Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/09/2003 Environmental Board MinutesENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETINGJULY 9, 2003 1 APPROVED MINUTES CITY OF LINO LAKES SPECIAL MEETING APPROVED MINUTES DATE: July 9, 2003 TIME STARTED: 6:12 P.M. TIME ENDED: 8:22 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Constance Grundhofer, Rod Kukonen, Teresa O’Connell, and Mary Jo O’Dea MEMBERS ABSENT: Amy Donlin, Patrice Toler Halen, and Nikki Schneider STAFF PRESENT:Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson and Community Development Director Michael Grochala 1.CALL TO ORDER Chair Kukonen called the meeting to order at 6:12 p.m. 2.APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3.OPEN MIKE No citizen comments were made. 4.ACTION ITEMS A. Lakes Business Park EAW Review Grochala summarized the purpose of the meeting. It was to review the EAW’s of two projects, the Lakes Business Park and that of the Legacy at Woods Edge or the Village projects. He indicated the locations of the projects and the fact that they had reached the mandatory requirement for a third class city of 300,000 square feet. The outlots were conceptual, while a commitment had been made by Panettoni for 260,000 square feet. He introduced Bob Moberg, Project Manager and Chris Hiniker who prepared the EAW document both from SEH. Mr. Moberg indicated there was one buyer, but the other portions were still in the concept stage and were denoted as outlots. There were existing wetlands on and near the site, that they did not want to negatively impact. They were in compliance with parking and Light Industrial ordinances. He reminded the Board that the landowner was not obligated to follow through with the City’s guidelines as a result of the EAW reviewal, but they did not want to have another EAW later. The next step would be to begin the Preliminary Plat process. The goal of the reviewal was to establish a baseline to measure progress on the project. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETINGJULY 9, 2003 2 APPROVED MINUTES Grochala stated that by the end of July a preliminary plat would be submitted. Mr. Moberg continued that Panettoni would like to break ground in October. A 50-foot easement was called for on the creek or the official name Anoka County ditch #10. There was a swale or ditch leading to the creek that would disappear and be rerouted around the building on the Northeast side. Grundhofer inquired about the distance from the creek to the building. Mr. Moberg responded the closest was 75 feet, in addition all the vegetation would be preserved around the creek. A southbound right turn lane would need to be added. Grundhofer questioned if two lanes would be provided for people going home onto Lake Drive. Mr. Moberg answered that there was no definite answer, but there would be no problems with it. The issue would be dealt with in the Planning and Zoning Board. He did not believe traffic would be impacted with the first site. All the proposals thus far had been in accordance with the zoning laws and no conditional use were required. Some consultant work had been for Phase I showing nothing significant beyond building materials. An archeological consultant has information requested and pending. He admitted that it was still a work in progress. Mr. Hiniker reiterated that the groundbreaking was scheduled to take place in October, but that it had to meet the deadlines. If the EAW was favorable, it would go to Council, then to the publisher by July 21, 2003. The 30-day review process would follow, with the Council deciding if more studies would be required in October. O’Dea inquired the direction of the flow of the creek. Mr. Moberg responded it was west to east and on to Marshan Lake. Chair Kukonen questioned if there were plans for buffering for noise and light pollution. Asleson referred to the Environmental Assessment information and language and noted that the conditions were not present for any rare species except possibly some tuber orchids. Mr. Moberg stated the entire site was a Lake Protection Zone, so surface water diversion was a concern. Asleson added the surface water on site would go to treatment ponds. Chair Kukonen inquired if the water would end up in Marshan Lake. Mr. Moberg referred to Figure 4 Landcover Map shown in dark blue, that with the rerouting, it could go into two ponds before the creek and ultimately into Marshan Lake. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETINGJULY 9, 2003 3 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Kukonen stated his concern was to not add additional water to Marshan Lake. Asleson responded that Marshan was classified a TMDL and that they did not want additional loading into the lake. O’Connell indicated the third paragraph appeared to give conflicting information. It begins by stating that the runoff would increase, followed by the creek would not increase. She suggested adding a “but” in between the sentences to clarify. Mr. Moberg referred to page 13, second sentence should be clarified to read, “To address the increased rate and volume the developer will incorporate storm water controls.” Chair Kukonen inquired about the developer’s willingness to address the issues properly. Mr. Moberg responded they would have to satisfy the requirements in the permitting process. Asleson indicated that the Board could ask for a Phosphorus Analysis. O’Dea indicated on page 11, #12, the new storm sewer with discharge into the county ditch, but that was not what he stated before. Mr. Moberg answered he would reword that section, so it would state discharging internally. O’Dea referred to page 9, #10, inquiring if wooded forests were actually going to increase from 1.5 to 2.3. Mr. Moberg responded that the amount of land had not increased. Chair Kukonen pointed out that there was no explanation for the changes in landcover totals, but commented that the amount of impervious proposed for the outlots appeared good. Grundhofer inquired about the land’s classification if the ditch was removed. Mr. Moberg answered that it was upland, and merely an overflow for the ditch. Asleson added that the ditch was put in to increase the farmland. Grundhofer asked for clarification if it was a site of an original creek. Mr. Moberg stated that since MNDOT put in Interstate 35W there had not been any change. O’Dea inquired if the reports from the archeological consultant and DNR response would be available by July 14, 2003 when Council had its meeting. Mr. Moberg answered the archeological would not be available, but that he was unsure about the DNR. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETINGJULY 9, 2003 4 APPROVED MINUTES Asleson mentioned he requested Mr. Huvseth to fax some comments over even if the report would not be ready. Mr. Moberg added that by publication, it would be included because it was a part of the process. Chair Kukonen referred to page 13 under Water Quality #17, last paragraph the phrase following the development of proposed site. He inquired how could it be determined if Marshan Lake was exceeding daily loads. Mr. Moberg answered that it could be analyzed predevelopment, but “wait and see” if Rice Creek or the DNR would request them to do analysis. They would then have to respond. Chair Kukonen inquired if it would have to be completed during the 30-day period. Mr. Moberg responded that all comments needed to be adequately addressed, then the City had unlimited time to respond. Mr. Hiniker stated the response would be “we agree,” “we disagree,” or “we agree but address these items before permits are issued.” Asleson added that because the City was the LGU it could request further studies. He mentioned that Marshan Lake was a filtration wetland and not a recreational lake. Mr. Moberg indicated the goal was water quality protection, and the two aspects of protecting all the water, or a major one downstream. His focus was to look at the whole chain. Mr. Hiniker clarified the 30-day comment and EIS requirement. There was five days for the City to respond after the 30-day review period had expired, but could be extended. This was to protect the developer legally. Asleson stated the environmental threshold would never be exceeded, because it was physically impossible to get a reading on them. The phosphorus had been exceeded for 1,000 years and the deepest secchi disk readings ranged from 1.5-2 feet. O’Dea inquired if a subsequent assessment had been done in reference to page 18, #25. Mr. Moberg indicated that they were waiting for feedback from a preliminary assessment. Chair Kukonen asked for comments on page 19, #26 referring to improve landscaping. Mr. Hiniker answered that it was subjective, but visually determined. He requested assistance with the wording. Asleson suggested it could state “the site will go to light industrial vision.” Mr. Moberg indicated that if the preferred vision was latent farmland, any cultivated landscaping would be not an improvement. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETINGJULY 9, 2003 5 APPROVED MINUTES Asleson mentioned that anything that would draw the eye away from the prison would be an improvement. People have the idea that Lino Lakes is where bad people go. Mr. Hiniker assured the Board the site would be developed in accordance with the City. Mr. Moberg did not envision a large building, but agreed it was a highly subjective question but required a response. Asleson stated that it would tie in visually with the schools, and would draw the eye to them. Chair Kukonen noted he saw the site as an affected resident would. Grundhofer indicated on page 9, #11, the last paragraph, “The park contains some of the most significant native wildlife habitat in the metropolitan area.” She questioned if it meant that piece of land, or the area. She mentioned that she had seen swans there. Mr. Moberg answered he wanted to acknowledge the proximity to Rice Creek Regional Park, but the site had no significant wildlife areas. O’Connell mentioned that it might help with the number of deer accidents on the freeway. Grundhofer inquired about the dewatering of the sewer system location in reference to page 12, second paragraph. Mr. Moberg stated he was unsure, they were expecting some, but if more than a certain level a permit was required. Grundhofer questioned if the area would be dewatered forever. Mr. Moberg responded that groundwater movement happened over long periods of time, and dewatering moved a lot of water in sand. Part of the process was soil borings and to establish the groundwater elevations for building foundations. It would need to be discharged on site. Chair Kukonen called for a motion. O’Dea made a motion to pass on questions and comments to Council. O’Connell seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Moberg directed Mr. Hiniker to add the MLCCS map to the EAW. Chair Kukonen agreed it would be valuable. O’Dea requested the adjustment of the lime green line. Mr. Moberg added that the inventory should be shown. B.Legacy at Woods Edge (Village) EAW Review ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETINGJULY 9, 2003 6 APPROVED MINUTES Grochala indicated that it was an updated version of the commercial and residential plans of 1998 in the areas of traffic and square footage, and also finalizing the concepts, so a new EAW was requested. Council was planning to authorizing distribution on Monday for public comment. Mr. Moberg indicated that he wanted to get it out to the Board. O’Dea asked for confirmation that the drawing would replace the one in the packet. Mr. Moberg responded that it would. They were trying to encourage the developer to finalize the plans. He indicated that building 18 was going to be a motel or office, but now was going to be commercial. The residential had changed. Some of the commercial would have a second story and residential above the two commercial levels. Traffic was one of the most significant issues. The Board discussed how the project would affect the Lake Drive and Interstate 35W corridor. O’Connell inquired about a bridge across the freeway. Mr. Moberg indicated a pedestrian corridor on the bridge was planned. Mr. Hiniker summarized the proposal included 94,000 square feet and 22 additional residential units. Mr. Moberg stated there was much more with stormwater management on the site than the other site. He admitted it would be a give and take what would be accomplished. O’Dea inquired if the Board would see the proposal again, she noted that all the numbers were wrong on the usage questions. Chair Kukonen questioned if it would go to Council next week. Mr. Moberg confirmed that it would not. Grundhofer inquired if the sandblasting would be removed. Asleson responded that it would be removed. Mr. Moberg stated that the only things that would remain would be the bank, the clinic and City Hall. O’Dea noted the verbiage suggested the sandblasting company would continue to be there after the development. Mr. Moberg indicated the YMCA would be there, and they would like a trail connection. Grundhofer inquired if there were trees on the site. Asleson responded that the YMCA took a large portion of the woodland. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETINGJULY 9, 2003 7 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Moberg stated that more was being preserved with the new plans, but admitted the YMCA had a lot of impact on the woodland conversion. He was unsure of the parameters of the City. Asleson suggested a parking ramp for the YMCA. Chair Kukonen referred to p.8, #10 and inquired if cultural vegetation was a category. He was asking for confirmation that it was usually lawn/landscaping. Mr. Hiniker stated that he could use those words. Asleson inquired if the Cultural Vegetation category included the clinic and City Hall. Mr. Hiniker stated he would separate out the brush and grassland from the cultural vegetation. O’Dea questioned if a traffic study had been done in the EAW. Mr. Moberg responded it was in process. O’Dea referred to page 21, #22 where the traffic volumes were forecasted. She inquired how the numbers were arrived at if there was no study. Mr. Hiniker responded that if the numbers did not apply, they would be changed. Asleson inquired about the amphitheater on the other side by the YMCA. Mr. Moberg answered he did not know. Chair Kukonen referred to page 21, #21 and inquired if there would be reasonable estimates. Mr. Moberg assured the Board it was forthcoming. Mr. Hiniker agreed there were many issues. He indicated the Target site was set up to accommodate a change in traffic flow. The update on the bridge would require $10 million. Mr. Moberg stated the bridge was not a high priority for MNDOT. If the proposal went forth, MNDOT would probably reevaluate its position. O’Dea inquired on page 21, #21, who would conduct the “further evaluation.” Mr. Moberg answered it would be answered by the decision of City Hall. It would have to take into consideration its proximity to Marshan Lake and Rice Creek Park. Grundhofer referred to Figure 6, and inquired if there was more than a 50-foot buffer around the wetland. Mr. Moberg answered there were more pondings. Asleson stated there were remnant tamaracks present. Mr. Moberg stated the City Shoreland Ordinance would apply to the situation. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETINGJULY 9, 2003 8 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Kukonen noted if the two story buildings in the South fell under the Shoreland Ordinance, the maximum building height was 36 feet. Mr. Moberg responded that it would depend on if it was determined at peak, or halfway up. It could provide for three stories. He suggested that the first story might not be at ground level. Asleson pointed out that the path extending from City Hall should be going more North. Chair Kukonen inquired if the rate volume showed a more significant increase, could the City obtain more information. Mr. Moberg assured the Board that traffic and stormwater issues were most significant. Grundhofer questioned if the above ground storage tanks would stay. Mr. Moberg responded that they would be removed. Chair Kukonen inquired if the contents were required to be listed. Asleson stated that even if they were not used, that they had to be listed. Chair Kukonen referred to page 22, #23, and expressed concern over natural gas space heaters. Mr. Hiniker answered that it was a provision for gas fireplaces. O’Dea questioned on page 23, third paragraph, if there was any plan to place receptors at the present time to aid in determining impact. Mr. Moberg responded if MPCA required receptors, it would need to be addressed. On occasion, MNDOT had been involved in noise impact studies also. O’Dea suggested that a study of the shoreland, residential, and freeway noise might be helpful in pre- and post-development. Asleson inquired if noise pollution was additive or logorhythmic. Mr. Hiniker responded that a doubling of traffic noise was considered significant, but that it amounted to only 3 decibels. Mr. Moberg added that it also depended on the receptor locations. O’Dea stated that one of the concerns on a previous EAW was the impact for residents and wildlife. Mr. Moberg agreed because of proposed use. The DNR stated an eagle’s nest was present at Wargo. O’Connell reminded the Board that construction was believed to impact the herons. Asleson responded that 500-meter radius was the buffer required during the nesting season. The chicks were fledglings now, although the birds had abandoned in previous years. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETINGJULY 9, 2003 9 APPROVED MINUTES O’Connell indicated the freeway was not that close. Asleson answered that there were other factors involved. Chair Kukonen referred to page 23, “nearby resources,” for scenic views and vistas it should state yes, because of the prairie restoration project. O’Connell mentioned the buildings would be seen from the lake. Grundhofer added also from the freeway. Mr. Moberg clarified that it referred to the views from the site. Asleson stated there were recreational users on the lake. Mr. Moberg stated the Shoreland Ordinance should govern screening from the lake. Mr. Hiniker answered that the lake users would be impacted. Asleson indicated that Target could be seen from George Watch Lake. O’Dea questioned if the Shoreland Ordinance would need to be referenced in page 24, #27. Mr. Moberg inquired of the Board their thoughts on the blend, even though it was so subjective he admitted. Chair Kukonen answered it was very political, because of the requirements of Metropolitan Council. O’Dea stated she would like to see a parking ramp. Mr. Moberg answered that the residential would have underground parking. Grochala added that the townhomes were upland. O’Dea referred to the pond in 21, and inquired if a playground would be available in the Central Park. Mr. Moberg admitted there were conflicting interests, and it had to be financially successful. Grochala stated the mixed use was vertical, with some preservation possible in the northeast. O’Dea expressed the concern that the area be made pedestrian friendly. Chair Kukonen stated that the initial desire was to make it look like downtown White Bear Lake, but it appeared the plan would not resemble it. Grochala assured the Board that there would be architectural diversity. Mr. Moberg stated the only big box would be the YMCA. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETINGJULY 9, 2003 10 APPROVED MINUTES Asleson inquired if there would be a fountain, because it was a gathering place. Grochala answered that they were attempting to get a fountain area, and admitted the rippling sound would deaden the highway noise. 5.ADJOURN It was noted that the next meeting of the Environmental Board will be on July 30, 2003. There being no further business, O’Connell moved to adjourn at 8:22 p.m. O’Dea seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Transcribed by: Brigette Blesi TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.