be reduced to
predevelopment conditions. Grundhofer seconded theMotion for the purpose of
discussion.
+i1ti�
Grundhofer asked who would be payinglor it, anda could the Council require it.
Trehus indicated that three agencies stated concerns with the proposed project. He pointed
out the Metropolitan Council stated that= the:`'•runoff volumes should stay at predevelopment
JAS -'S,
levels. Asleson mentioned' that; it wasnot a real expensive venture for the developer. x,�''Y fir.
Trehus explained that`they`would need to discuss the impacts, not just a number for water
volumes, but whatnumber going to do to George Watch Lake.
Chair Lanyon=Wstated that the concern was who would be doing the analysis. Trehus
responded tttieatershed District could do it.
-�. fey.
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 hot 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;be"doi °e, the elevation would not change
significantly.
Asleson indicated a build out of thewhole town would 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 questionwhy' 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 notedthat 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
seconded the motion to amend.
ror.;to a declaration." O'Connell
Chair Lanyon explained that he voted against the=first :motion because it would not say why
or where it was going. k'4 v
r4 :.
Grunhofer stated that there were many on the Council who did not understand the
importance of it. ``
Kukonen noted that a meeting{was planned with the City Council and the Board was going
to raise the issue as a goal ;;.J,
Trehus withdrew the motion,;;wvi.th theinderstanding that it be put on the agenda for the
next meeting.
•�z�,t �r
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.
��r1,SoL• ��'
CLOSE MEETING4'ANDi 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
City of Lino Lakes
Environmental Board Meeting
Lino Lakes City Hall
July 25, 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/(6:45-7:00)
6. Environmental Board Business (7:00-8:30)
A. Comprehensive Plan Update
B. Environmental Board Goals 2001
C. Xcel Energy/Tree Trust/ "Trade A Tree" Program.
D. Special Council Meeting with the City Council/Environmental Board
E. Resignation/Dave Mach
F. Surface Water Management Plan
G. Build -Out Study Discussion
7. Program/Project Updates (8:30)
A. Grant Updates/Minnesota DNR Urban Interface
B. Solid Waste/Recycling Updates.
C. Spirit Hills Update/O&M Plan
8. Close Meeting and Confirm Next Meeting Date