Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/23/2005 Environmental Board MinutesENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 CITY OF LINO LAKES DRAFT MINUTES DATE : February 23, 2005 TIME STARTED : 6:38 P.M. TIME ENDED : 9:50 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Barbara Bor (arrived at 6:40 p.m.), Barbara Bauman, Constance Grundhofer, Rod Kukonen, Teresa O’Connell, Mary Jo O’Dea, and Dennis Smith MEMBERS ABSENT : None STAFF PRESENT : Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson and Michael Grochala Community Development Director 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Kukonen called the meeting to order at 6:38 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 26, 2005 O’Dea made a motion to approve the January 26, 2005 meeting minutes. O’Connell seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA • Discuss other environmental boards update in 6F. The Board approved the agenda as amended. 4. OPEN MIKE No citizen comments were made. 5. ACTION ITEMS A. Apollo Landing, Equinox Development, 540 Lilac Street, Rezone to PUD and Site Plan Review Asleson reviewed the background and analysis. He indicated that a hotel was the only firm commitment. He identified the location of the site. Asleson noted that the tree inventory was difficult to discern, and stated that individual trees needed to be identified. 1 APPROVED MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 Craig Piette, Equinox Development, stated that they were attempting to rezone the site. Mr. Piette discussed lighting and noted that they did not want to use a shoe box design, but a more ornate fixture to match the upscale hotel. The proposed lighting will meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Chair Kukonen asked for clarification that the lighting would have the same effect, but would not look plain. Mr. Piette responded that it would not exceed the standard. Chair Kukonen inquired of staff if the plan would be reviewed again by the Board. Staff answered that it could be reviewed as phases come in. Chair Kukonen questioned if the bulbs could be seen. Mr. Piette responded that they would be low impact and have low spillage. Grundhofer clarified that the Board would like to have the light focused down even on the decorative. Mr. Piette answered that he did not want light pollution, or glare from the fixtures. Chair Kukonen inquired if the plan exceeded the minimum required parking spaces. Mr. Piette responded that he would not exceed the minimum, and would work with the City on infiltration if they did. Asleson addressed the proposed piping, and recommended that swales be used where possible. Mr. Ted Mattke, Mattke Surveying & Engineering, Inc., answered that a swale could be put in. They would need curb cuts. He added that the plowed snow would run off to the Southwest. At the present time, there were three times the infiltration planned. The runoff from the rooftops would be infiltrated. The hotel would have landscaping in the area. Asleson inquired if Rice Creek Watershed District gave conditional approval. Mr. Mattke responded that they were concerned with the 100-year event. Staff and Mr. Mattke briefly discussed conflicting information. Mr. Mattke noted that they had a difference of opinion on preferred tree species. Bor mentioned that staff and Board recommendations could be seen as possible enhancements to the proposed plan. Asleson added that the Environmental Board and staff were flexible, and wanted to keep the water on the site. He stated that if a recommendation could work, they should try it. 2 APPROVED MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 O’Dea inquired if the water volumes had been verified yet. Mr. Mattke indicated that they had not completed the verification, however it appeared the pond was undersized. O’Connell inquired if the timeline had been confirmed, and would hotel construction begin on May 6, 2005. Mr. Mattke responded that the dates would be adjusted at each step if a deadline was not met. He added that they probably would not break ground for the hotel that early. O’Connell asked for clarification that the trees up the road would be planted. Mr. Mattke indicated that they would be planted. In addition, they would first construct the ponds, but not the piping. The things necessary for grading would be done first. O’Connell questioned the lines on the map. Mr. Mattke indicated that they were elevation contour lines. O’Connell inquired about fencing on site during the grading. Mr. Mattke responded that there would be a fence at the property line. O’Connell asked if there were going to be any trees in the parking area. Mr. Mattke answered there were none planned. He added that there was no plan for the front of the buildings, but there would be twelve feet in front of it for landscaping. O’Connell mentioned the back parking area, and indicated that she as a woman who often traveled alone would never park there, and asked if the parking could be moved to the front. Mr. Mattke responded that the building was situated due to the setbacks. There would be a fence in the back and probably some plantings. Grundhofer noted that 90% of the trees in the parking area would be removed. Asleson added that some could be saved with a grade change. Bauman clarified that there might be a potential for a tree island. Mr. Mattke stated that they would not work. Bor asked for clarification on the plans for grading. Mr. Mattke stated the entire site would be graded. Asleson stated that they needed to show the individual trees and the tree protection areas if they had to take the grade down. Mr. Mattke stated there would be silt fences in place. Asleson stated that he often asked for the orange fences, because they were more visible. 3 APPROVED MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 Asleson noted that the plan needed those items delineated. Mr. Mattke answered the silt fences served the same purpose as the orange fences. Mr. Piette indicated that recommendation #3 would be done. Item #4 concerning the prairie plantings, they indicated that anything other than sod would be the City’s native mix. Grundhofer mentioned that the native grasses would do well in the back of the building. Asleson commented concerning recommendation #5 on the landscape plan, that he would prefer anything but ash. The Emerald Ash Bore from the East was moving West and wiping out the Ash trees. He added that the Board would review each phase of the development and give recommendations. Mr. Piette addressed the parking requirements. He stated they were willing to adjust and comply with the minimum. They would use pervious parking in areas not regularly used. He believed that the development would benefit the City. He stated that he was a resident and wanted a quality development. Asleson reminded the Board that they would review the plan at each phase. He recommended approval with recommendations from the Board and staff. Chair Kukonen recommended that Equinox continue to work with staff, with the understanding that it will come back at each stage. Mr. Mattke indicated that they were looking for a recommendation to show the Planning Commission that the Environmental Board is supportive of the project. O’Connell stated that the Board was in support of the rezoning, but wanted details, and wanted the developer to continue to work with staff. O’Connell made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning of the land, but conditional to ongoing work with staff on recommendations with the understanding that it will be reviewed at each building phase. Mr. Piette assured the Board that they would meet the requirements. Bauman seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 4 APPROVED MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 B. Marshan Meadows, Bruggeman Properties, 7364 Lake Drive, Preliminary Plat Review Asleson reviewed the background and analysis. He stated that property owners needed information that there should be no water-skiing on the lake. In addition, signage should be placed to protect the natural features and natural vegetation. An informational brochure should be created and given to all property owners discussing the environmental sensitivity issues. He expressed concern for mitigating the threats to the system. Chair Kukonen inquired if variances were involved. Asleson answered that there were none. Chair Kukonen indicated that it might be helpful to create an outline for a brochure that would be given to property owners. He stated that information concerning the Blandings Turtles should be included. In addition, it should state that no cutting should be permitted along the shore. Mr. Schlink responded that he believed the educational component was good. He believed motor boats on the lake would not become a problem, because it would be difficult to run one there and it was being promoted as a natural area not a recreation lake. He indicated that he was willing to work with staff. He spoke recently with Kittleson from the DNR, who expressed concern over changes in elevation, water, and the disturbances of boats. He had planned on developing some sort of document addressing these concerns and welcomed any assistance from staff. Grundhofer stated that the Board recommended signage as well as brochures, for future homeowners, as well as visitors to the area. Asleson agreed that Blandings Turtle information would be helpful. O’Connell inquired if mosquito pellets affected birds because she was aware that several insect species were affected. Asleson stated that mosquito control was a public health issue. O’Connell questioned Mr. Schlink if there would be a monument, and would he consider not putting one up. Mr. Schlink responded that it gave identity to a neighborhood. O’Dea inquired who would maintain the monument, was there going to be a homeowner’s association. Mr. Schlink answered that there would not be a homeowners’ association, and the monuments would be made durable. Grundhofer expressed concern for all the lots with the wetland and imported fill. Mr. Crechmore responded that there would be no impact on the wetland. 5 APPROVED MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 Asleson inquired about the pipe. Mr. Crechmore answered that the site worked well for infiltration and by the time it reached the pipe the water was treated. Asleson inquired if a drainage swale could be planned instead of piping. Mr. Crechmore responded that they had met Rice Creek Watershed District’s requirements. Asleson stated that he did not want a pipe into the lake. Mr. Crechmore indicated that he was looking for less impact to lots. The 2-year and 10-year rain events were fully infiltrated. The 100-year event was minimal. Asleson questioned if they could install a swale between the houses. O’Connell inquired about the culverts, because another development went into the lake with culverts. Asleson asked for clarification if the culverts were existing. Mr. Crechmore responded that they were existing and were for driveways. O’Dea noted the Cottonwoods along Lake Drive and inquired about the trees along the street. Asleson added that the Cottonwoods were a hazard. He stated that if those trees died, he needed to remove them. He believed that they were in the County right-of-way. He indicated that a 30-50% disturbance would kill the trees. In addition, staff recommended one boulevard tree per lot. Chair Kukonen inquired if the street would be extended. Bor stated she thought signage should be required, so that people would not think it was a cul-de-sac. Grundhofer questioned Mr. Crechmore if there was a buffer, because it was adjacent to the church. Mr. Crechmore responded that there had been an ongoing conversation with the Church for six months and there had been no mention of it. The Board reviewed the Board recommendations. Grundhofer made a motion to recommend approval with staff and Environmental Board recommendations: • Surface Water Plan should show access for pond and infiltration area. • Surface Water volume calculations for pond and infiltration areas should be verified for adequacy. • Investigate removing storm pipe going into the lake and replace with a swale/rain swale design. • Direct all water from impervious areas to pervious. • Plan must address the 200-foot area along the lake in terms of NPDES requirements that slopes be stabilized within 7 days in disturbance areas. 6 APPROVED MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 • A temporary sediment pond diverting water on the SE side of the project would address BMP concerns for containing eroded materials. • A Conservation Easement should be described, for the Shoreland impact zone and the surface water treatment areas. • Signage should be placed at the easement areas describing wetland conservation, no mow, no dumping areas, as well as important natural considerations such as nesting water birds and Blandings Turtle. • An information brochure should be published and given to all property owners describing the Classification and nature of Marshan Lake and that appropriate boating should be confined to non-motorized uses. It should also describe rare species habitat considerations for the area, and conservation easement requirements. • Ponding and infiltration areas should be planted with the City native seed mix. Planting soils should not be incorporated into these areas in order to preserve areas that turtles might still nest. • Curbing in the project should be designed so that turtles can cross roads. (The Lino Lakes Blanding Turtle Modal shows area as a possible breeding site.) • Transitional native seed mix should be used for 8-10 feet from all sodded areas. A seed such as Blue gamma should be used for this. • Developer should submit a detailed NPDES plan for using BMP’s on this site. For example, the rock entrance should say, “at least 50 feet of rock entrance shall be placed.” The developer should indicate where on site the NPDS plan and inspection reports would be located on site. Bor seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Earth Day Asleson indicated the next Earth Day planning meeting was to be at Wargo 7:00 p.m. on February 24, 2005. He had sent Patrice the information to organize the volunteers. He drafted a letter to local businesses for funding of the event. There would be a petting zoo again this year. Grundhofer added that she would contact Patrice to notify her of the meeting. B. AUAR Update Mr. Asleson stated the City and advisory panel are working on the development scenarios that would be evaluated. The environmental review process had not yet begun. He noted that AES had been working on the environmental portions of the process. They had obtained good ideas. Bor indicated that participants did not have enough time to look at the maps generated for the first meeting. Asleson responded that the focus, at the present 7 APPROVED MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 time, was to agree on a design scenario. One scenario was in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr.Grochala stated that the development scenarios do not change zoning or the comprehensive plan. However, one of the development scenarios must include the City’s existing comprehensive plan. Mr. Grochala reviewed the AUAR process timeline, which included three phases. The first phase involved background research. The second phase, which is just being completed, formulated the development scenarios for review. The third phase, which will start after the city council orders the AUAR, will undertake the environmental review for each scenario. An open house was held on February 17. There was a good turnout with 50-60 people attending. He identified the four scenarios the community is evaluating. 1. Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan 2. Known development plan within the study area 3. Using #2 and modifying for the maximum commercial and industrial uses 4. Using #2 and modifying for the maximum residential opportunities Grochala indicated that a transportation overlay was added to the development scenarios and includes the “northerly by-pass” corridor that was developed with the Anoka County CSAH 14 (Main Street) study.. Grundhofer inquired who was in favor of linking Main Street and 80th Street. Grochala stated that with the planned reconstruction of County State Aid Highway 14 (Main Street) from I-35W to I-35E, Anoka County initiated a planning process to evaluate the long term transportation needs of the corridor. Due to projected traffic volumes within the existing corridor alternative scenarios were developed to evaluate the impact on the existing corridor and City of Centerville. There were approximately six options considered. Following this evaluation, the study concluded that the preferred option was the connection of Main Street to 80th Avenue, north of Peltier Lake. Grochala stated that while this alignment is included for evaluation with the AUAR study, it would not be exempted from further environmental review. Bor questioned if the numbers included the Racino and expressway. Grochala responded that the CSAH 14 study included both a buildout forecast and the Metropolitan Council 2030 forecast. The full buildout forecast showed substantial traffic increases with up to 50,000 trips per day on 20th Avenue. He then compared the details comparing the scenarios. Grundhofer stated that he spoke of two of the transportation options, and inquired about the others. Grochala answered they were variations of the fly over or separate road system. The northerly bypass would not happen without further environmental review beyond the AUAR. 8 APPROVED MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 Bor commented that the consultant Mr. Shardlow did not state or convey that detail. Grochala noted with the road system added, the corridor impacts needed to be evaluated on the entire region. He indicated that at some point, Anoka County would want to preserve a corridor, so there was a cost and need factor involved. The road will not be justified until development warranted it. Some sites would not be developed until the roads were in. In addition, some projects would go longer than 20 years in the future. The Comprehensive Plan could not become reality without the infrastructure to support it. This was an attempt to study how to address the impacts, before they are in place. Chair Kukonen questioned if the details were on the website. Grochala responded they were, and that there was more information on the web page now, than there was on the entire website in December. They were trying to condense files to make it more accessible. He expressed concern that when issues arose, they were not stated in the meeting. There was also an attempt to keep the agencies involved in the process. Grundhofer inquired about the next meetings. Grochala answered that March 3, 2005 was the advisory planning meeting, March 9, 2005 was the Council Work Session, and March 11, 2005 was the Council Meeting to approve the process. Bor stated that they did not know the impacts. She expressed a desire to come together as Board members to discuss the issues. Grochala responded the environmental review had not started. That would occur after the council orders the AUAR. Bor indicated she did not know that people believed there was no City agenda here. Grochala answered at the end of the process, there would be a mitigation plan for each scenario option. When the AUAR is completed, the only scenario in effect is #1 Comprehensive Plan. If others would be pursued, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment would be required. Grundhofer inquired about the decision Council would be making on March 9, 2005. Grochala responded that the council would be reviewing the development scenarios. O’Connell noted an update of the Comprehensive Plan was required in 2008. Grochala indicated that a change could be incorporated at that time. The advantage in doing the process now is that the information would be known for each of the scenarios. Just because a scenario was chosen, it did not mean that it would be implemented. Asleson mentioned that the infiltration would be known on a regional basis. 9 APPROVED MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 Bor stated that the process was very important. Grochala indicated that the review process would continue, but if a development was according to the AUAR it would not require an EAW. The area was currently rural, unsewered. Any development would be shaped by the Metropolitan Council allocating MUSA. The process was actually doing an environmental review regionally. O’Dea noted it needed to be stated that the process was not the final decision. Asleson clarified that the Board would still be evaluating landscaping and infiltration on each development. O’Connell mentioned that she saw what people want to do with their sites, stating “I can do it because you said I can.” Grochala responded most of the area would stay rural, until someone wanted to change it. He added that the AUAR does not change the zoning or Comprehensive Plan. Bor inquired if the Board was going to be reviewing the final document, similar to an EAW Review. Grochala responed that they would. Chair Kukonen submitted an example of a large furniture company wanted to build a warehouse in the City. Grochala answered that if the proposed development exceeded the thresholds established in the AUAR it would be required to go through a separate environmental review process. O’Connell inquired if soil borings were being done in the area for the AUAR, because it would assist in making decisions on land use. Grochala responded soil borings would not be required as part of the AUAR but would be with a site review of a specific project. Asleson stated that the soils were 85% hydric soils, with reduced permeability so it needs infiltration. Bor admitted she began with positive attitudes, but because there was no knowledge of the present plans, and many attendees at the open houses were developers. Grochala clarified the process. The AUAR evaluates all four scenarios, and develops a mitigation plan for all scenarios. The developers were still subject to the Comprehensive Plan. The AUAR would tell what to do to minimize the negative effects. A process would be necessary, if a change in the Comprehensive Plan was desired. Within a framework, the City or landowners could begin the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. O’Connell asked staff to state that is was not proposing rezoning the area. Grochala stated the AUAR process does not rezone or change the land use plan. The intent of the AUAR is to evaluate the potential for environmental impacts based on different development scenarios. 10 APPROVED MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 Bor stated that some residents did not want to ask the City or the advisory panel because of distrust. C. Fox Den Update Asleson stated that the Corps of Engineers had approved the project, and Rice Creek Watershed District was addressing a couple more issues. The project was renamed “Fox Burough.” Trees would be coming down soon. D. Heron Monitoring, CUP Eagle Brook Church Asleson requested that the task force be reinitiated. All was finished on the exterior of the Church but the landscaping. He wanted to discuss sharing the responsibility of monitoring the birds. The grant includes raccoon monitoring, where they would be fitted with transmitters to show if they were leaving the island. The next meeting would be held Friday March 4, 2005. Grundhofer inquired if the lights and landscaping would impact the birds. Asleson stated he would check into the matter. He is concerned that they might not return at all. Grundhofer noted that they should be returning on March 17, 2005. Bor stated that Jeff Perry requested an E-Mail be sent to Wayne. Asleson indicated they were trying to intentionalize the process. The raccoon transmitters would be a piece of the puzzle. E. Goals Asleson mentioned he received a call today concerning the Backyard Wildlife Program and wanted to volunteer to organize. Chair Kukonen stated that we needed 375 points to qualify for the program. We should evaluate what was still needed. Asleson stated he would try to have the caller attend the next Board meeting. Chair Kukonen urged the Board to determine the City’s status, and decide which activities to pursue to obtain the necessary points. F. Other Environmental Boards O’Dea requested that members should continue to update her with any new information. 11 APPROVED MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 7. OTHER DEPARTMENT REPORTS A. Forestry This item was tabled to the March 30, 2005 Environmental Board meeting. B. Solid Waste Recycling This item was tabled to the March 30, 2005 Environmental Board meeting. C. Environmental This item was tabled to the March 30, 2005 Environmental Board meeting. 8. ADJOURN It was noted that the next meeting of the Environmental Board will be on March 30, 2005. There being no further business, O’Dea moved to adjourn at 9:50 p.m. Grundhofer seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Transcribed by: Brigette Blesi TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 12 APPROVED MINUTES