HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995.02.01 CC Minutes - Joint meeting with Lino LakesM I NL TE UF= THE HL GU/L'I NU L...AKES JU I NT-OUNf." L. MEET I PJG OF FEBF;LJF iF:Y i . 1995
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Hugo and Lino Lakes City
Councils held a joint meeting at the White Bear Country Inn. White Bear,
Minnesota. Lino Lakes Mayor Reinert called the meeting_ to order at
8:13PM.
PRESENT: Lino Lakes - Mayor Reinert; Council members k:uether, Elliot,
Bergeson, Neal; Administrator Schumacher; Engineer Powell;
residents Cyril LaCasse, Tom L.aCasse, Jay Cain.
Hugo - Mayor Miron; council members Barnes, Goiffon, Leroux, L._aVal le;
Administrator Museus; Engineer Dresel.
Orr, .
Schelen, Maeron and Associates (OSM) representative
yt.
W.i..l 1 enbring .
CLEARWATER CREEK DRAINAGE
OSM Engineer Wi l lenbring made a presentation following a letter dat.eci
February 1, 1995 titled "Preliminary Findings and Recommendations
Associated with Hydrologic Study for Clearwater Creek Watershed (:J'SM
Project No 5465.06". A copy of this letter is attached to and made a part
of these minutes.
It was noted that wetlands make up approximately 20 1,500 acres) of the
subject area.
Three options reviewed were as follow.:
1. Restriction of flow from Bald Eagle Lake. Minimum benefits would be
obtained from this caption.
2. Effective use of wetlands as storage areas. It m+..+.s:-t be determined
whether the current wetland areas remain full or if they empty
between storms. It .is important that the wetlands are drawn down
after storms to ensure future capacity.
_. Utilize storage areas within Clearwater Creek itself. It may be
beneficial to increase the "low flow" within the creel:: system. The
most restrictive creed: area is under Interstate 05F..
It would be a goal that the flow underneath Interstate 05E: be less than
500 cubic fleet per second to prevent overtopping of 35E.
Options and recommendations of OSM Engineers with regard to financing wee:
1. As development takes place, require the developer to construct on
site ponding utilizing existing wetlands or constructing holding
areas, limiting discharge rates.
2. Require monetary contributions from developers that would be
dedicated to a fund to increase storage capacity. This could include
improvements such as on site drainage, regional facilities, and/or
within the drainageway.
It appeared to be the recommendation of OSM Engineers that the cities
consider incorporating both options.
Hl::lyUNQU LOW Minutes - February 1, 1995
Page 2
OSM Engineer Willenbring responded to several questions and answers from
Council and audience members as follows:
- It may be possible to construct an additional culvert to handle low -flow
conditions, creating additional capacity underneath 35E (5 to 15 years
into the future).
- The Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) has been briefly updated, but
it would be appropriate to obtain direction from the City Councils prior
to "selling" the project to the RCWD.
- The RCWD probably would not support an increase in capacity or peak rate
across 35E, but may be more receptive to downstream improvements.
- It would be important to assure wetland draw down, versus draining of
the wetlands. Of concern is the Wetland Conservation Act.
- Increasing the amount of wate=r- in wetlands during storms and controlling
runoff is the most cost effective way to deal with drainage concerns with
the subject area.
- The most effective utilization of water storage is within the em i.sting
wetlands.
- It would be a goal to drain water out of wetlands between storm events
to ensure storage.
- The proposed Lino Lakes development south of Cedar Street and west of
Elm Street will not significantly affect this proposed drainage concept.
- Funding will be the most difficult issue.
- It would be appropriate to meet with representatives from the City of
Centerville if the Councils from Hugo and l....i.no (....cakes would like to promote
this drainage concept.
- The issues that the RCWD will be considering are ditch laws, wetland
issues, development of a regional ponding area and controlled runoff.
Hugo Administrator Museus summarized the proposed process to include three
issues:
1. Low flow under Int:.erstat:.e -SSE
2. Rechannelizing Clearwater Creek
3. Regulating development_ to improve wetland storage.
OSM Engineer Willenbring advised that if the Hugo and Lino Lake City
Councils are comfortable with the project, the planning process could be
completed through the following Steps:
1.
Identify
the project
as high priority.
2.
Present
to project to
the RCWD.
3.
Discuss
the project with
the City of Centerville.
4.
Prepare
a preliminary
draft plan for the Cities of Hugo and Lino
Lakes to
review.
5.
Draft a
Joint Powers
Agreement. (JPA).
Hugo Administrator Museus noted that Clearwater Creek has not been cleaned
since 1958. He suggested that the RCWD help pay for the cost of creek
improvements.
OSM Engineer Willenbring suggested that possibly the RCWD could abandon
the Creek as a judicial ditch and redesignate it as a municipal ditch. He
did express concern that other contiguous cities may want to continue the
Creek as judicial.
Hugo/Lino Lakes Meeting - February 1, 1995
Page =
Lino Lakes Administrator Schumacher suggested that before a JPA is
drafted, it may be beneficial for each City to independently discuss
financing issues and funding resources.
OTHER RELATED DEVELOPMENT ISSUES
Hugo Engineer Dresel outlined transportation plan issues which may be in
conflict with those of the City of Lino Lakes. The area in question is
south of Frenchman Rd., east of Elmcrest Ave., north of 130th Street, and
west of High 61.
The Hugo transportation plan calls for east/wes-.t extensions within the
above area.
Lino Lakes Engineer Powell, advised that the City of Liao Lakes .is trying
to discourage through traffic from west of Elmcrest Ave. (area of a
proposed housing development) and the City of Hugo is trying to utilize
the area as a thoroughfare.
Hugo Administrator Museus noted that all traffic in this area is through
residential streets Hugo is trying to create east/ west routes to decrease
vehicular traffic through residential neighborhoods.
Lino Lakes Engineer Powell expressed concern that the Hugo Transportation
plan will increase traffic through Lino Lakes residential developments=.
(i.e. proposed Elmcrest subdivision).
It was noted that through the Hugo municipal water- system, there arc-.
opportunities for the City of Lino Lakes to ;hare water to service the
proposed Elmcrest s=ubdivision in Lino Lakes.
The City of Lino Lakes will prepare a feasibility study for an elevated
water tower in the Interstate :_•:,0- area. The study would address fire flow
needs of future commercial, industrial, and residential development. It
may be possible for the City of Hugo to interconnect with this system in
the future.
Lino Lakes Mayor Reinert advised that he and Lino Lakes Council member
Bergeson had met with the Centerville Mayor and a Centerville Council
member to discuss the Interstate 35E intersection. Mayor Reinert.
suggested that it may be beneficial for the Cities of Centerville. Hugo
and Lino Lakes to consider development of this area as a joint effort,
erasing boundary lines. He appeared to feel that it would be important to
worth; together to create compatible zoning districts. He noted that it
does not make a difference who obtains the first development, all will
benefit. Mayor Reinert further noted that developers may be very anxious
to worth: with a cooperative Cities group. He felt the three cities
together could create an interchange that we could all be proud of.
Meeting disassembled at 9:43PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Tamara M. Miltz-Miller
City of Hugo