10/05/2022 Environmental Board Minutes

Home Search

Environmental Board October 5, 2022 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES document was also filed with the Environmental Quality Board and circulated for comments to parties on the required distribution list. A notice of availability was also published in the EQB Monitor as required by law. Additionally, notices were sent to property owners within 600 feet of the proposed project area. Allison Harwood with WSB provided an overview of the EAW process. She explained that while the threshold number of homes that necessitates an EAW had been met, the threshold that would necessitate an EIS had not been met. The proposed project includes less homes than the threshold of 1,000 attached homes or 1,500 unattached homes. Ms. Harwood noted that the EAW evaluated the Yield Plan, which was the more dense/impactful of the two project scenarios provided by the developer. The PUD Concept Plan was the less dense of the two project scenarios. Ms. Harwood detailed the government agencies and members of the public who had been provided an opportunity to comment on the EAW as required by state law. The city received four comment letters from government agencies and fifteen emails from members of the public. She noted that none of the comments received suggested the need for an EIS. Ms. Harwood provided an overview of the comments received and the responses to these comments. General themes of the comments received included land use, water resources, ecological resources/habitat, contamination, and traffic impacts including impacts related to connecting Carl Street. She also noted that there were comments received that were unrelated to the EAW, such as impacts to the Air Park, property values, school classroom size and funding, and infrastructure maintenance. Ms. Harwood then explained the criteria used to determine if a project has the potential for significant environmental effects. These criteria include: type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; cumulative potential effects; the extent to which environmental effects are subject to ongoing public regulatory authority; and the extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies. Ms. Harwood then stated that based on the criteria established by Minnesota Rule, the potential for significant environmental impact does not exist. Mr. Grochala stated that while the comment period for the EAW had closed, this meeting provided an opportunity for staff, the developer, and consultants to respond to questions and clarification points from the Environmental Board and members of the public in attendance.