Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/21/2004 Environmental Board MinutesENVIRONMENTAL BOARD SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 21, 2004 CITY OF LINO LAKES APPROVED MINUTES DATE : January 21, 2004 TIME STARTED : 6:07 P.M. TIME ENDED : 8:28 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Amy Donlin (arrived at 6:50 p.m.), Constance Grundhofer, Rod Kukonen, Teresa O’Connell, and Mary Jo O’Dea MEMBERS ABSENT : Patrice Toler Halen STAFF PRESENT : Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson and Community Development Director Michael Grochala 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Kukonen called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes were not considered. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Board approved the agenda as amended for the January 21, 2004 meeting. 4. OPEN MIKE No citizen comments were made. 5. ACTION ITEMS A. Comments and Recommendation/Record of Decision for Legacy at Woods Edge Development, Findings of Fact and Conclusions Marty Asleson, City Environmental Coordinator, reviewed the background and analysis. Chair Kukonen referred to “Construction Impacts,” where it was noted that “relatively small number of residents were located immediately South.” He recommended that an attempt be made to maximize the reduction of impacts on residents. O’Dea suggested that it could read, “Every effort will be made to minimize these impacts." Mr. Bob Rogers, SEH Inc., stated that the City was the permitting authority, and had control over many of the issues dealing with impacts on residents. 1 APPROVED MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 21, 2004 O’Connell inquired about the construction timeline, and whether the herons would be impacted at sensitive periods of nesting. Mr. Moberg responded that construction was planned to begin in 2004, possibly in May or June, but it might begin as late as fall. Asleson added that the site was far enough away that the herons should not be impacted. There would be no night construction, so noise and lights would not be a problem when they sleep. Grundhofer clarified concerning the herons, that they had been disturbed so often they might be extra sensitive. Mr. Rogers referred to the comment section of the document. He admitted that the type was quite small, but the agencies liked to see the letter and the responses on the same page. Mr. Moberg indicated that Mn/DOT had three concerns that they wanted addressed. First they wanted the City to submit a traffic simulation model for the development. The response was that the City had sent the model early in December 2003 and included the needed ramps and signals. At present, the City was coming up with a model for existing conditions. The second comment was that Mn/DOT had no plans to improve the intersection in the 20 year plan. The response from the City was the simulation models would address the intersections and proposed changes. The third concern was the possible need of noise walls for the residents because of the highway noise. The response of the City was that immediately adjacent to the highway would be the commercial businesses and offices. Mr. Moberg reviewed the response from the Parks and Recreation whose concerns were addressed in other agencies’ letters. Mr. Moberg continued with the comments from the Metropolitan Council. The first concern was the recommendation for surmountable curbing for wildlife crossing. The City responded with surmountable curbing in the turnabout and on the East side of the street in the residential area. Chair Kukonen asked for clarification on the surmountable curbing. Mr. Moberg indicated it was 4-inches high. Mr. Rogers added that it was angled so that small animals could escape. Grundhofer inquired if there were any known turtle crossings for the purposes of laying eggs. Asleson indicated that no crossings, eggs or nests were seen on site. The wildlife model we have indicates nesting possibilities to the east of the site and activity area to the south. 2 APPROVED MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 21, 2004 Mr. Moberg added that the elevation change from the lake to the development was at an incline that provided a natural barrier for turtles. He continued with the review stating that there was only limited ability to put in underground storm sewers and raingardens. In response to the second recommendation of putting in parking islands, the majority were too small to aid in infiltration. The third recommendation was to consult with the Mn/DNR for an NRI/Assessment. Grochala indicated the City needed to address the issues in the EAW and conceptually finalize the plan with a conservation easement with limited clear cutting of the underbrush. The City had considerable leverage at this point on the site. Mr. Moberg indicated that Anoka County wanted to put in a trail through the site. Grochala stated a 50-foot buffer around the original buffer was written into the sale. Mr. Moberg continued the Metropolitan Council review. The fourth concern was that the separation be maintained. The City had maintained the separation. The fifth was that they wanted to see a traffic simulation model. The City was in process with developing a traffic simulation model and would be submitting it when available. The sixth concern was for locating bus stops to possibly expand the bus service when the site became fully developed. O’Dea inquired if there were any mass transit considerations in the simulation model. Mr. Moberg responded that there were not at this time because of the congestion on the ramps and bridge. O’Connell stated her impression was that the bus service was considered adequate according to the Metropolitan Council. Grochala answered that there would be added congestion if the route was expanded. Mr. Moberg referred to the Anoka County comments. He indicated that they had a disagreement on the traffic volumes at the present time. The City’s response was to direct them to the 2002 traffic flow maps. Grochala added that there was a lot of traffic and without other agencies addressing the issue, the City planned to deal with the issue. Mr. Moberg clarified that the County wanted to know how fast the traffic volumes would grow. The second concern was access needed to be controlled. Amoco would reduce their accesses to one entrance onto Lake Drive. Asleson inquired if the one access would eliminate the Amoco semi truck customers. Grochala answered that it would change to a lighted four-way access. It would be an improvement because it would guarantee safe entrance to Lake Drive. 3 APPROVED MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 21, 2004 Mr. Moberg indicated that the Preliminary Plat submission was addressed. The Army Corps of Engineers wanted to see a wetland delineation. The response of the City was that it was being reviewed by Rice Creek Watershed District. The comments from the MPCA were limited to storm water requirements. The response from the City was that there would be no problem because Rice Creek Watershed District had more stringent storm water permit requirements than the MPCA. Chair Kukonen stated his impression was that they were implying the NURP ponds were not adequate. Asleson answered that the Phase II exceeded the requirements. Mr. Moberg noted that a concern for the DNR was the wood removal and disposal from the site. The response from the City was that staff would be contacting them. Asleson stated he did contact them, and discussed the 60 oaks. Donlin inquired if there would be a buffer zone so that the development could not be seen from Wargo Nature Center. Asleson indicated there would be one on the other side. Mr. Moberg stated the second concern was that storm water runoff should not increase for Marshan Lake. The City response was that the area was in the George Watch watershed, even though it was in the Shoreland District for Marshan Lake. He added that given the size of the wetland, it would be impossible to show the amount of bounce. Asleson had indicated that the water level might be too low at the present time, and that historically it might have been higher to support the Tamarack swamp that once existed there. O’Connell expressed concern that there was no concern about the ditch at the Target NURP pond increasing the water into Marshan Lake. Mr. Moberg indicated that there was no response letter from Rice Creek Watershed District. He tried to contact them several times. There was a preliminary submittal with one round of responses. Their engineers recommended approval of the project, so they were very aware of the plan. O’Connell inquired about the parking situation. She wanted to know if it had changed, and if there were any new figures. Mr. Moberg answered that the numbers had not changed, but the shared parking models had. The Hartford Group proposed underground secured parking for the residents. Grundhofer stated she understood that underground parking was only a possibility. Grochala answered that the users would determine the numbers, so they might decrease. 4 APPROVED MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 21, 2004 Donlin inquired if the underground parking would work with the high water table. Mr. Moberg answered that Rice Creek Watershed District indicated some numbers were too low, but it was a very limited area. O’Dea asked if there was a letter indicating the details of the concern. Mr. Moberg responded there was a fax stating the parameters of the concern. Donlin recalled an example of a relative that lost a vehicle in an underground parking area because water poured into the underground garage. Mr. Moberg inquired if it appeared that it was due to poor planning. Donlin answered that it had been poorly designed, and it filled in like a swimming pool. Mr. Moberg stated the wetland could handle a lot. Grochala added that the separation was adequate, but the concern would be with the location of the infiltration pond. Mr. Moberg indicated the City would continue to control the ponds to ensure proper maintenance. The issues the agencies had were standard, and were usually addressed prior to construction, and the development was not at that point. Chair Kukonen called for a motion to recommend a negative declaration, and therefore and EIS would not need to be done. The buffering issues were being addressed. Mr. Moberg reminded the Board that in this instance preserving the natural amenities had an economic benefit. Asleson noted that Calthorpe proposed many of the ideas that had been carried on in the plan. O’Dea made a motion to recommend a negative declaration, and therefore an EIS would not need to be done. O’Connell seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. B. Legacy at Woods Edge/Site Plan Review Asleson reviewed the background and analysis. He addressed the new method of planting trees to promote better root growth. O’Dea inquired if the Board would see the plan again. Grochala answered that it was a preliminary plat and site building design. The Calthorpe plan was a mini- zoning ordinance. At present, they were trying to get service users, but no convenience stores or gas stations. The other main issue for the Board to review was the Landscape Plan. There were three types. The first area was the community green in the plaza area. The second was the open space and 5 APPROVED MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 21, 2004 playground in the townhome area. Finally, the third would be the buffers. He noted that the streetscape was in the hands of the City, while Hartford would be controlling the interior of their sites. In addition, the townhome area was purely conceptual at that time, so they would only be approving the framework. The townhome area would come back to the Board as a site review. Mr. Moberg indicated that there was an internal review with the YMCA, and it needed to be consistent with the Master Plan. Grochala added that the City was trying to coordinate the effort. The YMCA wanted an open field where the woodland now sat. In addition, they wanted the ability to expand. Grundhofer stated that earlier in the meeting, it was mentioned that the City controlled the land. Now there was no mention of a conservation easement. Grochala responded that the City identified 1.6 acres on the site where they would like a conservation easement. Mr. Moberg mentioned that the focus of the YMCA was on their fundraising campaign. Donlin stated that sometimes things did not work out for a reason, and the YMCA might not be a good fit for the site. O’Connell inquired if they could not use Rice Creek for the outdoor activities like canoeing and hiking. Mr. Moberg indicated that they were still in the suburban mindset. Grochala stated staff felt very strongly about protecting the 1.6 acre area. The paving, landscaping and building designs were the next step. He referred to the main plan pointing out Buildings 6 and 7 as an example of the variation in building height. The townhomes would also have a variety of height and color, with a walk-up entrance, but no garage in front. Grundhofer questioned if the colors would be those pale colors so popular today, or if there would be a variety of tones and shades. Grochala answered that there would be different colored brick and stucco, they were looking at about 300 variations to choose from. Donlin inquired if there would be roof peaks or flat roofs, and if ivy was possible. Grochala responded there would be a variety of height and types. Chair Kukonen expressed concern over building height requirements. Grochala answered the only issues would be in the first block with the shared parking where they were 35-40 stalls short even with the underground parking. He mentioned the City Hall parking lot would be available in the afternoon peak time for commercial businesses. 6 APPROVED MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 21, 2004 O’Dea suggested that if there were front and back doors, the overflow parking would be close. Chair Kukonen indicated it was probably impossible to calculate the parking needs with shared parking. Grochala answered that there was an intricate equation with the user’s needs at each peak time of the day, which would then be calculated for each block. There was also a maximum requirement for parking. The present trail would probably be moved to the YMCA. Chair Kukonen summarized the Board’s responsibility was to recommend approval or denial of the Master Plan for the P.U.D. He inquired if anything could drastically change. Grochala responded some things would combine or be broken up, but the general layout would remain. The park and the eastern portion were also set. Mr. Moberg mentioned due to the phasing of the drainage ponds, there might be temporary ponds at other locations until the site would be fully developed. Grundhofer asked for confirmation that the ponds would be located where the plans state then. Mr. Moberg answered that it would be finalized in the plat process. Grochala indicated that the townhouses could shift, however the utilities, streets, and landscaping would remain unchanged. Grundhofer inquired if the City owned all the land on site. Grochala answered that the City did not own all the land, but had the approval process to ensure that the vision would be maintained. Grundhofer questioned if the street would remain in the same location. Mr. Moberg responded that after the platting process and utilities were established, it would take a long process to shift the street. Chair Kukonen inquired about the possibility for a tamarack swamp restoration. Grochala answered that there was a chance to work on this with Rice Creek Watershed District and Anoka County, but it would not be tied to the site. O’Dea questioned if it were possible to add wording indicating a conservation easement. Grochala responded that he was certain that Anoka County would concur with a conservation easement. Donlin recommended having an external body write the conservation easement. Grochala mentioned that Anoka County would help with the trail. O’Dea inquired if the lighting could be solar so that they would dim throughout the night. O’Connell suggested lighting only in the common areas. 7 APPROVED MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 21, 2004 Chair Kukonen called for a motion to recommend approval of the Legacy at Woods Edge with staff and Board recommendations. O’Connell made a motion to recommend approval with staff and Board recommendations. O’Dea seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 6. ADJOURN It was noted that the next meeting of the Environmental Board will be on January 28, 2004. There being no further business, Donlin moved to adjourn at 8:28 p.m. O’Dea seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Transcribed by: Brigette Blesi TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 8 APPROVED MINUTES