Loading...
2003-11-24 City Council minutesPage No. 1 November 24, 2003 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS �3 DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Adjourned Meeting Held Monday, November 24, 2003 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the adjourned meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Huber called the meeting to order at 7:30'p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Huber, Councilmembers Duggan, Krebsbach, Schneeman and Vitelli. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AGENDA ADOPTION Ayes: 5 Nays:0 The City Council, audience and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of the revised agenda for the meeting. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. "THE BLUFFS" EIS Council acknowledged a memo and proposed resolution from Administrator Danielson regarding "The Bluffs" EAW determination, a letter from City Attorney Schleck outlining the next steps in the environmental review process, and letters /emails from Gail Crecelius, Lisa Contreras, Anne L. Gauthier, and the Pilot Knob Preservation Association. Mr. Timothy Bohlman, Senior Project Manager for Minnstar Builders, Inc., was present for the discussion. City Attorney Schleck reviewed his letter and referred also to a copy of the EQB timeline for scoping for an EIS. He stated that at its last meeting, Council decided to make a positive declaration of the potential for significant environmental effects. Because Council has made this positive declaration, the environmental rules for the state require that an EIS be prepared for the project. An EIS is designed to identify what the significant environmental effects are and what, if any, mitigation measures are available. There are statutory and administrative requirements with respect to timing, etc. Council must provide notice to the EQB and all of the parties who have submitted comments with respect to the project. There are certain additional requirements with respect to the notice and the city must send that notice out tomorrow. Council has received a draft Page No. 2 November 24, 2003 resolution that is intended to embody Council's decision with respect to the positive declaration and findings of fact as to why Council made its decision, and an outline of the process. The declaration will be published in the EQB Monitor that will come out on December 8. No less than ten working days and no more than twenty days following that publication, Council must have a public meeting on the scoping of the environmental review. That gives the public an opportunity to have input on what additional issues should be investigated with respect to the EIS. After that meeting, there is a thirty day public comment period where people can comment on the scope of the EIS. Following that thirty day period, Council must make a decision on the scope. After that, the EIS is prepared by the proposer with review by the responsible government unit (RGU). Once it has been prepared and Council feels the EIS is in a draft form, Council will again prepare a press release that the EIS is available and have public review and then another public meeting will be held. Following the public meeting, there is a need for the RGU to respond to the comments received on the EIS and revise the EIS as necessary. After that, a final EIS is issued and notice is published, and there is an opportunity for additional comments on the EIS. Councilmember Vitelli noted that it does not say in any of the material who is responsible for preparing the EIS. He asked who the responsible party is. Attorney Schleck responded that the project proposer is responsible. The RGU prepares the draft scope, receives comments and then prepares the final scope. Mayor Huber stated that a public hearing must be held on the scope, and everyone who made comments will be invited to attend and give their comments. Council would like to do that at the first meeting in January, but needs concurrence from Minnstar to do that. That would be the scoping meeting, and out of that will come a scoping document. Without Minnstar's concurrence, the meeting would have to be held between December 22 and 29. Mr. Tim Bohlman, from Minnstar, is present this evening and will talk to Minnstar representatives tomorrow. Council needs written concurrence from them to hold that meeting on January 6 at the regular City Council meeting. He stated that there will be many people present from the various agencies and interest groups that commented during the EAW review process. Page No. 3 November 24, 2003 Attorney Schleck suggested that Council schedule the public meeting t for the last week in December, and it could be stated in the resolution that the date is contingent on Minnstar giving its consent to moving the meeting date to January 6. Councilmember Vitelli asked who the individual is who is responsible for being the point person and developing the scope. Attorney Schleck responded that his suggestion is that as a Council, Council should look at retaining a consultant to help with that. He recommended that Barr Engineering be retained because they are familiar with the project. Councilmember Vitelli asked who pays for the consultant, and should not that person say who the consultant should be.. Attorney Schleck responded that the scoping is the responsibility of the city and the city has an interest in having an unbiased opinion on what the scope should be, but the cost of the scoping is to be borne by the project proposer. He stated that he and the city staff can work with a consultant to prepare the scope in draft form prior to the meeting. Mayor Huber stated that in the resolution there is a draft of scope that lays out some of what Council should be looking at, but the purpose of the scoping meeting is to determine all of the things that should e in the scope. The scope can contain more than what is before Council in draft, but the process will be what comes out of the meeting. More than a dozen agencies commented, and the city will need someone very adept at environmental matters and also in bringing all of the comments made at the public meeting into a document that is discernable to all involved - something that draws together all the comments from the discussion. There is a bit of an outline before Council tonight. Attorney Schleck stated that in addition to any other issues identified in the environmental review process, the city has the freedom to go beyond the five issues that have been identified by Barr. Mayor Huber stated that it is important to have the five issues that are listed, but he scooping document that comes out of the meeting will become a very complete list of what Council wants to look at and address all the points Council wants looked at. Page No. 4 November 24, 2003 Councilmember Krebsbach asked if the scoping document will prioritize the things Council feels are important. Attorney Schleck responded that in determining the scope of the EIS, the RGU is setting forth the questions they want answered. The environmental review process is an information gathering process. The scoping process is an opportunity for Council to determine what questions they need to have answered. In the process, Council sets forth the guidelines for the EIS and the decision that needs to be answered later as to whether the questions have been answered adequately. Typically an EIS addresses the questions that were not answered, but there is no restriction on those questions. Councilmember Duggan asked about the differences between a mandatory and voluntary EIS. He also asked what happens if the applicant withdraws from the process before it is completed. Attorney Schleck responded that Minnesota Rules state that Council would issue a decision on the modification of the project and termination of the EIS process and would send notice of the termination to all who have made comments. Council would have to accept comments on the termination. Voluntary EIS refers to the 1 type of process Council is going through now, where the RGU determined an EIS is needed. Discretionary is where an RGU determines an EIS is necessary without having done an EAW. Mayor Huber stated that Mr. Tom Casey has asked for some changes to the proposed resolution and is present this evening. Attorney Schleck responded that he has spoken to Mr. Casey and believes the resolution that was submitted is appropriate as written. Councilmember Krebsbach felt that the words "if so" should be added at the beginning of the second sentence of the tenth fording. Councilmember Duggan disagreed, stating that the additional language is not needed since the two sentences are independent of each other and each stands alone. Councilmember Schneeman agreed. Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of Resolution No. 03 -115, "A RESOLUTION MAKING A POSITIVE DECLARATION OF THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITH RESPECT TO THE MULTI - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, KNOWN AS "THE BLUFFS," Page No. 5 November 24, 2003 IN THE VICINITY OF THE NORTH END OF PILOT KNOB ROAD, PLANNING CASE #02 -50." Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Councilmember Krebsbach moved to amend the resolution to add "if so" to the beginning of the second sentence of item ten. Motion died for lack of a second. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he is surprised that item two of the "Order" portion of the resolution was included. Four of the paragraphs address the issues that were raised in the EAW, but it seems like including item two, where the EIS can put on the table a multitude of alternatives, is opening this up to all types of discussion. The EIS should address the proposed development, but this item says the developer can come back and say, for instance, that he would like to do a park and senior center, etc. Attorney Schleck responded that an analysis of alternatives is a requirement of the EIS process. The EIS must analyze alternatives to the project and alternatives with respect to mitigating measures that relate to alternative development. j Mayor Huber stated that there could be a scenario where an alternative is suggested to solve something. There could be two or three issues that need an alternative presented that resolves all the issues. Councilmember Duggan stated that he sees the EIS as looking at alternatives and the EAW about the development proposed in the EAW. He asked whether the proposed development should be included in item two since it is not an alternative. Attorney Schleck stated that the words "including the development" can be stricken without changing the meaning at all, and he is not opposed to that. Councilmember Duggan moved that the words "including the development' ' be stricken. Motion died for lack of a second. VOTE ON ORIGINAL MOTION: Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Huber stated that Council needs to discuss dates for the �� ) public meeting. Page No. 6 November 24, 2003 Attorney Schleck suggested that someone move that the scoping meeting for the EIS be conducted one day during that last week of December unless Minnstar Builders agrees to extend it to January 6. Administrator Danielson stated that the 20th day falls on December 28, which is a Sunday, and the EQB advised him that Council cold hold the meeting on the 29th. Councilmember Krebsbach moved that the public meeting be held on December 29 unless Minnstar Builders grants an extension to January 6. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Councilmember Vitelli stated that a motion has been made to meet on December 29 for a scoping review. He asked what Council will receive in the mail for that meeting. Administrator Danielson responded that the first draft of the scope is before Council tonight. Everyone who has expressed interest in being involved in the EIS process will be invited to review the scope and offer input on how the city develops a scope. J Mayor Huber stated that a draft of the scope is included in the resolution. Interested parties have all weighed in on their thoughts on the project through the EAW. One aspect of the scoping document is the 700 pages of material the city received during the 30 day period. Council should be thinking in the next month about how they view the comments and to what extent they are substantive and need further review. To try to put a bit of order and clarity, there would probably be value to having an outline prepared before the December 29 meeting to summarize all of the comments. Councilmember Vitelli stated that in fairness to the developer and to those concerned with the site, it seems to him that Council should say precisely what it wants the developer to do when he does research and brings back the EIS. Council should give the developer a statement of work that it wants done. He should be told what Council wants him to do to research each issue. What Council has today is not a definitive statement of the work Council wants the developer to do. He stated that he is expecting that in the next four weeks a consultant will be called on to produce a statement of work. Attorney Schleck responded that the city will publish notice of the decision in the EQB Monitor and that starts a public comment Page No. 7 November 24, 2003 period. As part of that thirty day period, the city also has to have a public meeting so that people can come in and say what they want in addition to the written comments. The notice will solicit comments form the public on what the scope should be. Following that meeting, the city has fifteen days to prepare a scoping decision. Council should develop questions that it feels need to be answered and Council should be specific as to its concerns. It would be impossible for Council to phrase the questions correctly. A consultant is needed because, given the volume of comments on the EAW, the city's staff size is not adequate to analyze all of the comments that will be received and condense those comments into a scope of work for the developer. The purpose of the EIS is to answer questions, and it is up to the city to adequately and with specificity phrase those questions. Mayor Huber stated that the city has fifteen days after the public scoping meeting to prepare a scoping document. Mr. Bohhnan stated that he does not have a problem with the meeting being on December 29 if it is a workable date for Council, but was concerned about the potential for bad weather. He asked whether it would be better for Council to set an earlier meeting date i to allow a fudge factor, since December 29 is the last day under the rules. Mayor Huber responded that what he is thinking is that the city would probably have a list of people it knows are going to speak and in the order they are going to speak. He stated that they can be told that Council would like them to speak or they can be encouraged to submit written comments in advance of the meeting rather than giving public testimony. Councilmember Schneeman stated that December 29 would be a bad meeting date for her. Attorney Schleck stated that the scoping meeting will be a public meeting, so everyone who wants to speak must be allowed to speak. Councilmember Duggan stated that breaking it into five to seven components would be good, and Council could then ask if anyone has more issues to be addressed. Attorney Schleck stated that Council can encourage people not to be repetitive. He stated that he does not see any way around scheduling 1 the meeting for December 29 but that he would think it would be Page No. 8 November 24, 2003 advantageous to everyone to extend the meeting date beyond the l holidays. Mr. Bohlman stated that he will work at getting the meeting out past the holidays, but if he cannot, he asked if the meeting could be scheduled for December 26 and if that is a snow day it could fall back to December 29. After additional brief discussion, Mayor Huber called for a vote on the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 EIS CONSULTANT Councilmember Vitelli stated that it should be clarified in the resolution that was adopted this evening who is going to pay for the consultant services. Administrator Danielson responded that staff and the city attorney will be drafting an agreement with the developer whereby the developer must agree to pay for the cost of the consultant. Councilmember Duggan moved to retain Barr Engineering to assist in the EIS scoping and review process. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Councilmember Duggan suggested that two Council members meet with Barr and get a sense of what they see the job as being. Mayor Huber stated that staff should set up a meeting with Barr, and if someone from Council wants to sit in on the meeting, he did not see a problem with that. Councilmembers Duggan and Krebsbach stated that they would like to attend the meeting. Councilmember Vitelli moved to amend to motion to state that staff must get confirmation from Minnstar that they agree with the consultant that is proposed to be retained and that they will pay the fee. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page No. 9 November 24, 2003 VOTE ON ORIGINAL MOTION AS AMENDED: Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 City Attorney Schleck recommended that the city request the developer to submit a $10,000 escrow to pay the cost of the consultant. He stated that the city needs to be sure that the consultant fees will be paid if the project is terminated. Mayor Huber suggested that staff work with Barr Engineering and Minnstar to determine an appropriate escrow amount. ADJOURN There being no f irther business to come before Council, Councilmember Duggan moved that the meeting be adj ourned. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk ATTEST: John J. er May