Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-05-18 PACKET 04.A.ii.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # Lj DATE 5/18/11 •1, 1 =010L1:7��1:1'I1 Community Development ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT Jennifer Levitt STAFF AUTHOR COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST Receive and place on file the approved minutes for the Environmental Commission's meetings on April 13, 2011 and April 27, 2011. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and place on file the approved minutes for the Environmental Commission's meetings on April 13, 2011 and April 27, 2011. BUDGET IMPLICATION $N /A $N /A N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION DATE REVIEWED APPROVED DENIED ❑ PLANNING ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ PUBLIC SAFETY ❑ ❑ ❑ • PUBLIC WORKS ❑ ❑ ❑ • PARKS AND RECREATION ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ HUMAN SERVICES /RIGHTS ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ENVIRONMENTAL 5/11/11 ❑ ❑ ❑ SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ❑ MEMO /LETTER: ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: ® OTHER: Approved minutes of Environmental Commission meetings on 4/13/11 & 4/27/11 ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS City Administrator Date COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER Environmental Commission City of Cottage Grove Wednesday, April 13, 2011 A meeting of the Environmental Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on April 13, 2011, in the Council Chambers. Attendees Members Present: Karla Bigham, Rick Chase, Barbara Gibson, Rita Isker, Patrick McLoughlin, David Olson, Thaddeus Owen Members Absent: Patrick Lynch, Matthew Porrett Planning Commission Brian Pearson, Tracy Poncin Present: Others Present: Justin Olsen, City Councilmember; Jennifer Levitt, City Engineer; Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator; John McCool, Senior Planner; Vicki Batroot, 3M; Mark Gaetz, 3M; John McNamara, Wold Architects; Jodi Nelson, Wold Architects Call to Order Owen opened the joint meeting at 6:00 p.m. Approval of Agenda Chase made a motion to approve the agenda. Olson seconded. Motion passed unanimously (6- to -0 vote). 3M East Cove Sediment Removal Project EAW Review Joint Meeting with Planning Commission McCool summarized the staff report and explained the schedule for the Environmental Assess- ment Worksheet (EAW) process. Mark Gaetz from 3M gave a presentation on the MnPCA consent order and remedial action plan. 3M has completed excavation of sediment in the D -1, D -2, and D -9 areas of their property. They have also reconstructed the road to the East Cove. He stated that 3M hired WR Compass, who specializes in sediment removal. This will be a design -build project. Gaetz explained that the East Cove is 1.5 acres in size and includes a sand bar. They will be excavating approx- imately 17,000 cubic yards of sediment in wet form, which will be dewatered on site and hauled to the disposal site in Rosemount, Minnesota. He provided a description of the staged approach to the excavation and disposal of the excavated sediment. Sheet pilings will be installed by the railroad right -of -way and the west and north sides of the cove around the sandbar area along the bank of the Mississippi River. The water will be diverted to the east side of the Cove and a temporary loading dock will be constructed. They will then reverse the flow to the west side of the Cove and install a turbility curtain on the north and east sides of the Cove. They will dredge Environmental Commission April 13, 2011 Minutes Page 2 of 5 the east section of the Cove by using a piece of equipment on a floating platform and depositing the dredged material onto a barge where they will apply a super absorbent material. This material will be loaded onto trucks for transport to the approved disposal site. Owen asked if the polymer that is mixed with the wet sediment gets separated. Gaetz responded no. Olson asked about the dewatering process with polymer and if the water ultimately goes to the landfill. Gaetz responded yes, noting that the benefit is not having to handle liquid. Olson asked if Ws wastewater and stormwater surface drainage discharge is open or through a pipe. Gaetz responded it goes through a pipe to the ravine and is open to the river. Olson asked if the dis- charge flows through the East Cove. Gaetz stated that there are two feet of stable granular ma- terial over the contaminated soils in the cove. Olson asked if the barges are transported in over land. Gaetz responded yes, explaining that the road improvement is for truck loading. Gaetz continued explaining the remedial action plan, noting that after the east side is dredged and partially backfilled, they will move to the west section and divert the water flow to the east. Owen asked about the backfilling. Gaetz responded that there will be a partial backfilling of the east side, and then they will backfill the west section and armor the northwest bank with matting and riprap for erosion control. He stated that they met with other state agencies and agreed to backfill to its original elevation and vegetate to its pre- construction condition. Contaminated sediment at the sandbar will be removed and backfilled with clean sand. The last stage is to re- move the dams and barges, stabilize, and demobilize. The schedule, pending PCA approval, is to start the process in June and demobilize in November 2011. The Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Natural Resources will provide a recommendation on the planting plan, to be completed in spring 2012 and then monitor the plantings over time to ensure active growth. Chase asked about areas D1, D2, and D9 that were completed. Gaetz stated that those waste disposal areas were created 40 to 60 years ago and they have a 90 -foot different elevation to the East Cove. Chase asked how they know how deep to excavate. Gaetz responded that they did core borings throughout the Cove. There are two feet of firm granular material and 6.5 to 7 feet of loose black clay. The dredge has GPS controls. Chase asked about the types of trucks that will be used to remove the 17,000 cubic yards of dirt. Gaetz responded they will use tandem trucks that hold 12 to 14 tons per truck. Chase expressed concern for the number of truck trips through Cottage Grove. Gaetz stated that there would be five to six trucks per day leaving the site, which is within trucking limits. He then described the route to the SKB landfill. Vicki Batroot, 3M, stated that currently there are 100 trucks accessing their facility each day. Gaetz stated that the trucks are lined and covered, everything is listed on a manifest, and times are documented. Bigham arrived at 6:45 p.m. Planning Commissioner Pearson asked about backfilling. Gaetz stated that they are not allowed to excavate within the railroad right -of -way and have taken photos of the lower elevation of the railroad bridge to document its existing condition. Planning Commissioner Poncin asked if there are any plans to provide a closed drain and if the discharge water is clean. Gaetz responded that they are removing PFCs from concentrated sites. Discharge effluent will not change after contaminated soils are removed. Environmental Commission April 13, 2011 Minutes Page 3 of 5 Planning Commissioners Pearson and Poncin left the joint meeting at 7:00 p.m. Open Forum /Additional Agenda Items Councilmember Olsen provided a recap of the All Commission Meeting held on March 26, 2011. Isker suggested a time capsule for the new Public Safety /City Hall. Olson stated that communi- cation to the Commission has improved over the past month. Owen noted that the Environ- mental Commission will make a recommendation on the 3M East Cove EAW at the May 11 meeting. He asked the Commissioners to review the EAW in advance of that meeting. New Business Environmental Commission 2011 Bylaws Olson asked for clarification from the City Code regarding how many consecutive terms an Envi- ronmental Commissioner can serve. McLoughlin stated that he needs more time to review. Chase made a motion to approve the bylaws with the clarification on the number of consecutive terms. Bigham seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). Old Business Public Safety /City Hall Sustainability — Wold Architects John McNamara, Wold Architects, provided an update on the proposed Public Safety /City Hall facility. The Planning Commission will hold the public hearing for the site plan review application on April 25, 2011. He described the site design. There will be four infiltration basins, a garden area, a veterans memorial, a time capsule, an amphitheater on the northwest corner of the building, and native materials along southwest and west sides of the site and at the front build- ing entrance. Owen asked if rain water could be captured for irrigation. He expressed concern regarding environmental impact from water runoff into the ravine. McNamara explained that the basins will capture the runoff and the rate of discharge will not be greater than the pre- settle- ment rate. McNamara described the floor plan and elevations of the building. He stated that they are working with Xcel on energy credits for design, performance, and energy efficiency strategies. Owen asked what determines which energy credits to seek. McNamara responded costs. Chase asked about the R -value for floors. McNamara stated that there is no payback for insulation un- der the slab and insulation would only be added if geothermal is selected. He explained that all strategies are interrelated. He discussed LEED 2009 for new construction. Owen asked about outdoor lighting because of the park. Bigham stated that it is important to try to achieve a high energy rating with verification of design and usage. The energy and atmosphere section is im- portant for measure and verification. Chase asked about commissioning the mechanical design and having a third party to measure and verify. Olsen asked if geothermal is under considera- tion. McNamara responded yes, under Energy and Atmosphere. Olson asked about other envi- ronmental certifications. Joel Dunning, Wold Architects, stated that they discussed B3 and the difference and amount of proof to achieve certification. Owen stated that recycled content might be an easy way to get extra points. The City could advertise that we are using the LEED Environmental Commission April 13, 2011 Minutes Page 4 of 5 process as a guideline. Olson stated that he has confidence in the staff and architect on the in- tent of sustainability with logical decisions to meet many of the LEED guidelines. Olsen stated the Environmental Commission brings values to the City Council and any recommendation the Commission passes on standards will be taken under advisement by the Council. Owen stated that the City is building a building and should work on meeting the intent of LEED certification as a guideline. Bigham stated there are elements of sustainability components that bring value to the community. McNamara provided talking points for the Commission. Schroeder discussed bundle options and suggested a special meeting to discuss bundles. McLoughlin discussed budget options with reference to environmental selections. Gibson asked how much staff wants Environmental Commission to comment on items listed in the "maybe" columns. Schroeder responded it is up to the team. Owen stated that the informa- tion be used as guidelines to try to reach 40 points and then work to get the extra points. Olson suggested searching for points within budget constraints. There was a discussion on geothermal. McNamara reported that it will cost $400,000 to $550,000 with a potential energy savings of 25 to 45 percent and a potential payback period of 10 to 15 years. The heating load drives the number of wells. There could be 286 wells across the site that would be 100 feet deep. Owen asked about maintenance of geothermal systems. McNamara stated that the equipment should last 30 years. The largest cost is the well drilling. Olson asked about the impact to the landscape. McNamara stated that nothing would be visible because it is a closed loop system. Olson asked if users would notice the difference. McNamara responded no. Chase asked what the cost was for just cooling. McNamara said $400,000. He stated that this is a significant decision point for the engineers. We need to firm up the model to make sure it is going to work. The test bore cost is $15,000. The payback could be reduced if energy costs are higher in the future. Owen asked if we wait until they see all the bundles and noted that a special meeting will be necessary. Bigham left at 8:30 p.m. Councilmember Peterson arrived at 8:32 p.m. There was a question about using wind turbines, and the Commission's consensus was no wind turbines because it would cost more, there are sound and visual issues, and the City would like to keep that area natural. There are also long -term maintenance and operation issues. Chase asked about in -floor heating and what it would cost. McNamara said that could be reviewed as part of the final plan. It was decided to hold a special meeting of the Environmental Commission on April 27 to further discuss sustainability issues for the proposed building. Commission Work Plan Chase made a motion to continue the work plan to the April 27 meeting. Olson seconded. Motion passed unanimously (6 -to -0 vote). Approval of Environmental Commission Minutes of March 9, 2011 Olson made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 9, 2011, Environmental Commission meeting. Gibson seconded. Motion passed unanimously (6 -to -0 vote). Environmental Commission April 13, 2011 Minutes Page 5 of 5 Reports City Council Update Olsen provided a City Council update to the Environmental Commission. Response to Commission Inquiries • Air Permit Inventory — Continued • Questions to 3M Chase asked regarding the remediation work how the water goes to East Cove to make sure pipes don't leak. BMP to check and monitor to make sure it does not leach into ground. Is the water tested and cleaned as water leaves the wastewater treatment plant? Can 3M get that information to the Environmental Commission? Levitt responded that we have the data. The NPDES discharge points are tested and already being monitored. Chase asked about new chemicals they produce and test for. Batroot responded that they test before, during, and after to make sure they are in compliance. She offered a tour to the Commission with 3M scientists. Chase asked for a record and data on pipe maintenance. He suggested that the City check sewer pipes nearest to the five hazardous processers in the city. Gibson asked if they could combine the tour of the wastewater treatment plant with a tour of the East Cove since some members have not seen the area. Batroot responded yes. Batroot discussed the list of chemicals burned in the incinerator, outside tests, and how the sampling picks up other chemicals. Before waste material is shipped, it is tested. When it ar- rives, it is tested again to make sure it is what they said it was. Olson stated that he had a better understanding of the incinerator operations and how they manage the kiln. Batroot stated that there is one truck per week to ship ash to Michigan; the other site is in Oklahoma. Batroot offered to provide a response to Levitt for distribution. Isker left at 9:18 p.m. F—ITsT Chase made a motion to adjourn. McLoughlin seconded. The motion passed unanimously (5 -to- 0 vote) and the meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Environmental Commission City of Cottage Grove Wednesday, April 27, 2011 A meeting of the Environmental Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on April 27, 2011, in the Council Chambers. Attendees Members Present: Karla Bigham, Rick Chase, Barbara Gibson, Rita Isker, Patrick Lynch, Patrick McLoughlin, Thaddeus Owen, Matthew Porrett Members Absent: David Olson Others Present: Justin Olsen, City Councilmember; Derrick Lehrke, City Councilmember; Jen Peterson, City Councilmember; Dave Thiede, City Councilmember; Jennifer Levitt, City Engineer; Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator Call to Order Porrett opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. He announced that the tour of the 3M wastewater treatment plant and the East Cove will be held before the May 11 Commission meeting. Public Safety /City Hall Sustainability John McNamara, Wold Architects, described the four bundles strategies and energy perfor- mance standards for rebates. He stated that the annual energy cost for bundles by end users are: Baseline - $114,412; Bundle #1 - $63,677; Bundle #2 - $56,780, Bundle #3 - $52,958, and Bundle #4 - $50,815. He reviewed bundle strategies and paybacks. The recommendation by Wold is to accept Bundle #2 and review specific items in Bundle #3 for itemized selection. There was a discussion about R -14 versus R -18 insulation and consideration for pulling R -18. Wold's recommendation is that R -14 is as low as you would go for walls and R -24 for the roof. The staff and project team was requested to review occupancy sensor control of office and equipment. There will also be a review by the City's IT and Public Safety to ensure security is not compromised. Concern was noted by Bigham on occupancy sensor control in the Public Safety area, especially in holding and transportation areas for prisoners. Energy costs are all at today's dollars. It was recommended that Wold review in -floor heating for the garage. The floor would need to be insulated, which adds costs. Owen made a motion to approve the final recommendation, which is to use Bundle #2 and the following: ® Window glazing: LoE tint 5, argon fill Daylight controls: Private offices Break room during daylight $11,057 $580 $540 Environmental Commission April 27, 2011 Minutes Page 2 of 2 • Lighting control: garage occupancy sensor control to one -third level $4,002 • Review with staff: occupancy sensor control of office equipment $5,700 Gibson seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). There was a discussion on geothermal with a review on cost estimates. No test wells have been drilled. Soil samples have been reviewed from the site, which shows 25 to 30 feet at ground- water. The cost estimate for full heating and cooling with geothermal adds $648,140. The rebate from Xcel would not improve the return on investment. To have full cooling and 83 percent heating, the cost estimate would add $544,240. A performance based geothermal system would guarantee performance. This is not proposed at this time as it does have liabilities. It would be a separate contract. For a geothermal system, there would be replacement of system parts, chillers, and pumps, which would be done during the return on investment period. This can be an additional negative factor. The Environmental Commission is not supportive of the additional costs for geothermal. Wold will review grant opportunities for solar and geothermal. They will also review the option to make the public space of the building self- sustaining at a demonstration scale. There was a discussion on perimeter in -floor heating and the following negative aspects were discussed: • There is less control because zones are used instead of a more localized valve system in the walls. Concrete is thickened to accommodate tubing. • Added insulation below precast plank. • Mechanical cost difference is minimal. The Commission recommends staying with radiant heating in the walls and not proceed with in- floor heating. The Environmental Commission discussed melting snow at the entrance to the building with boiler system looping. They also talked about rain water harvesting and cistern to collect rain water from the roof, noting that a pump is needed for irrigation. The cost for this upgrade would be $80,000. Wold will review grant cost participation with the South Washington Watershed District for use of rain collection and drip irrigation. Site lighting would be cut off at the property line. The Commission is supportive of above ground harvesting that is aesthetically pleasing. ,. A motion was made and seconded to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting adjourned at 8:44 p.m.