Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/24/2001 Environmental Board MinutesENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT CITY OF LINO LAKES MINUTES OCTOBER 24, 2001 : October 24, 2001 : 6:32 P.M. : 8:25 P.M. : Amy Donlin, Constance Grunhofer, Rod Kukonen, Theresa O'Connell, and Mike Trehus. : None. Staff members present: Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson, Conpumty Development da Gretz. Plc? Director Michael Grochala, City Engineer John Powell and Associate POlifiVK CALL TO ORDER Chair Kukonen presided and called the meeting to order at 6:3* APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. September 26, 2001 tty -et 47, Grundhofer moved to postpone approval of the *item 16, 2001 meeting minutes. O'Connell seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimcusr APPROVAL OF AGENDA t3P 417P" The following items were added to t ttxticp agenda: • Discuss stipend under Enviromifent ard Business 7D. • Discuss open Board er .0.ionmental Board Business 7E. • Discuss buckthorn gran '1u. aie under Environmental Board Business 7Cg. The agenda was aie 44g? 1 s=amended above. CITIZEN COMMES vop No citizen comments were made. PROJECT REVIEW A. Shirley Kays/Lighting — Gretz reviewed the background of the site and noted that it was located on Rice Lake and classified as a Natural Environment Lake under the Shoreland Ordinance. The Police Department and residents had expressed concern over the lack of 1 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 24, 2001 lighting in the parking lot. An addition was granted approval in October 1999 with no proposed lighting. Recommendations from the Board were requested. Trehus inquired about the lighting on site. Gretz responded that there had never been any lighting in the parking lot area, nor was there at present. The parking lot had been recently resurfaced, it was considered a Natural Environment Lake, and was covered by the Shoreland Ordinance. Donlin stated that she did not recommend lighting, but if deemed necessary, low impact recessed lighting similar to those at the Wargo Nature Center v44 satisfy both needs. •Alrg••9 Grundhofer indicated that the snowmobiling clients in the backbft1e 1 want may need lighting and suggested lighting toward the building, not ot9wa41e lake. In addition, she inquired about lowering the posts to a height of 12`''' Afit't Grochala noted the standard recommendation of shoebq1ig1fi added the minimum number of posts should be used. as applicable. Trehus Gretz stated that she and other city staff had receive c 'Ls concerning safety issues in relation to the lighting. Chair Kukonen inquired about a lighting site review. AtIA.A1 O'Connell questioned if a recomme dAon could be made on the distance the lighting could be from the lake. Gretz onF general buffers were required. Gretz answered that it was part of a Grundhofer inquired about Gretz responded that the par Chair Kukonen state be adapted to the v surface. of the back of the parking lot from the lake. was 35 or more feet for the parking lot. alrAphad their variance, and the standards should not hala added that the lighting should be kept at the paved O'Connei1qiitioncdifthe oard could recommend a distance from the end of the - 4 • paved surface.nlm added she would like to see the posts closer in from the end of the paved surfacnd lo have the lights focused inward. Grochala stated that lights could be mounted on the building, or the lighting could be confined using a deflector. O'Connell explained that due to her work in the restaurant industry, she believes that there would be resistance to directing the lighting toward the building because it would shine in the customers' eyes and obstruct the view. Grochala responded that they would try to minimi7e the lighting, balancing it with the public safety issue. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 24, 2001 Chair Kukonen inquired if the lighting would be of the island pole type. Grundhofer asked if the pole could be low, for instance no higher than 12 feet. Chair Kukonen questioned if the poles were to cover the area from the building to the end of the parking lot. Grochala responded that they would recommend pedestal lights and probably mount the light on that. Chair Kukonen urged that the pedestal lighting needed to accommodate minimal spillage. Grundhofer made a motion to recommend: • Pedestal lighting • low -impact • Recessed and down-facing • No spillage past the parking lot edge Donlin seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimous ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD BUSINESS $4, A. Joint Meeting /City Council .- Asleson stated"goad took place at the meeting. Chair Kukonen agreed and pointed outltifas a move in the right direction to pursue conservation development. Grochala indicated that he was encourage- scussion, and believed it would be beneficial to have at least one jointAetinglawtar. NEMO will be another time for the Boards and Council to come together4gain. He suggested planning workshops in land use to gain a common basis of Imwletggor all to work from. :47$, Chair Kukonen noted that httad participated in three GTS workshops this year, and 98% JOY of the information was beneiicial. however it lacked in the applications. Grochala indicated if they organii,e e wol; slop, it could be tailored to the needs of the City. 4-1335..s. Ark s%`,11Y1 Chair Kukonen indr'k e workshops he had attended were also helpful in networking with otheNli'Ctt tes and out what worked and what did not. B. "V.5;13 Surface waler M aiiigcmentPJan Discussion — Powell distributed an outline to guide the discussion. explained that there were three parts to the plan. The policy document described details used to guide plan reviewals. The second part was the user's manual and had .facility design definitions, in addition to studies and inventories. The third section was a reference document. Powell pointed out that the policy section guided everything and was written in 1994 costing the City 200,000-250,000 dollars. A new effort was being made to bring the plan into compliance with the Rice Creek Watershed District second generation plan and the VLAWMO. It was noted that January 31 was the deadline to deal with the inconsistencies. Donlin expressed concern that the Surface Water Management fees were waived for Target. 3 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING 'OCTOBER 24, 2001 Trehus added that the decision to waive the fees for Target was in conflict with the policies, fee schedules, and wetland mitigation of the City. Asleson stated that there were inconsistencies with the Handbook initially upgrading to the rules. Donlin inquired about how stringent the Plan would be. Powell answered that the City rules were generally more strict than the Watershed District's, adding that there were seven levels to Surface Water Management and typically half the charges were credited. Trehus stated that in project reviews the Board assumes that th ,elopers comply with the watershed districts, but now it seemed that the City would bejetgozemingauthority for wetland conservation permitting. Powell answered that theiggit'lledtdistrict typically did the permitting, although the City could have jurisgie if:A:lose to, but the City never desired the responsibility because it put toon-pclim01. on the elected officials. Asleson stated that the watershed districts were the ultimate responsibility concerning the level of envir that the watershed district had the general review administer it. They are to refer to the latest eg---f Trehus inquired about the reason the Cit y4Itedearp!urface Water Management Plan. Powell answered that it was one compnf th0fArhole in addition to rate control, vobimes, education, and standards for Trehus questioned whether ther,0, for both the City and the watershed district ,:twe a. • IN f, but the City had the ent qaality. Powell clarified lty, and had a legal obligation to consistency. vtir, to cover the topic. Powell re oll uboth, but they needed to be consistent. Asleson stated that the Surl`a.- 0rOanagement Plan was the most important of the documents concernin t1W0 nt, conservation, and development. kff Trehus stated the Boardn told up until recently that the Board did not need to deal with it,“ but that thtrshed district would address the issues. Powell explained that the Gily vs Theiisc; and sioes deal with it in the areas of facility design, easements, Act47.,.i hydrology;Wo's Ort r u tof from the catch basins through the sewer system to the pond, and c •itches and ponds annually. Grundhofer contented on a discussion with a resident where the land was fully landscaped but tre watershed district stated that they needed a wall, not a slope in the yard. The Army Corps of Engineers said there were too many houses in the area. She lamented that there was conflicting information given to the resident, and inquired about to whom the residents should answer. Powell answered the Army Corps of Engineers had overstepped their bounds, that they dealt with wetland delineation or the boundaries of the wetlands. He continued that wetland delineation was as much an art as a science. Typically the City used a committee process and received three or four opinions looking 4 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 24, 2001 at the vegetation. Powell explained that the property owner needed updated information. Many times the resident did not know what they were purchasing in terms of easements. Grundhofer questioned where education would come into effect. Powell responded that signage on the property stating the area was a wetland easement, or development a packet of information which could be given to new homeowners, or it could be put into the building permit process. Asleson indicated it was done at Clearwater Creek with the buffer area that was signed by the residents and since then has received calls on planting requiaMqnts because it was difficult to mow. It should be expanded to new developments. 'Cli:Alukonen added that the City worked with Mr. Quigley on the signage. Trehus pointed out that it may be helpful for follow throu o rcquirc,:aisigned document showing that they received the information. Powell indipitOalthoughit would increase bureaucracy, it would ensure that they did revik,yQiuration. Asleson stated that the demonstration areas were a gOOAwafto"educate and maybe have a brochure available—but to get the residents ints491y, 440 Trehus asked about water volumes, and indif4d4hat the City should go above and beyond what the watershed district was rorigirintlowell responded that the requirements for volumes are focusedAnkle)con41. He noted that the City did not have enough information gathered on the cVec `iji4Stof the tubes, specifically the maintenance was an issue. Asleson stated that in promoting st ractices the City has gone beyond, especially in getting the landowner to receive hOlin establishing it for the -first two to three years. Trehus pointed out that in 'additionci'e fact that native plantings increase diversity it qpi ••,-• - also increases iafiltratio ,., Powell indicated that 'makes money when it sells water, however infiltration might havg,unexpecte f11 4f! v uences. If it was near to a septic system, it might affect the -,•-,,t,,-,. septic sysir ' effectivcness10ere the water table was high. He encourages infiltration, -. -C:ff4,y and noted4lia bel eex was one of the more aggressive watershed districts. C4t- Grundhofer s she read about ditch runoff and tiles, and inquired about the difference between pipingd overland flow. She asked what was the best management practice to allow infiltration'. Powell responded that the piping speeds up the time it took for the water to reach the sewers, so he would encourage shallow ditches. In the past, farmland ditch laws established in the late 1800's to early 1900's encouraged the draining of the ditches with tiles to move the water as quickly as possible. The goal now is to increase infiltration. Hugo was an example of wetlands being created upstream, but now reduced use of pipe drain the wetlands which were created. 5 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 24, 2001 Asleson pointed out that the two laws were in conflict and would probably be decided in the courts. Chair Kukonen inquired about the length of time necessary until it would be deemed successful in Bluebill Ponds. Powell answered that in two to three years it would be known if the infiltration areas were working. Asleson stated the NURP ponds were not filling as expected, so it might be concluded that the tubes must work. Chair Kukonen questioned if the ponds were retention or detentin"l-V ei ds. Powell , responded detention ponds. He stated that the City was succesi , owing the .4fiilk, roadways from 32 feet across to 28 feet of impervious, but indip ,.ed thatiVwould be a step backward if sidewalks were required. At present, the Surface WateiManagement Plan needed to update the objectives and coordinate theils, i thcm, plug in new studies, update maps, update lower erosion requirements need to be compliant by 2002, and education which is the biggest issue m easements ap st new city web sites. tiffe- gki.t. Asleson mentioned that Scott Lanyon had a liiftthaBell Museum on creating natural areas, which could be linked with the City -Wells* Powell stated that they all Would be changed in the updating of City ,cbde 4Ind would need to be coordinated. Donlin wanted to know if communityx Powell answered in light of conserva be but probably elsewhere. C. Program Updates d se P system was addressed in the Plan. wet, ment and community wetlands, it would a. Wildland Urban ifiCt; )—Asleson stated that it had been completed, and an ltd* attempt was mo,11,0,,,apr9a�hkthe municipalities in a non -regulatory manner. The DNR wi1 be FdfigitinM-findings to the City by the end of the year. They also need tok:oinpletaborts for the U.S. Forestry Service. The inventory portion of the Fire RisL :tgment had been completed. 6 t , Tre ....,..„, iis m me F oil , e requirements of the City. Asleson stated that the City subi,rhtt grant proposal in which the City was selected for the Greenway --- Grant. Chair Kukonen posed the question if any more work had been done on the site behind the grade school. Asleson responded that he would inquire about it. b. NEMO — Asleson indicated that the Met Council would be sponsoring with the underwriting by private sponsors a local branch called Northstar NEMO. He stated that it was an excellent way to address education and to expand it to the education of residents. Lino Lakes was selected as a demonstration example. Grochala and Asleson would be meeting with representatives of NEMO and 6 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 24, 2001 ultimately bringing the Boards and Council together. G.I.S. was used. It could bring the Boards and Council to a common understanding of water relating to conservation and development. Chair Kukonen asked if it would be similar to the other workshops. Asleson answered that it was different because it was less technical. He had seen presentations by the National NEMO and local NEMO and they use before and after scenarios and very few graphs, so that the issues could be visualized. c. Clearwater Creek Management Plan — Asleson repored that the brochures were finished and he was in the process of obtaining an iipdatc.. He assured the Board that he would be persistent in follow-up. He spole9,41 erman resident who stated that the clustering and landscaping reminded,'fier of Germany, so the response was fairly positive. d. Osprey Pole — Asleson noted the son of the Max% Scout project was going to implement an ospfey' of City Hall near Marshan Lake. 1311 tgi;?4 / erville for his Eagle trd bvember 2, 2001 south • Donlin inquired about the site if it was 'W'Ob el son answered that it was open but there were perching trees nearby';.Tand five to six acres of open field. Donlin asked about the height bf 32 feet high. sleson responded that the pole was Donlin questioned if there, wabasket or a place to attach a 2x6 or stick onto the nesting platform for the.young,;to practice flying. Grundhofer inquire '; did they build p 194-4 previous nest 'ether the nests blow off and start over each year, or 9 t. Donlin replied that the birds prefer to build upon €sro 'ated the plantings were finished. Because the plough had e wbr n oak wilt would probably be postponed until the spring. ees in Glen View and Sunrise Park were looking nice. Donlili#quired about the Oak Tree near the Kohler Farm that she estimated was 150 yearPld. The soil around the tree had been graded up to the tree trunk and gravel luta. Orange fences not far away had protected other trees, and she expressed concern that the tree would probably not survive. f. Solid Waste Recycling — Asleson reported that the Recycling Day had been a success, and had generated funds for the City. g. Buckthorn Grant — Asleson stated that 1,500 dollars was awarded to the City for the removal of Buckthorn. He was going to speak with residents, because 7 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 24, 2001 residents were needed to do the work and to motivate others. He described Gerry Vitzthum's experience how he had removed buckthorn form his land and motivated neighbors to do likewise. As a result there was a higher level of biodiversity and opened up viewsheds. The scope of the project would need to be reduced to public education because the grant will not cover the work. Donlin questioned whether it was necessary to dig the entire plant up. She expressed concern over the toxins in the pesticides used to eradicate the plants. Asleson answered there was a paint -on mixture which was easily made, and that the City could obtain the recipe for it. Grundhofer stated that there was a way to ensure the sttj wa. metal can and checking for new growth. She also inquiiv'e abo attending crime watch neighborhood meetings and address kad using a e possibility of topic there. Donlin asked if there was a possibility to use prisonee.is move the buckthorn. kro Asleson explained that it was problematic beaausf 1i re was a lot of training ArW involved with chainsaws and techniques, an Sr they would receive training then would choose to work on aathe o He suggested that it would be better to coordinate with neighborhood'andCcr -ws in addition to developing a brochure. Grundhofer indicated that scout '®ps migi want to remove the buckthorn as a community project. D. Stipend — Chair Kukonen inquired calendar year. O'Connell and= E. Open Board Positions — Sia: for and filling the two otton4+ stipend was given quarterly in the fiscal or en noted discrepancies. d that the City was in the process of advertising en by the resignations of Mach and Lanyon. CLOSE MEETING Anr.MCONFT NEXT MEETING DATE It was noted that npetin Mlle Environmental Board will be on November 28, 2001. L4bze: There being no n li siness, Trehus moved to adjourn at 8:25 p.m. Donlin seconded the motion. Motion carrtd .unanimously. Transcribed by: Brigette Blesi TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 8 City of Lino Lakes Environmental Board Meeting Lino Lakes City Hall October 24, 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 6. Project Updates/No New Formal Applications A. Shirley Kays/Lighting 7. Environmental Board Business A. Joint Meeting/City Council B. Surface Water Management Plan Discussion C. Program Updates a. Wildland Urban Interface b. Nemo c. Clearwater Creek Management Plan d. Osprey Pole e. Forestry f. Solid waste recycling 9. Close Meeting and Confirm Next Meeting Date