The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/25/2007 Environmental Board MinutesENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 25, 2007 CITY OF LINO LAKES APPROVED MINUTES DATE : July 25, 2007 TIME STARTED : 6:33 P.M. TIME ENDED : 8:25 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Mary Jo O’Dea, Peter Brown, Paula Andrzejewski and Alan Traylor, Barbara Bor, Martha DeHaven and Kimberly Brouillet MEMBERS ABSENT : None STAFF PRESENT : Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson, 1. CALL TO ORDER Ms. O’Dea called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 27, 2007 Ms. O’Dea had a change on page 6. A. First paragraph change restricted to restrictive. Third paragraph take the s off of conservation. Ms. Andrzejewski made a motion to approve the June 27, 2007 minutes with changes. Ms. Brouillet seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Bor made a motion to approve agenda. Ms. Brouillet seconded the motion to approve agenda. Motion carried unanimously 4. OPEN MIKE Open mike closed at 6:34 p.m. 5. ACTION ITEMS N/A 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Rice Creek Watershed District Proposed Rules Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) has proposed a number of changes to the Stormwater Management Plan. The RCWD invites submission of written 1 DRAFT MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 25, 2007 comments to the proposed changes by August 1, 2007. Connie Taillon and Jim Studenski will be submitting comments on behalf of the City of Lino Lakes. Ms. Taillon was present to review RCWD’s proposed changes and City comments. Page 1. Rule C: Stormwater Management Plan. Ms. Taillon went over the first page of her memorandum regarding proposed changes. Current: 2.5 acres. Proposed: Reduce exemption to new development, redevelopment, linear projects or additions from 2.5 acres to at least 1 acre in size. City comment: The City of Lino Lakes comment will be to add language that would define a one acre site. Page 2. Water Quality and Water Control. Current: Impervious surface runoff is currently .34 inches in 72 hours. Proposed: Under the new rules infiltration basins are required to draw down 2.8 inches within 48 hours from end of a storm event. City comment: Is RCWD’s requirement of infiltration for the two year storm event for proposed conditions only? Why is RCWD not requiring existing volumes vs. proposed? In types A & B soil areas RCWD is proposing to infiltrate to pre-settlement runoff. Ms. O’Dea asked how Ms. Taillon is comparing runoff. Ms. Taillon stated they are only capturing the excess over and above the existing. She stated basins would more than likely be made smaller and onsite rather than regional and possibly offsite. Ms. O’Dea questioned alternatives to the existing. Ms. Bor stated the developer comes in and if they are using pre-existing conditions what does that mean to them? Ms. Taillon stated RCWD states not to look at existing conditions, they are saying design a system to infiltration 2.8 inches that goes to that basin with no runoff. Ms. Taillon suggested that we take this requirement out in all cases and suggested using a volume requirement. She stated we should try to mimic the existing conditions and not just look at proposed. Ms. Taillon stated the design based on existing conditions is the suggestion from the city. Page 3. Peak Flow Management. Current: Rates not to exceed “pre-project” runoff rates for the critical 1-year or 2 year and 100 year frequency events. Proposed: In types A & B soils rates not to exceed “pre-settlement” runoff rates for the critical 2 year and 100 year frequency events for sites no covered by impervious surfaces in pre-existing condition. City comment: Would like clarification for rate control. Is it the site as a whole or is the rate to be met at every point that it discharges off the site. Page 4. Flood Protection for Structures. City comment: Define table as to local detention basins and wetlands. Ask why the RCWD lowered the low floor elevation. Infiltration basins are designed to run dry. Page 4. Rule D. Erosion Control Plans: Current: Permit and erosion control plan are required for new development, redevelopment, or additions to an existing site. Proposed: Permit and an erosion control plan is required for grading, excavation, 2 DRAFT MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 25, 2007 filling, or stockpiling of more than fifty (50) cubic yards of erosive material or the disturbance of removal of vegetation on five thousand square feet or more of land. City comment: This change is much more restrictive than MPCA. Clarify if the RCWD intends to require a permit for disturbance of 50 cubic yards or more of material as stated in the Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR). Page 4. Rule F. Wetland Alterations: Wetland alterations – RCWD drafting Resource Management Plan (RMP) specifically for Lino Lakes. The requirements do not apply to Lino Lakes as it will have its own rule that will override this document. Ms. Taillon stated that RCWD does not have buffer requirements in this document but the RMP will address this issue. Ms. Taillon stated that Lino Lakes is creating a Storm Water Management Ordinance. Ms. Bor stated that the document should include stream buffers. Comment of preserving perched water stated Asleson. Add comment that a response time should be included from Board. Ms. Taillon stated the City’s roadway maintenance projects are done by mill and overlay or complete removal and replacement of bituminous surface to full depth inside existing curb line. This is the biggest item between RCWD and the City. Mr. Studenski stated RCWD believes if you remove a road completely the City now has the ability to put in ponds, storm sewer, etc. RCWD does not make a differentiation between the two. Mr. Studenski stated if the City goes in and performs maintenance work on the roadway; we don’t want to have to buy easements, areas to put in ponds, storm sewer, etc. If the City is reconstructing the entire street, yes we could make changes. Mr. Studenski stated for maintenance work this is a very large undertaking. Ms. Bor stated if we have to go through this process it would be more difficult to fix roadways. RCWD’s definition of mill and overlay is too narrow of a definition. B. Main Street Village Concept Plan – Azure Properties – PUD Mr. Asleson stated he would not be presenting his staff report as this project is incomplete at this time. There are numerous mitigation statements in the developer’s report that need to be addressed as with any development within our AUAR. Ms. O’Dea stated this project is incomplete without this data. Mr. Asleson stated there has been a good amount of discussion regarding structural BMPs. He also stated there is nothing unique on this site. The trees were cut down long ago. Ms. Brouillet commented that unless this project is complete it should not be presented to the board. Mr. Asleson stated that there are many unanswered questions on this project. 3 DRAFT MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 25, 2007 Mr. Tom Schutte from Azure Properties addressed the board. His proposal is to develop property in the AUAR area of Lino Lakes. He has submitted documentation to Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) several times to address wetlands issues on the site. He explained how the driveway had been proposed south of the bank to miss the wetland area. He stated the RCWD liked the idea and MNDOT stated there needed to be more of a separation. Ms. Bor asked if Mr. Schutte has attended any of the AUAR meetings. He stated that he had attended all of them. He stated Mr. Smyser listed his application is lacking geotechnical information and therefore incomplete. He stated Mr. Smyser did not state he was lacking information because of AUAR information and water infiltration. Mr. Asleson stated we should not go any further as we need to address the missing information as it pertains to the AUAR issues. Mr. Asleson stated this information is mandatory. Mr. Asleson discussed how much water is allowed to leave this site. Mr. Asleson stated that there is a certain amount of water that runs off the site now. Then you have development with impervious ground that will create more runoff. Ms. Bor stated the property drains directly into the RCWD. She stated the information we need is simply not in the report. Ms. O’Dea stated the board is not saying we don’t want this project, what the board wants is the frame work from the AUAR. Ms. Brouillet suggested Mr. Schutte’s engineers should come in to the City and meet with Mr. Asleson and Mr. Studenski, City Engineer. Ms. Bor personally apologized to Mr. Schutte as he stated he did not know the Environmental Board existed. Mr. Schutte and Mr. Asleson discussed where Piezometers are located throughout the city. The Environmental Board recommends that this project should go no further until documentation addressing mitigation statements of the AUAR have been submitted to the City. Motion by Mr. Brown seconded by Ms. DeHaven. Motion carried unanimously. C. Blue Heron Days Parade – Ms. Brouillet will check with Sara Norman, former Board member, to see if she has the banner from last year for the parade. D. Updates – Mr. Asleson presented updates on the Blue Heron colonies and local feeding Osprey. 7. ADJOURN It was noted that the next meeting of the Environmental Board will be on August 29, 2007. There being no further business, Mr. Brown moved to adjourn at 8:25 p.m. Ms. DeHaven seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 4 DRAFT MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 25, 2007 5 DRAFT MINUTES Transcribed by: Lisa Hogstad Community Development Secretary