Loading...
Conservation Commission - 11/14/2006 APPROVED MINUTES CONSERVATION COMMISSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2006 7:00 PM, City Center 8080 Mitchell Road, Eden Prairie, MN Prairie Room COMMISSION MEMBERS: Eapen Chacko (Chair), Jan Mosman (Vice Chair), Ray Daniels, Rita Krocak, Geneva MacMillan, David Seymour STUDENT COMMISSIONERS: Jennifer Brown, Lauren Mosman, Casey Russell COMMISSION STAFF: Leslie A. Stovring, Staff Liaison Scott Neal, City Manager Alex Vollmer, City Intern Allison Burr, Recording Secretary I. ROLL CALL Chair Chacko called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Daniels arrived at 7:08 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Mosman moved, seconded by Seymour, to approve the agenda as published. Motion carried 5-0. Scott Neal, City Manager asked to address the Commission at the beginning of its meeting, as his presence was required at the City Council meeting which also began at 7 pm. Chacko asked that the Commission accommodate his request. Neal wanted to address the issue of letters of support from Commission Members on matters before local government bodies. Neal noted that this Conversation Commission meeting was the first public discussion of an Environmental Site Assessment (EAW) at a Commission meeting. The EAW in front of the Commission is the Prospect Road/Oak Creek at Hennepin Village Alternative Roadway Analysis. Because the EAW work was at such an early stage and because of the number of citizens present at the Commission meeting, he urged the Commission to retain a neutral stance at this point. The public comment period was not anticipated to begin until early 2007. This public comment period would allow residents and other interested parties to discuss what they think and to present pros and cons regarding the issue at hand. Input from the Commission would be an integral part of the public comment process and those commenting during the process should feel the Commission is impartial and fair in their review of those comments. He therefore asked the Commissioners to suspend advocacy until after the public hearing is concluded and to remain fair and impartial until after the environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) is presented. Neal also reiterated the importance of clearly distinguishing personal opinions on an issue from those expressed by the Commission as a body or by individuals in their official capacities. Neal departed the meeting at 7:05 p.m. Eden Prairie Conservation Commission November 14, 2006 Page 2 III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. OCTOBER 9, 2006 Chacko forwarded minor edits of the minutes to Stovring. He also suggested the property owner's name be removed from item 5-13 and be replaced with the property owner's address so as to depersonalize this discussion, which was a City Council issue. MOTION: Mosman moved, seconded by Krocak, to approve the minutes as amended. Motion carried 5-0. IV. REPORTS FROM STAFF A. LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM THE COMMISSION — GUIDELINES AND REQUIREMENTS See comments by Scott Neal above. Stovring added that Commissioners should always feel free to-contact her with any questions regarding the timing or advisability of sending out an email or a letter on a specific issue such as Prospect Road. B. PROSPECT ROAD ALTERNATIVE EAW—PROJECT STATUS Speaker—Diane Spector, Wenck Associates, Inc. Daniels arrived at 7:08 p.m. Chacko introduced the speaker and stated the Prospect Road project had come up in a previous Conservation Commission meeting. The question was raised at the time as to how the Commission would participate in the discussion. The objective today is to familiarize the Commission with an EAW, its purpose, how it is put together, and how it fits into the review process. He explained Wenck Associates was retained in early October by the City and was beginning the process of putting together an EAW. It was evident from their website that Wenck Associates had quite a lot of experience in complex projects and stated that he thought the City has chosen well. The goal tonight is to educate the Commission and citizens attending the meeting about the EAW process. Diane Spector described the work of Wenck Associates. She stated it is an environmental engineering firm that works on water resources, air quality, solid waste, environmental assessments, and natural resources assessments for public and private sector clients. Spector's work was almost exclusively with public sector clients. Spector described the EAW as a structured data gathering tool. It is not an evaluative process, and no recommendations would come out of it. There is a specific format used in Minnesota so that every EAW assesses the same questions and gathers the same type of information. The EAW presents an evaluation of potential impacts, and at that point the Commission and Council would make decisions based on the information collected. The EAW informs decision-making but does not drive decision-making. Eden Prairie Conservation Commission November 14, 2006 Page 3 Spector stated this EAW will evaluate some specific roadway improvements and is not looking at any development or redevelopment options. It will look at the extension of Prospect Road to Eden Prairie Road as one option; other options include realignment of Eden Prairie Road with Highway 212, alternative road alignments through the area and the potential impact of a culvert crossing versus a bridge crossing. All EAWs also evaluate the "do-nothing alternate"; in other words, the environmental impacts of no changes to the status quo. She summarized there are a total of six roadway alternatives and a do-nothing alternative. Spector stated the structured EAW process lays out a series of specific items that have to be evaluated. She provided an overview of the physical, biological, and human environmental factors that are considered in the EAW. Cumulative impact is also looked at, which requires the most art in the process of creating an EAW. Spector explained Wenck is currently in the middle of the data-gathering process. Site visits have been done, and a group of three Wenck employees walked Riley Creek from the proposed Prospect Road crossing to the Spring Road crossing and observed the conditions in the stream and conditions in the area adjacent to the stream. They also walked or drove the corridors of the other proposed alternates for the potential roadway connections. Their transportation engineer has looked at all the corridors, and traffic and turning counts have been done. As part of this, traffic generation and routing on Spring Road, Eden Prairie Road and other roads that might be impacted by some of the road alternatives are being assessed in order to determine the impact on existing traffic volumes. Spector reported cultural resources will also be evaluated in the EAW. One example of a cultural impact might be an old farmstead or an Indian mound. Ecological factors in the EAW will include threatened and endangered species as well as impacts on local ecology and general bluff impacts. Various agency regulations will be considered. Spector explained the cumulative impacts portion of the EAW. The first part is placing the identified potential impacts in the context of all of the impacts that have occurred to date. The second part of that is the projecting the potential of future impacts. Spector explained the timeline of the EAW and noted the Environmental Quality Board (EQB)has a list of agencies to which the City must circulate the EAW for review. Chacko asked about the relationship between the EAW and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Spector explained there are certain categories of projects and improvements that are required to have an EAW. Any Regulatory Government Unit (RGU) can request a discretionary EAW. One of the findings that the RGU must make is whether or not an EIS is warranted. An EIS is a much more intensive analysis of impacts. The EAW may disclose areas that may need more research; the EIS conducts the work needed. The City Council would decide if an EIS would be warranted for Prospect Road. Eden Prairie Conservation Commission November 14, 2006 Page 4 Daniels asked if future development is considered in the EAW. Spector responded for this particular EAW, the City has requested that development on the farmstead north of Miller Spring be taken into account to a limited extent. Chacko asked whether the EAW uses existing data regarding geology and quality of the springs or whether that information is gathered by Wenck. Spector explained Wenck did take traffic counts for key locations and is doing some flow gauging in Riley Creek; otherwise, existing information is being utilized. Stovring noted some of that information was collected just this year. Jan Mosman noted there are a number of regulatory agencies required to review the EAW. She asked whether there were other agencies not required to review it but where the information can still be sent, for example, the Bureau of Indian Affairs for the Indian mounds. Stovring responded the Minnesota Environmental Council has already asked for a copy, as has the Coalition of the Clean Minnesota River. Any interested party may request a copy. A copy would also be posted on the City's web site. Mosman stated even after all this information has been gathered, it would still be a subjective decision, depending on one's perspective. She asked what the Council's options are once it reviews the EAW. Stovring explained the Council will review the EAW, the recommendations and the comments received. The Council may then decide it cannot make a decision based on the information collected and could request more information; or the Council could decide one option is the best option and conclude the process. In describing the process, Stovring noted that the Council receives the draft first, but their public hearing and approval process would not occur until completion of a number of other steps, including a public comment period and review by the Planning Commission through a public hearing process.. Spector added part of the public review process and advisory process is identifying the key issues, and she suggested the Conservation Commission think about how to assist the Council in identifying those key issues. She felt that this would be a very helpful and valuable role for the Commission, namely to distill this bulk of information available. One resident asked about other consultants that were hired for this project. Stovring explained that prior to deciding to do an EAW; the City hired STS Consultants to survey the seeps in the project area. The other consultant who had commented on the project was Westwood Professional Services who was hired by the developer. One resident asked what a seep was. Spector explained that a seep is where groundwater expresses on the surface. Stovring stated some can only be seen in the spring; while others run all year. STS did their review in late summer. One resident asked if those consultant reports are available for public review. Stovring responded affirmatively. Eden Prairie Conservation Commission November 14, 2006 Page 5 One resident asked about the EAW's review of the impact on infrastructure and public service. Spector explained that includes a review of whether there is a need to bring more water service to the area, upsize sanitary sewer, and whether a roadway needs to be redone to increase amount of traffic it can carry. It may include an economic impact, depending on level of information required. A roadway project is defined as being the construction of the roadway, so the infrastructure impacts might include whether additional infrastructure is needed. It also evaluates the additional cost that might occur because of a particular project. One resident asked if this study includes a look at the cost of purchasing some of the homes that are in the way of some of those roads. Spector explained at this point, the EAW would not identify the additional cost of acquiring right-of-way. The resident asked if the scope of the project taken into account the impact of the development. Spector responded the scope of the EAW assumes this development is in place. Stovring added the EAW will only look at the road alternatives; it does not look at Hennepin Village. One resident commented on how one roadway carries all the traffic from Hennepin Village, but the EAW data is set outside the scope of that. Spector responded that might be taken into account by evaluating cumulative impacts. For example, runoff in the area has increased over predevelopment conditions and a proposed new development would add that much more runoff. Mosman asked about traffic impacts. Spector responded the traffic options look at different combinations of whether the intersection of Eden Prairie Road and Highway 212 is open or closed as well as other combinations, such as extending Prospect Road or realigning the intersection of Eden Prairie Road and Highway 212. Spector stated that the analysis assumes that development is expected to be completed in the area by 2008. One resident asked about plans for expanding the width of Eden Prairie Road. Stovring stated this area is so unique for building a road that planning for more than a simple two- lane road is not anticipated. Spector added Wenck is aware of what ultimate development is, and that becomes part of the cumulative impact. She noted it takes a significant amount of traffic to require more than a two-lane road. The meeting recessed at 7:57 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:06 p.m. Daniels, who is the publisher, distributed a newsletter from the Hydrogen Fuel Society of Minnesota during the break. Stovring stated she had received a letter from Jan Mosman regarding the EAW during the break. She stated she was aware of a number of other letters being mailed to various agencies and associations regarding the EAW and their concerns for the area being impacted. Following Scott Neal's presentation, Stovring expressed concern that the letter advanced an opinion by a Commission member before any data had come in. When members of the public come in to speak and they see this letter, they may feel Eden Prairie Conservation Commission November 14, 2006 Page 6 they are not receiving an impartial hearing. Mosman noted she had included a disclaimer in the letter that this was her personal opinion and was not representative of the Conservation Commission. Notwithstanding, Stovring noted the Commission is an advisory body to the City Council and suggested that the timing of the letter may have been premature. Chacko commented the Commission is an advisory body to the City Council, and should consider not commenting prior to submission of the item to the Council. The Commission has been given the opportunity to comment as part of the data gathering and public review process. Chacko stated that he felt that including membership on the Commission in the letter creates ambiguity as to the capacity in which the opinion was being expressed. He also noted that the Commission had been given guidance before on this same type of communication issue. Mosman responded that legally she felt she had to include that information. Seymour agreed there should not be a mention of her membership on the Commission. Mosman stated she could support a decision that is different from her personal opinion if the Commission decided that it was the best decision based on all the information collected. Stovring stated she will forward the letter to Scott Neal and have him contact Mosman. Mosman noted she had intended to forward a copy to Mr. Neal. Daniels asked if the letters discussed would be considered public information and if the Commission could review them. Stovring noted that all letters submitted to the City are public record and would be made available if requested. Stovring stated she will have to get further opinion about this issue from the City attorney. C. WATER RESOURCES CONFERENCE—OCTOBER 2006 Stovring reported she attended a Water Resources Conference, and there was an interesting discussion on the use of bio-fuels. Dave Tillman presented a lifecycle study of corn, soybean and native prairie grasses and how they create bio-fuels. The use of native grasses or native prairies for bio-fuel production could be managed so that it would not impact nesting birds or animals and would assist the country in meeting its goal of producing 20 percent of its fuel from bio-fuels. This is not possible with corn, even if 100% of the corn grown were used for bio-fuel. An additional benefit is that after 4 years, native soils are starting to reconstruct in native prairies, and after 200 years the native soil structure would be completely restored to pre-civilization levels. It can be grown worldwide in areas that are not used for anything because they have been depleted or over farmed. Chacko noted that research studies had suggested that part of the north shore could be rehabilitated through the use of cellulosic materials, such as switchgrass. Stovring noted Mr. Tillman may be a potential speaker for a future meeting, either at a Commission meeting or other public forum. D. CONSERVATION PRINCIPLES WEB SITE IDEAS Eden Prairie Conservation Commission November 14, 2006 Page 7 Stovring distributed a copy of the Conservation Principles page that is now on the website. She suggested links and information could be posted on the website related to the works and projects the Commission is doing. She asked for ideas on pictures or rewriting the front page. VI. REPORTS FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS A. GLOBAL WARMING SEMINAR REPORT—GENEVA MACMILLAN MacMillan reported that the seminar was a success. A number of people picked up the flyers, and the rubber ducky video was very popular. She suggested the Commission look for other places to do this type of thing and that the Commission have its own display board for future events. Daniels noted many of the attendees were from outside Eden Prairie, but they still enjoyed the material. Stovring stated she received positive comments from a couple visitors. VII. OLD BUSINESS A. PROJECT GREEN FLEET UPDATE—EAPEN CHACKO Chacko provided a brief timeline of Project Green Fleet as it related to involvement with Eden Prairie Schools. He noted he attended the school board meeting along with Bill Droessler and Kristen Johnson when the board approved the partnership. The grant of about $85,000 has been given to the school district, and 61 buses will be retrofitted; 41 will receive the full retrofit and 20 will get a fuel filter. The worst buses will not be retrofitted because those will be replaced soon. The 20 receiving only the fuel filter will provide better air quality to bus passengers. Chacko noted the Mayor Nancy Tyra-Lukens had thanked the Commission for bringing up this issue, and the Eden Prairie superintendent, Dr. Melissa Krull had also personally expressed appreciation for the Commission's involvement on the issue. He noted all of Project Green Fleet's funds were used up for the year, which is very positive for Mr. Droessler as he sought to fund and expand the project for next year. Chacko thanked all his colleagues on the Commission for their support and rapid action on this win-win project for the City. Stovring asked Chacko to write an update on Project Green Fleet for the website. Chacko indicated he will do so. B. RECYCLING OPPORTUNITIES UPDATE — EAPEN CHACKO / DAVID SEYMOUR Stovring distributed a document regarding Clear Stream recycling kits which would be used only for events. The kits have been very successful because they are clear plastic, and they make people more conscious of what is being thrown away. She suggested one case be purchased just to begin with. Stovring stated Hennepin County is planning on purchasing a number of these kits to loan out. Eden Prairie Conservation Commission November 14, 2006 Page 8 Seymour stated this collection plus an education component would be a nice combination. Chacko noted there tends to be some confusion about what can and cannot be recycled. He thought that the Commission might revisit how to better communicate acceptable products for plastics recycling in 2007. Stovring suggested someone talk to Pat Brink in the communications department to create a public service announcement or perhaps devote part of a "Life in the Prairie" program to discuss what is recyclable and what is not. Stovring noted she has posted a list of the top ten things not to recycle on the City's website. Mosman suggested the three main waste hauling companies be contacted and asked to clarify recycling guidelines for its customers. Seymour asked what events the recycling kits will be used at for the first year. Stovring suggested for the first year, the recycling project be held on July 4ffi and Schooner Days, at which point its success can be evaluated. Krocak suggested the recycling kits be used at Diversity on the Prairie as well. The Commission concurred. C. GREEN ROOF / COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT STATUS (MEETING 11/13/2006) —DAVID SEYMOUR Seymour stated he had a good meeting on Monday and met with Bob Lambert, Parks and Recreation Director, Dell Erickson, the architect for the community center expansion, and a representative from Prairie Technologies who was working on the concept plans for the green roof proposal. Seymour stated the proposal includes a series of pans that abut each other and create a grid pattern. The pans can be removed when the next floor is added and then the pans can easily be put on top of that next level. Seymour pointed out the possible locations for the green roof on a building sketch. Lambert has indicated there is no budget money available for the small target area, as they are already over budget. Stovring stated if approved, the additional funds would likely come from the stormwater utility fund as part of our stormwater permit program, including the stormwater education effort. Additionally, green roofs are something the City is talking to developers about doing, so it would be nice to have the City put a foot forward to do this when talking to developers about it. There is an air-intake point on that section of the roof as well, which would provide additional long-term cost savings. There would be room to put signage up as well for education. There will be two alternates so they can pick and choose what they can afford. If it comes in at a reasonable price, then staff will look at funding. Stovring reported this green roof is estimated to cost between $100,000 and $200,000. The use of the movable pans is more expensive than a fixed green roof, so both alternates will be presented. Chacko asked if there are grants available for this type of project. Stovring responded she was not aware of any. Eden Prairie Conservation Commission November 14, 2006 Page 9 Seymour asked if the Commission is interested in trying to sell naming rights for the green roof. The Commission responded affirmatively. Chacko stated he will help make some calls. Stovring suggested the Commission can put in a letter of recommendation to the City Council, once bids are received, urging Council approval. Seymour agreed if the City was going to start requiring or encouraging companies to install green roofs, the City should do its own green roof as well. Lulu Mosman handed out a Time magazine article regarding Skystream 3.7, a residential windmill, which is a 35-foot tower to turn in breezes as low as 8 m.p.h. and can provide up to 80 percent of the average household's electricity. She suggested that topic might be something featured at the conference in January. D. ENVIRONMENTAL CHAMPION AWARDS —JAN MOSMAN Mosman provided a document to Stovring, who will review it and distribute it to Commission members for comments. VIII.NEW BUSINESS /DISCUSSION ITEMS A. CAMPAIGN IDEA —REPLACE AN INCANDESCENT BULB Stovring stated there is a campaign template available through the EPA to encourage homeowners to replace one light bulb each year with Energy Star-qualified compact fluorescent light bulbs. At the very least, the Commission can do a spring article on this. B. EXPANDED WATER CONSERVATION REBATE PROGRAM IDEA — RAIN SENSORS FOR IRRIGATION SYSTEMS Stovring distributed a document regarding the addition to the water conservation program of rain sensors for residential irrigation systems. The City is setting aside $1,000 for the first year. Work is needed to determine what types of systems would qualify for the rebate. C. CITY CODE CHAPTER 9, SECTION 9.01 REVISION Stovring reported a requirement is being added that multifamily units have to provide recycling to their residents. Another provision is being added related to anti-scavenging because there have been problems with people scavenging for copper and other metals. Other requirements were put in for recyclable waste collection. She noted a first violation will be a petty misdemeanor. Chacko asked if staff expected landlords to pass on the costs of these regulations to residents in the form of higher rents. Stovring stated there is a provision that a hauler Eden Prairie Conservation Commission November 14, 2006 Page 10 cannot charge for those who recycle or those who do not in City Code Section 5.36. The haulers are trying to add extra charges for recycling at multi-family units if contamination issues are found. How that would be dealt with are unknown but the requirement in conjunction with the extra charge may encourage multi-family dwellings to work harder at educating their residents on contamination. D. IMPLEMENTING CONSERVATION COMMISSION GOALS IN PARTNERSHIP WITH EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOLS This item will be discussed at the December meeting. Lulu Mosman noted at the next Commission meeting she will present information about the environmental club started at the high school. IX. INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS/HANDOUTS A. FINAL COPY—FALL ENVIRONMENTAL TIMES NEWSLETTER Stovring distributed the final copy of the Environmental Times newsletter. X. UPCOMING EVENT PLANNING A. ENVIRONMENTAL FAIR—JANUARY 2007 Stovring stated she needs any information about any speakers or exhibits by next Wednesday. XI. NEXT MEETING December 12, 2006 XII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Mosman moved, seconded by Seymour, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.