Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/28/2004 Environmental Board MinutesENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 28, 2004 CITY OF LINO LAKES APPROVED MINUTES DATE : July 28, 2004 TIME STARTED : 6:31 P.M. TIME ENDED : 9:19 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Barbara Bor, Barbara Bauman, Constance Grundhofer, Rod Kukonen, Teresa O’Connell, Mary Jo O’Dea, and Dennis Smith (arrived at 6:33 p.m.) MEMBERS ABSENT : None STAFF PRESENT : Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Kukonen called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES This item was postponed to the August 25, 2004 meeting. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA • Discuss 6B after 7C. The Board approved the agenda as amended. 4. OPEN MIKE No citizen comments were made. 5. ACTION ITEMS A. Fox Den Acres/Royal Oaks Realty, Preliminary Plat Asleson reviewed the staff background and analysis. The Comprehensive Wetland Plan was mentioned to the developer. The wetlands would be evaluated, and the water treatment trains would be addressed. The soil boring information had become available, but only briefly reviewed by staff. The seasonally high water table in the Isanti Wet Soils would be determined by the engineers. Staff did note there was evidence of soil seepage, and Rice Creek Watershed District would be evaluating it. Asleson introduced Mike Black. Mr. Black indicated in the first plan he was asking for an extension of the MUSA line. The present plan was similar to the first plan, with 56 lots almost .5 acres each instead of the previous 62 lots. The present plan met the City standards. He 1 APPROVED MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 28, 2004 noted that Rice Creek Watershed District had a staffing shortage, so the process had slowed. Mr. Black inquired about the rationale for filling wetlands for lots. He explained the developer typically tried to avoid, minimize and then mitigate and admitted he was not rejecting the idea, but that he did not understand. He referred to the layout of staff recommendations of the site. The pink areas would be filled. With the recommended layout, Lot 4 would not be buildable due to setbacks. Chair Kukonen recommended buffering between the established neighborhoods and the new development. Bor indicated that Rice Creek was a piece, but in order to make the plan a win- win situation, it was worth the dialogue to form a better plan. Mr. Black responded that the present plan worked, and his concern had become the process. He assured the Board it would be a nice neighborhood, but for him time was very important. He expressed frustration with the controlled growth in the City. He inquired if the trail was a big issue. Asleson stated it was a co-issue with the greenway. Mr. Black questioned how he was going to reach consensus with the Army Corps of Engineers after the process with the City. Asleson explained all wetlands were not the same, because some could not be restored due to hydrologic changes. The goal was to protect the higher value wetlands and to expand open space that slated some lower value wetlands to be filled. He admitted that the plan was smaller scale than an example in Blaine, but there were similar issues. He assured Mr. Black that in that case they received approval from all agencies. Asleson further clarified that there was a need for the separation between the seasonal high water level and the water table. Conservation Development was a mechanism to restore certain areas. If water quality could be improved, he would make the recommendation. Mr. Black responded it could be possible to address those issues after the Rice Creek Watershed District meeting. He reiterated that all the recommendations the Board previously made were addressed. O’Connell inquired about an attempt to work with Saddle Club. Mr. Black answered that they had not looked at Saddle Club. Chair Kukonen questioned if there was a parks designation. Mr. Black responded that the City did not want a park. Asleson inquired about a greenway. Mr. Black stated they did not want an active recreation area. He had proposed an outlot for that use for the City. Asleson stated the concern was the management of those areas. He admitted that the City was obtaining the greenways, but noted the trail would be public. An 2 APPROVED MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 28, 2004 advantage to having a greenway would be the association would know they would continue to have the scenery. A second advantage would be that it would reduce the amount of storm sewers for the developer. Grundhofer requested that both plans be held up side by side for the Board. The Board briefly discussed the contrasts. O’Connell noted that with the Conservation District, not all the lots would be the same size. Mr. Black responded he was not rejecting the entire idea, and that some ideas could be incorporated. He expressed concern about the homeowners’ association managing the open space. He applauded the City’s intention, but was concerned about the City testing their idea on him. He had intended to build on the upland areas and to create a quality neighborhood. The things that were suggested went against what he knew. The City could not merely take land. They had to consider the implementation. He stated the City was on to something, but that it had to be within the City requirements. Bor stated that the value of the property would be expressed as the City became more developed. As it went forth, it would bring change to the coding and other areas. Asleson agreed. He was concerned with the plans in terms of the high water table. People say there needed to be a separation between the water table and the bottom of the NURP ponds. He cautioned that in five years the ponds between the houses would not function properly. Staff noted the State considered the Southern portion of the site to be of outstanding value with unique resources. They had high ecological value. A goal in the 2020 Vision was that “no unique resources should be lost.” He recommended more of a buffer for that area. Mr. Black stated that he had a 50 acre parcel, and had done the appropriate work. He agreed to attend the meetings. Asleson indicated he believed that the plan would not work. Mr. Black responded that his engineers assured him the plan would work. Asleson noted that the plan was going to go to Planning and Zoning Board. He reminded the Board that they had received incomplete information. He gave the example of Mr. Quigley’s Clearwater Creek with all the meetings he attended, and the lots became more valuable. Staff stated only the landowner knew the value of his own work. Mr. Black indicated he needed specific recommendations, and believed he was being used for new ideas. Bor answered that what the Board was recommending was not far off from his own plan. The example of buffering was worth trying, given the value of the land. Asleson stated that a recommendation was necessary from the Board tonight. 3 APPROVED MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 28, 2004 Mr. Black indicated the MUSA line was a big hurdle that was not possible. The present plan was closer to approval without the request for MUSA. He recommended the City requirements be amended so the rules would be known to all and followed. The City needed reasons for its denial. He assured the Board he would continue to work with staff. Grundhofer answered that the Board was not doubting his effort. Asleson stated that Mr. Black was not the first to use these principles in their development. O’Connell noted that if Mr. Black visited the Clearwater Creek site, he would obtain an idea of what the Board was recommending. Chair Kukonen acknowledged Mr. Black was willing to work with staff, however staff wanted more open space. Mr. Black answered his concern was about conservation easements on the lots. Bor stated that it was a stewardship agreement and it needed to be maintained and improved. She did not know how to get there, but that was the goal. Mr. Black answered that encroachment into the yard was a concern. The recommended plan had the open space consist of a mixture of low and upland, but he had not seen the details. Grundhofer mentioned that just because someone owned a piece of land, did not mean they could do whatever they wanted with it. Asleson responded then it was the regulatory bodies to enforce standards. Smith inquired about prior recommendations. The first was to specifically work with Jeff Schoenbauer. The others came from staff recommendations in the analysis section. Chair Kukonen suggested an addition was to provide buffering on the West side of the property, because the tree removal was aggressive there. Mr. Black assured the Board that he was keeping trees on property lines. Lot 4 would be built in the trees and had only proposed tree removal for the pad. He had concerns about its success to remove upland lots and fill wetlands for lots. Chair Kukonen reiterated the desire of the City to have contiguous open space with wildlife diversity. Mr. Black answered his plan had an open space corridor. Chair Kukonen recommended merely placing a buffer around the open space. Bauman clarified that it would provide proper screening and a natural infrastructure. Chair Kukonen added that he could minimize the tree removal. Bor inquired if the recommendations from the consultant would work. Asleson responded that it would work. 4 APPROVED MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 28, 2004 Chair Kukonen explained that the Board was trying to meet with people at the conceptual stage, and noted that if he was choosing a lot, he would want Lot 4. Mr. Black answered that it was one of the best. A neighbor requested it be eliminated, because he had a deer stand on that lot. The neighbors knew the development would come someday. Chair Kukonen indicated the Board knew he was trying. He inquired of Asleson if there was any quality natural features on the East. Asleson responded that there was no fen present. The rare plant indicators were around the development on the East and South end. He noted there were documented parallel species, that if they were found, the rare plants were also present. Chair Kukonen inquired about bufferings or soil borings. Asleson added that he could check with Barr Engineering on the infiltration issues. If there was not enough separation, he should not do it based on a published paper. The Rice Creek Watershed District engineers still needed to evaluate it. Grundhofer noted the wetland delineation would not tell the quality of the wetlands. Asleson added you have to go to MNRAM for the assessing functions and values on wetlands. The process had been approved in Blaine. Greenways could be created from higher value areas. Chair Kukonen called for a motion. He mentioned he hoped that open communications could continue. Grundhofer added that she hoped he would not take the comments from the Board personally, because the motive was to make the City a beautiful ecosystem. Chair Kukonen stated that here was a chance to make Mr. Black a good example with a conservation development. Grundhofer added that open space would increase the value of the whole development. She made a motion for conditional approval with staff and Environmental Board recommendations: • Work with the City (and Jeff Schoenbauer of Brauer and Associates) on investigating the Conservation Development approach as an alternative to his Preliminary Plat. • Rice Creek Watershed District’s approval of plan. • Proof that surface water ponds and infiltration areas would safely work. • Previous recommendations of the Environmental Board from March 28, 2004 meeting. • Provide buffering on the West side of the property. Smith requested that if the decision was denial, the reasons should be identified. He did not believe it was necessary to state denial as a possibility. 5 APPROVED MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 28, 2004 After discussion, Bauman made a motion for conditional approval with staff and Board recommendations. Smith seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Chair Kukonen mentioned that he hoped it would be a proactive venue. Grundhofer added that it was possible that the buffer could be paid for by the increased value of the lots. 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Peltier Island/Heron Update It was noted the herons abandoned their nests and raccoon predation was possible. It began June 1 and by June 10 it was all over. The graduate student was busy, and the battery packs weighed 80 pounds each. He did not have a chance to review the films at the time. A decision was made to trap the raccoons. Another possibility was to put flashing around the trees. An owl predation was caught on film once. There were also questions about the weather. On June 8, 2004 a pilot documented no activity on the island. Some money was left from the funding. Bauman stated it was about $10,000. Asleson stated that they would try to renew old grants. O’Dea inquired was there any consensus of opinion. Asleson answered that there was a lot of information to consider. Smith stated that the raccoon population paralleled the human population. Asleson added that they were good swimmers. Bor mentioned there used to be raccoon hunters with hounds in the area. Bauman inquired how long it had been since they had hunted. Bor responded it had been probably 10 years. Grundhofer commented that pelicans had abandoned their nests in North Dakota in a previous abandonment. Asleson indicated he was aware of that and someone from Forest Lake said that they found a disease was wiping out the young birds. Bauman stated that people were looking for the raccoon dens today. Grundhofer inquired if 4-H or the Boy Scouts could help with putting up the flashing on the trees. O’Connell questioned the reason for not doing it in the Fall. Bor stated that if the Heron issue was going to be in the Newsletter, it would be important to state that other factors were also important. Asleson agreed and noted that the water quality issue was still very important. 6 APPROVED MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 28, 2004 O’Dea noted that last year staff indicated he did not see evidence of predation on the nests. There was a successful breeding season last year. Asleson answered that there were no cameras on the nests last year. B. Information Kiosk This item was addressed later in the meeting. C. New Park/Open Space Plan Asleson stated the Plan was in the preliminary draft form. When it is in draft form, it would come to the Board for review. D. Other Environmental Board Discussion O’Dea indicated that the document was in process. Any updates could be E- Mailed to O’Dea. Chair Kukonen stated he stopped in at the office of Environmental Assistance. He heard Maplewood was forming a board. Grundhofer agreed and stated she was gathering information on it. O’Dea mentioned the Champlin group was going on a road trip for areas of concern. Asleson added that the rare plant indicators probably extended into those areas. 7. OTHER DEPARTMENT REPORTS A. Forestry/Firewise Update Asleson stated he still needed to contact a few property owners for the program. The correction facility had expressed interest in working on the project. They were in the process of obtaining volume estimates and bid specifications to loggers, but it was taking longer than he first thought. He noted neighbors’ responses. There was still some GIS analysis to finish. He also mentioned that Oak Wilt was up all over the City. There were two methods to control the spread of the disease. Some trees could be injected, while others need the use of a plow to cut the roots. The plow would cut the root system between trees. The City had the plow that was cooperatively purchased, because it was very expensive and had high maintenance costs. He noted the effectiveness lasted for 7 years. White Oak trees died slower than Red Oaks that died within 2 weeks from Oak Wilt. O’Dea inquired about Northern Pin Oak. Asleson answered they died quickly, and the City had 127 trees marked. 7 APPROVED MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 28, 2004 Chair Kukonen inquired about the plow. Asleson responded that it resembled a skidder and described it in detail. B. Solid Waste/Introduce Mary Ayde and discuss Anoka County Master Plan Project This item was tabled to the August 25, 2004 meeting. The recommendations were awaiting approval. C. Environmental/RCWD Comprehensive Wetland Management Planning Asleson indicated he included a map. Blaine had approved the plan. Columbus Township expressed concern because of its commercial development. The wetlands could be improved and buffers could be created. Everything was dependent on the hydrological factors. Bauman inquired about the role of the City. Asleson answered there were stake holder meetings, with Jeff Schoenbauer attending. He explained that the 200-foot buffers would not work. Columbus Township was at all the meetings and he believed the process was a good one. 6. B. Information Kiosk The Board went into the entry to organize the kiosk, then resumed the meeting. Asleson stated that there was money for copies. Chair Kukonen inquired where the copying would take place. Asleson responded either at City Hall or at a copy center. Chair Kukonen mentioned it might be good to have a master book. Asleson agreed. O’Connell asked if they should take turns monitoring the kiosk. Asleson indicated he wanted information from the Extension Office. Grundhofer mentioned she ran into Kim Sullivan. Asleson noted that they were planning to hold three classes in Lino Lakes. O’Connell inquired where they were announced. Asleson answered it was in the City newsletter and on cable. O’Connell recommended also putting a notice in the Quad. Asleson responded he would pass that on. 8 APPROVED MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 28, 2004 Chair Kukonen inquired about maintaining the kiosk. Asleson stated that people could keep track of their own information and any new information could be brought to the next meeting. A notice of the kiosk will be published in the next newsletter. 8. ADJOURN It was noted that the next meeting of the Environmental Board will be on August 25, 2004. There being no further business, Bor moved to adjourn at 9:19 p.m. O’Connell seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Transcribed by: Brigette Blesi TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 9 APPROVED MINUTES