Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/13/1998 c TENTATIVE AGENDA ADJ. REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JANUARY 13, 1998 LOCATION: 129 Holmes Street South ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY President Clete Link presiding 1. Roll Call at 5 p.m. 2. Approval of the agenda 3. Other business 4. Adjourn to Tuesday,January 20, 1998, at 7 p.m. * * * * * CITY COUNCIL Mayor Jon Brekke presiding 1. Roll Call following the EDA meeting at 5 p.m. 2. Approval of the agenda 3. Seagate Project- Southwest Environmental Assessment Worksheet(EAW) - authorize publication of notice and distribution of draft EAW 4. Other business 5. Adjourn to Tuesday, January 20, 1998, at 7 p.m. cc 3 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Seagate Project - Southwest Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) MEETING DATE: January 13, 1998 Introduction: State statute and Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) rules mandate the preparation of an EAW for industrial projects or expansions that exceed 200,000 square feet. Once the EAW is prepared the City(as RGU) must publish notice in the `EQB Monitor" and to distribute the EAW for review. Seagate has proposed an office/research and development facility that exceeds that threshold. A draft EAW has been prepared for the proposed project. If the Council approves distribution of the EAW, notice will be published this month in the"EQB Monitor", and the 30-day comment period commenced. Once the comment period has run, the EAW will be brought before the Council again in order for it to determine the sufficiency of the EAW. Action Requested: Offer and pass a motion to authorize publication of notice in the "EQB Monitor" and distribution of the draft EAW for review and comment. Council is not asked to approve the EAW at this time, as it will be brought back after expiration of the review period. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director EAWSEAGT/RML 1 Environmental Assessment Worksheet { Seagate TechnologY Prepared for i S t.1[AIKo p E E January 9, 1998 WSB & Associates, Inc. W S13 Project No. 1014.32 Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) NOTE TO PREPARERS This worksheet is to be completed by the Responsible Governmental Unit(RGU) or its agents. The project proposer must supply any reasonably accessible data necessary for the worksheet,but is not to complete the final worksheet itself. If a complete answer does not fit in the space allotted,attach additional sheets as necessary. For assistance with this worksheet contact the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board(EQB)at(612)296-8253 or(toll-free)1-800-652- 9747(ask operator for the EQB environmental review program)or consult"EAW Guidelines",a booklet available from the EQB. NOTE TO REVIEWERS Comments must be submitted to the RGU(see item 3)during the 30-day comment period following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. (Contact the RGU or the EQB to learn when the comment period ends.) Comment should address the accuracy and completeness of the information, potential impacts that may warrant further investigation, and the need for an EIS. If the EAW has been prepared for the scoping of an EIS (see item 4), comments should address the accuracy and completeness of the information and suggest issues for investigation in the EIS. 1. Project Title Seagate Facility for Twin City operations 2. Proposer Seagate Technology 3. RGU City of Shakopee Contact person Jeoffery Mayer, Building 14 Contact person R. Michael Leek Address 920 Disc Drive and title Community Development Director Scotts Valley, CA 95066-4544 Address 129 Holmes Street Phone 1-(408)439-7577 Shakopee, MN 55379 Phone (612)445-3650 4. Reason for EAW Preparation 0 EIS scoping • mandatory EAW 0 citizen petition 0 RGU discretion 0 Proposer volunteered If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category number(s) 4410.4300 Subpart 14 Part B(2) 5. Project Location 1/4 NW& SW 1/4 Section 9 Township 115N Range 22W County Scott CitylTwp Shakopee Attach copies of each of the following to the EAW a. a county map showing the general location of the project; b. copy(ies)of USGS 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map(photocopy is OK)indicating the project boundaries; c. A site plan showing all significant project and natural features. See Appendix A. 6. Description Give a complete description of the proposed project and ancillary facilities (attach additional sheets as necessary). Emphasize construction and operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or produce wastes. Indicate the timing and duration of construction activities. Seagate Facility Seagate Technology,a data technology company based in California with operation in Bloomington,Minnesota, plans to relocate and combine four facilities from Bloomington to Shakopee,Minnesota. The four facilities from Bloomington to be merged include two office facilities, a design facility, and an assembly/manufacturing facility. Seagate Technology company designs and manufactures high-performance hard disk drives for computer companies such as Hewlett Packard. Physical and Environmental Impacts The construction and operation of the unified Seagate facility will have physical and environmental impacts. The physical impact to the site will be the change of land cover from rural grassland to an industrial,highly impervious surface. This change in surface cover will increase the rate and volume of storm water runoff generated from the site and will increase pollutant loads of suspended solids and nutrients in storm water runoff. These impacts are proposed to be mitigated through the use of on-site and regional storm water treatment basins. The facility proposed to be located at this site will discharge wastewater into the existing sanitary sewer system located adjacent to the site. Wastewater from the facility will not require pretreatment before it is treated at the Blue Lake Wastewater Treatment Plant since pollutant levels will be below regulated levels. There will be air quality impacts due to increased traffic in the area. 1 The north property line of the site currently is located next to the private drive to Canterbury Park. In conjunction with this project, the existing driveway will be reconstructed to urban standards and converted to a City owned street. Construction Schedule The construction of the new Seagate facility is proposed to be completed in phases. Phase I involves the construction of 260,000 square feet(s.f.)(150,000 s.f. office; 80,000 s.f. labs/test floors;30,000 s.f. clean rooms)on two floors. Phase n includes the addition of 80,000 s.f.of labs/test floors. The ground floor occupancy of Phase I is scheduled to be completed by October 1998 with second floor ocupancy by 1999-2002. Phase II is expected to be completed by May 2002. Construction Description The building will consist of assembly/manufacturing, labs/test floors,and office space on the ground floor with additional office space on the second floor. There will be entrances on each side of the building(four entrances total). The service area will be located on the north side of the building. Parking lots will be located on the north,south, east, and west sides of the building. A plan view of the project is included in Appendix A. Provide a 50 or fewer word abstract for use in EQB Monitor notice: The City of Shakopee has prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the construction of the proposed Seagate Technology facility. This project proposes the construction of a 340,000 square foot facility for manufacturing and office space needs at a location north of Scott CSAH 16 and west of Scott CSAH 83 in northern Shakopee. 7. Project Magnitude Data Total Project Area (acres) 34 acres or Length (miles) N/A Number of Residential Units Unattached N/A Attached N/A Commercial/Industrial/Institutional Building Area(gross floor space) Total 340,000 square feet; Indicate area of specific uses: Office 150,000 Manufacturing 190,000 Retail N/A Other Industrial N/A Warehouse N/A Institutional N/A Light Industrial N/A Agricultural N/A Other Commercial(specify) N/A Building Height(s) Approximatev 28 ft 8. Permits and Approvals Required List all known local,state, and federal permits,approvals,and funding required: Unit of Government Type of application Status Federal: US Environmental Protection Agency Hazardous Waste ID# To be applied for State: M.P.C.A. NPDES Permit To be applied for Regional: Metropolitan Council Environmental Industrial Waste Water Discharge Permit To be applied for Services Scott County Hazardous Waste Permit To be applied for Local: City of Shakopee Building Permit To be applied for City of Shakopee Plan Approval To be obtained 1 2 I I 9. Land Use Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lands. Discuss the compatibility of the project with adjacent and nearby land uses;indicate whether any potential conflicts involve environmental matters. Identify any potential environmental hazard due to past land uses,such as soil contamination or abandoned storage tanks. I The site is located mainly in the southeast and southwest quarters of the northwest quarter of Section 9,Township 115N,Range 22W (Appendix A). The property is currently undeveloped and is bounded by Canterbury Inn on the east and CSAH 16 and TH 169 Bypass on the south. The road into Canterbury Park borders the project to the north. I The land within the project boundary has been used for grazing throughout the City's history. The project is located within Valley Green Business Park and is compatible with the adjacent commercial and industrial land uses. Past agricultural land uses pose minimal potential for environmental hazards. 1 10. Cover Types Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development(before and after totals should be equal): I Before After Before After Types 2 to 8 Wetlands 0 0 Urban/Suburban Lawn 0 9 Wooded/Forest 0 0 Landscaping IBrush/Grassland 34 0 Impervious Surface 0 25 Cropland 0 0 Other(describe) 0 0 I11. Fish,Wildlife,and Ecologically Sensitive Resources a. Describe fish and wildlife resources on or near the site and discuss how they would be affected by the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. IThe Minnesota Department of Natural Resources(DNR)Fisheries and Wildlife Offices have been contacted to determine if fish or wildlife might be affected by the project. We are currently waiting for a reply from the DNR concerning this impact. This information will be included in the EAW as an appendix. Ib. Are there any state-listed endangered,threatened,or special-concern species;rare plant communities;colonial waterbird nesting colonies; native prairie or other rare habitat;or other sensitive ecological resources on or near the site? 0 Yes • No I If yes,describe the resource and how it would be affected by the project. Indicate if a site survey of the resources was conducted. Describe measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. The Minnesota Natural Heritage database was reviewed. There are no known occurrences of rare species or natural communities Iwithin the project area.The letter regarding the review of the database can be found in Appendix B. 12. Physical Impacts on Water Resources Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration (dredging, filling, stream diversion,outfall structure,diking,impoundment)of any surface water(lake,pond,wetland,stream,drainage ditch)? 0 Yes ■ No I If yes,identify the water resource to be affected and describe: the alteration,including the construction process;volumes of dredged or fill material;area affected;length of stream diversion;water surface area affected;timing and extent of fluctuations in water surface elevations;spoils disposal sites;and proposed mitigation measures to minimize impacts. 1 There are no jurisdictional wetlands, ponds, lakes,or streams within the project site that would be impacted by filling or draining. 13. Water Use I a. Will the project involve the installation of abandonment of any wells? 0 Yes • No For abandoned wells give the location and Unique well number. For new wells,or other previously unpermitted wells,give the location and purpose of the well and the Unique well number(if known). I b. Will the project require an appropriation of ground or surface water(including dewatering)? 0 Yes • No If yes,indicate the source,quantity,duration,purpose of the appropriation,and DNR water appropriation permit number of any existing appropriation. Discuss the impact of the appropriation on ground water levels. I c. Will the project require connection to a public water supply? • Yes 0 No If yes,identify the supply,the DNR water appropriation permit number of the supply,and the quantity to be used. will be supplied by the City of Shakopee Public Utilities Commission(SPUC). It is anticipated that the Seagate facility will IWater use 14.7 million gallons of water per year. The DNR water appropriations permit number for the City of Shakopee well which serves this site is 80-6205. Groundwater aquifers are the source of Shakopee's public water supply. 3 I I14. Water-related Land Use Management Districts Does any part of the project site involve a shoreland zoning district,a delineated 100-year flood plain, or a state or federally designated wild or scenic river land use district? 0 Yes • No If yes,identify the district and discuss the compatibility of the project with the land use restrictions of the district. I15. Water Surface Use Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body? 0 Yes • No If yes,indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss any potential overcrowding or conflicts with other users or fish and wildlife resources. 1 16. Soils Approximate depth(in feet)to: Ground water: minimum 6 ft average >6 ft Bedrock: minimum 1 ft average 5 ft IDescribe the soils on the site,giving SCS classifications,if known.(SCS interpretations and soil boring logs need not be attached.) Soil Conservation Service(SCS)tables were used to determine the ground water depth. I Based on SCS mapping,two soil series have been classified at the site. The soils within the project site include Sc(Stony land)and CdA(Copas silt loam,0 to 2%slopes). Stony land is described as non-agricultural with limestone or sandstone bedrock underlying the land at 6 to 36 inches. Copas silt loam is described as shallow with somewhat excessively drained soils formed in a mantle of I glacial drift or alluvial sediments over limestone bedrock on terraces. 17. Erosion and Sedimentation Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to be moved: acres 34 ; cubic yards 150,000-200,000 . I Describe any steep slopes or highly erodible soils and identify them on the site map. Describe the erosion and sedimentation measures to be used during and after construction of the project. There are no steep slopes within the project area. The project grading will involve primarily filling the site to applicable elevations for I development.Temporary erosion control measures such as silt fence will be used during construction. Permanent erosion control measures will include seeding and landscaping. 18. Water Quality-Surface Water Runoff I a. Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe methods to be used to manage and/or treat runoff. The existing site is primarily brush and grass land. The development of this site includes the addition of approximately 25 acres I of impervious surface area. The result of this land use change will be an increase of 2.7 acre-feet of storm water runoff volume in a one-year storm event and 4.5 acre-feet in a ten-year storm event. The total volume of runoff generated by this site in the one- year storm is approximately 3.7 acre-feet,and 8.3 acre-feet in the 10-year event. The quality of runoff generated from this site I should be typical of industrial sites with higher concentrations of total suspended solids and nutrients compared to runoff from the existing conditions. It is anticipated that no unique contaminants will be found in storm water runoff discharged from this site, as all manufacturing and storage materials will not be exposed to contact by precipitation. I Storm water runoff generated from this site will be directed to the south into a storm water treatment and detention basin. Water from this pond will be directed into a regional storm water basin known as the K-Mart Linear Pond. This pond is located on the north side of TH 169. Additional storm water rate control and treatment will be provided in this regional storm water system as outlined in the City's Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan. This regional system will reduce the discharge rate from Inot only this site but an additional 900 acres to 1/3 cfs per acre and provide treatment to NURP recommendations. b. Identify the route(s) and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site. Estimate the impact of the runoff on the quality of the receiving waters. (If the runoff may affect a lake consult"EAW Guidelines"about whether a nutrient budget analysis is needed.) IStorm water runoff generated from this site will be directed to the K-Mart Linear Pond located on the north side of the TH 169 as noted above. Water discharged from this regional storm water detention and treatment facility will be directed to the Dean's Lake I Outlet Channel which will then convey water to the north and into the Minnesota River. The City's Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan is in compliance with the Metropolitan Council's interim strategies for reducing non-point source pollution to all metropolitan water bodies. This document states that the goal of the Metropolitan Council is to reduce the overall pollutants to the Minnesota River by 40%. The City of Shakopee has prepared a Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan which I is in compliance with these guidelines and the systems proposed for this location should perform adequately to meet or exceed these goals,thus reducing the impact to water quality on downstream water bodies. Storm water rate control and treatment will occur prior to any water being discharged into the Dean's Lake Outlet Channel. I 1 4 1 I 19. Water Quality-Wastewaters a. Describe sources, quantities, and composition(except for normal domestic sewage)of all sanitary and industrial wastewaters produced or treated at the site. The amount and composition of water discharged by the present facilities for 1997 was approximately the following: Type of Wastewater " Volume(million allons per `ear Domestic Waste 7.9 ' Industrial Waste 6.8 Total 14.7 Composition of wastewater for total facility pH 7.0-8.5 TSS 160 mg/I ' Chemical Oxygen Demand 321 mg/I Copper <0.001 mg/I ' Lead 0.001 mg/I These figures were taken from the Industrial Waste Discharge Report to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services. The composition and volume of wastewater from the new facility is anticipated to be approximately the same as the current 1 Bloomington facilities. b. Describe any waste treatment methods to be used and give estimates of composition after treatment,or if the project involves ' on-site sewage systems,discuss the suitability of the site conditions for such systems. Identify receiving waters(including ground water)and estimate the impact of the discharge on the quality of the receiving waters. (If the discharge may affect a lake consult"EAW Guidelines"about whether a nutrient budget and analysis is needed.) The composition of discharged wastewater is below regulated levels for waste treatment;therefore on-site wastewater treatment facilities are not necessary. c. If wastes will be discharged into a sewer system or pretreatment system,identify the system and discuss the ability of the system to accept the volume and composition of the wastes. Identify any improvements which will be necessary. Waste will be discharged into the municipal sanitary sewer system with treatment provided at the MCES Blue Lake Wastewater Treatment Plant. The project area was zoned to accommodate this type of development and the sanitary sewer system was sized accordingly. The MCES Chaska Interceptor is located along CSAH 16 on the south side of the development site. 20. Ground Water—Potential for Contamination a. Approximate depth(in feet)to ground water: 6 ft minimum; >6 ft average. ' b. Describe any of the following site hazards to ground water and also identify them on the site map:sinkholes;shallow limestone formations/karst conditions;soils with high infiltration rates;abandoned or unused wells. Describe measures to avoid or minimize environmental problems due to any of these hazards. 1 Soil Conservation Service(SCS)tables were used to determine ground water depth. Sinkholes, shallow limestone formations/karst conditions are not exposed at the surface on the site; however, the limestone ' bedrock is very near the surface. The unconsolidated materials overlaying the bedrock have been identified as Copas silt loam which has moderate permeability. According to the SCS information regarding Copas silt loam,the substratum is limestone bedrock. Information obtained from the SCS indicates a shallow water table within the project site. No wells are present within the project boundaries. However,there are two City municipal wells adjacent to the site to the west. The ground around these wells will be filled to avoid potential impacts to ground water within the project site. ' 5 I c. Identify any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or present on the project site and identify measures to be used to prevent them from contaminating ground water. ' One outside storage tank(7000 gallons)will be located at the facility to hold liquid nitrogen. The tank will be contained in berms large enough to contain a spill as required by State and Federal codes. 21. Solid Wastes; Hazardous Wastes;Storage Tanks I a. Describe the types,amounts,and compositions of solid or hazardous wastes to be generated,including animal manures,sludges and ashes. Identify the method and location of disposal. For projects generating municipal solid waste indicate if there will be a source separation plan; list type(s)and how the project will be modified to allow recycling. ' Hazardous waste Type x Total quantity(per Method and location of disposal* year). Lead wipes 250 lbs Incinerate-Waste Research Environmental Services Waste Oil 796 lbs Fuel burning-Waste Research Environmental Services ' Mixed Flammable 300 lbs Fuel burning-Waste Research Environmental Services ' Oil Filter 75 lbs Incinerate-Waste Research Environmental Services PCB 1563 Incinerate-Laidlaw Environmental capacitors ' Halogenated 1584 lbs Recycled Solvents ' Solid Debris 516 lbs Recycled Batteries 368 lbs Recycled ' *Waste Research Environmental Services is located in Wisconsin Laidlaw Environmental is located in Illinois Solid Non-Hazardous Waste Type Total quantity(per ,Method and location of disposal year) Cardboard 127,004 lbs Recycled-BFI Metals 70,896 lbs Recycled-BFI ' Plastic 4968 lbs Recycled-BFI b. Indicate the number, location, size,and use of any above or below ground tanks to be used for storage of petroleum products or other materials(except water). ' One 7000 gallon liquid nitrogen tank will be present above ground on the site. I I 6 I 22. Traffic Parking spaces added 1435I Existing spaces(if project involves expansion) NA Estimated total Average Daily Traffic(ADT)generated 2673 Estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated(if known)and its timing: 409 , 2002 . For each affected road indicate the ADT and the directional distribution of traffic with and without the project. Provide an estimate of the impact on traffic congestion on the affected roads and describe any traffic improvements which will be I necessary. It is estimated that proposed site with expansion will generate the following traffic: Traffic Generation Manufacturing: Average Daily Peak Hour 4:00-5:00 111 Proposed 190,000 SF 732 143 Office: I Proposed 150,000 SF 1941 266 Total Full Development 2673 409 IThe estimated trip generation is based on information found in the 5th edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual. I The primary impacted roadways adjacent to the site are CSAH 16 on the south,the 12th Avenue extension on the north, and CSAH 83 to the east of the site. Access will be provided from CSAH 16 directly and via the proposed 12th Avenue extension to CSAH 83. I The figure in Appendix C illustrates the existing and proposed Average Daily Traffic(ADT)volumes on the impacted roadways as well as the estimated traffic distribution from the proposed site. The critical areas that would indicate operational problems due to the traffic generated from the proposed sites are the driveways to I the site and major intersections. The primary access driveways to the site are from CSAH 16 which is a four-lane roadway(two lanes in each directions). This roadway section will accommodate any traffic which would be turning into or out of the proposed site. The access onto 12th Avenue is an additional access. I The regional impacts would be at the intersections of CSAH 16 and CSAH 83. The intersection of CSAH 16 at CSAH 83 is currently a signalized intersection and would have sufficient capacity to handle any proposed site generated traffic. The intersection of CSAH 16 at the site entrance and CSAH 83 at 12th Avenue are currently stop sign controlled. These intersections should be improved to I provide turn lanes with this project. Based on this data,the proposed site traffic now and in the future,will have little or no impact on the existing roadway systems. The only roadway improvement that should be considered are providing turn lanes at CSAH 16 and CSAH 83. 23. Vehicle-related air emissions Provide an estimate of the effect of the project's traffic generation on air quality, including carbon I monoxide levels. Discuss the effect of traffic improvements or other mitigation measures on air quality impacts. (If the project involves 500 or more parking spaces,consult"EAW Guidelines"about whether a detailed air quality analysis is needed.) IThe proposed project will involve development of 340,000 square feet of office and manufacturing uses with an ultimate expansion of parking to 1,435 spaces. With the addition of more than 1,000 parking spaces but less than 2,000 spaces an air quality assessment must be completed in order to evaluate the need for an Indirect Source Permit(ISP). The air quality assessment involves four steps I as outlined in the Minnesota Rules. The Rules specify reviewing the traffic volume information on the busiest roadway adjacent to the site within one-quarter of a mile in which the site has direct access. This roadway would be CSAH 16. The existing Average Daily Traffic(ADD on CSAH 16 is 3,600 Vehicles per Day. The project traffic volume one year following full development(2002)is 4,400. IThe assessment procedure indicates that if the roadway volume is less than 8,334 vehicles the development will not require an ISP. Therefore,an ISP will not be needed for this project. However,a carbon monoxide analysis was performed to document compliance with applicable ambient air quality standards. ' To screen the project for potential air quality conformance problems, the Mn/DOT simplified analysis procedure was utilized. One receptor location was used for the analysis. The background carbon monoxide levels used for the analysis were non-rural one-hour in eight-hour levels indicated in the Mn/DOT guidelines which are 2.5 PPM and 1.5 PPM respectively. I I 7 I I The results of the analysis indicate that the roadways adjacent to the proposed facility will be within the current MPCA guidelines of 30 PPM for a maximum one hour reading and 9 PPM for an average eight hour reading. The following Table represents the results of the analysis for the proposed project years. Estimate Level(PPM) MPCA Guidelines(PPM) I1996 1 -Hour 2.7 30.0 1996 8-Hour 1.6 9.0 2000 1 -Hour 2.7 30.0 I 2000 8-Hour 1.6 9.0 2002 1 -Hour 2.5 30.0 2002 8-Hour 1.5 9.0 I24. Stationary source air emissions Will the project involve any stationary sources of air emissions(such as boilers or exhaust stacks)? • Yes 0 No If yes,describe the sources,quantities, and composition of the emissions;the proposed air pollution control devices;the quantities I and composition of the emissions after treatment;and the effects on air quality. There will be two power roof ventilators(PRV's)on the roof of the building. The PRV's have the potential to emit SO2,CO,and NOX as well as volatile organic compounds. The emission levels of SO2,CO,NOX,and volatile organic compounds are regulated when I emissions exceed 100 tons per year for each compound. The emissions from the proposed Seagate facility will be below the regulated emission levels since the facility will not contain enough of these chemicals to emit 100 tons per year. I 25. Will the project generate dust,odors,or noise during construction and/or operation? • Yes 0 No If yes, describe the sources, characteristics, duration, and quantities or intensity, and any proposed measures to mitigate adverse impacts. Also identify the locations of sensitive receptors in the vicinity and estimate the impacts on these receptors. I Dust During construction, particular emissions will temporarily increase due to the generation of fugitive dust. The following dust control measures will be undertaken as necessary: 1 1. Minimize the period and extent of areas being exposed and regraded at any one time. 2. Spraying construction areas and all roads with water,especially during periods of high wind or high levels of construction activity. 3. Minimize the use of vehicles on unpaved surfaces. 4. Covering or spraying material piles and/or truck loads. I Odors The proposed project is not anticipated to involve any process that would generate any odors outside of the buildings. I Noise The noise standards applicable to the proposed development are those developed by the State of Minnesota in its noise pollution control regulations. The following Table outlines these noise standards by land use type. I Noise Level Standards-Minnesota Pollution Control Agency(1) General Land Use Types Daytime Noise Level Nighttime Noise Level I Category (10:00 P.M.to 7:00 A.M.) NAC- 1 Residential and L10 of 65 dBA L10 of 55 dBA Institutional L50 of 60 dBA L50 of 50 dBA INAC-2 Commercial and L10 of 70 dBA L10 of 70 dBA Recreational L50 of 65 dBA L50 of 65 dBA I NAC-3 Industrial L10 of 80 dBA L10 of 80 dBA L50 of 75 dBA L50 of 75 dBA ' (1) MPGA-2 Noise Standards; Minn. Rule 7010.0400 Existing and projected 2000 and 2002,noise levels were determined for a receptor adjacent to the site off of CSAH 16. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Level Two Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, Stamina 2.0 was used for this analysis. The I Traffic Noise Model on which this computer was based was developed the Federal Highway Administration and is documented in a report entitled FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). I 8 I I The model uses: 1. The volume and type of vehicles on the roadway; 2. Vehicle running speeds; 3. The physical characteristics of the roadway(e.g.horizontal and vertical alignment);and I 4. Any physical features between the roadway and the receptor that may mitigate the noise,such as buildings or noise walls. Output is issued in the form of L10 and L50 values. The noise level analysis for the receptor indicated that the levels will increase in 2000 and 2002 over what they are today. However, I all levels are well within the noise level standards for an industrial facility as indicated in the previous Table. The following Table indicates the results of the existing,predicted and projected noise levels. I L10 L50 1996 Without Site 56.4 49.7 1996 With Site 57.0 50.2 I 2000 With Site 57.4 50.8 2002 With Site 57.8 51.3 MPCA Standard 70.0 65.0 26. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site: I a. archeological, historical,or architectural resources? 0 Yes 0 No* Ib. prime or unique farmlands? 0 Yes • No c. designated parks, recreation areas,or trails? 0 Yes • No d. scenic views and vistas? 0 Yes • No e. other unique resources? ❑ Yes • No I If any items are answered Yes,describe the resource and identify any impacts on the resource due to the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. *The Minnesota Historical Society has been contacted regarding archeological,historical,or architectural resources at the site. Once Ithis information is available, it will be included in the EAW as an appendix. 27. Will the project create adverse visual impacts? (Examples include:glare from intense lights;lights visible in wilderness areas;and large visible plumes from cooling towers or exhaust stacks.) • Yes 0 No If yes, explain. Lights from the parking lots will be minimized by orienting lights in a down cast fashion to mitigate the impact to the surrounding area. The project will be consistent with the adjacent land uses. 28. Compatibility with plans Is the project subject to an adopted local comprehensive land use plan or any other applicable land use, water,or resource management plan of a local, regional, state,or federal agency? • Yes 0 No I If yes,identify the applicable plan(s),discuss the compatibility of the project with the provisions of the plan(s),and explain how any conflicts between the project and the plan(s)will be resolved. If no, explain. The proposed site must be in compliance with the City of Shakopee's Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Comprehensive Storm Water I Management Plans. The proposed location for Seagate is identified in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Currently,this area is zoned Planned Unit Development(PUD)with the permitted use of offices and the conditional use of warehouses. The PUD does not specify research and development facilities. The inclusion of research and development facilities will require an ammendment to the PUD. However, it is anticipated that there will be no significant conflicts with this ammendment. IIn addition, storm water runoff generated from the site will be treated in conformance with the Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan. Also, there are several requirements by the MPCA, Metropolitan Council, and Scott County which will be Iaddressed through the approval of permits for the proposed site. 29. Impact on Infrastructure and Public Service Will new or expanded utilities,roads,other infrastructure,or public services be required to serve the project? 0 Yes ■ No I If yes,describe the new or additional infrastructure/services needed. (Any infrastructure that is a"connected action"with respect to the project must be assessed in this EAW;see"EAW Guidelines"for details.) Lateral storm sewer,watermain,sanitary and electrical utilities will need to be constructed to connect this site to trunk services which I have been designed for industrial use. In addition,the road to the north of the site will be improved by extending 12th Avenue from CSAH 83 to the west end of the Valley Green Business Park site,with an ultimate connection to Shenandoah Avenue and 4th Street.. 9 I 30. Related Developments; Cumulative Impacts a. Are future stages of this development planned or likely? 0 Yes ■ No* If yes, briefly describe future stages,their timing,and plans for environmental review. b. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? 0 Yes ■ No I If yes, briefly describe the past development,its timing, and any past environmental review. c. Is other development anticipated on adjacent lands or outlots? ❑ Yes • No • If yes, briefly describe the development and its relationship to the present project. d. If a, b, or c were marked Yes, discuss any cumulative environmental impacts resulting from this project and the other Idevelopment. *a. This report describes both phase I and II together. Phase I includes the construction of 260,000 s.f. (150,000 s.f. office; I 80,000 s.f.labs/test floors;30,000 s.f.clean rooms)on two floors. Phase II includes the addition of 80,000 s.f.of labs/test floor. The goal is to have Phase la(occupancy of ground floor)completed by October 1998 with Phase 1 b(occupancy of second floor) completed from 1999-2002. Phase II is expected to be ready for occupancy by May 2002. I 31. Other potential Environmental Impacts If the project may cause any adverse environmental impacts which were not addressed by items 1 to 28, identify and discuss them here,along with any proposed mitigation. None 32. Summary of Issues (This section need not be completed if the EAW is being done for EIS scoping;instead,address relevant issues in the draft Scoping I Decision document which must accompany the EAW.) List any impacts and issues identified above that may require further investigation before Ithe project is commenced. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative measures that have been or may be considered for these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions. The environmental impacts recognized in this EAW for the construction and operation of the Seagate facility in Shakopee, MN are Ias follows: -storm water runoff volumes will increase -concentrations of pollution in storm water runoff will increase I -increased water use and wastewater discharge within the City of Shakopee -the presence of hazardous materials(i.e.liquid nitrogen tank)at the project site Existing governmental regulations appear to be adequate to address the environmental impacts of the proposed Seagate development. I CERTIFICATIONS BY THE RGU (a1/3 certifications must be signed for EQB acceptance of the EAW for publication of notice in the EQB Monitor) IA. I hereby certify that the information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. Signature I B. I hereby certify that the project described in this EAW is the complete project and there are no other projects,project stages,or project components,other than those described in this document,which are related to the project as"connected actions"or"phased actions," as defined, respectively, at Minn. Rules, pts.4410.0200,subp.9b and subp.60. ISignature C. I hereby certify that copies of the completed EAW are being sent to all points on the official EQB EAW distribution list. Signature ITitle of signer Date I I I I 10 1 i ' APPENDIX A Location Figures i i 1 1 1i o so 2 ( b A �� A C 'es Y!A 11. CIS i `1 1 h CD X --' 0 "..* ! ""'S' ..e x1tii ) J y K i U /. / 4 landa c v a) a. .. 1 y 7 // s roto 0. e I41"4 m 1rtnlsrax] \ fL� 1 S 7-i\. A '0A1e SMM00 W 831x., 1 d • \I 3 IazI 04.4 y S ro0 9,Ny r{( I 0 o II f A w + U II + ` I lx / At I C I c Iy `\ Q •,Yf I IA .!V r,;iWW�g .�...1� 0 `\ •tl• MOOnti3M 'J 10 • -.4.2R i •}J W . j �� I Ilnm_ 0 ' � •'�3NIlI1a1 .1stii: n� a 11tl3A I •1 3r.1*-V ' Il J. ® xrM 1 lMryll y` 4 , ��:•l•� c.� 1 litl3x•v�.1-3blp xaarT .3 1, �-\ y• 111Ub3F V i] Ml E. 6 \... i �' SAP , IIISSSiiiJJJ y1 3 v� � Oi3llptl3F Y A= -a $ � I} � Qu ,3315 ONI31A '1$ ®® i + '15 r u12Ytlr5 r h O I `\ \ yljfy S Y/ 'I b31liN� tl3lllF v V / 15 I�19M51 1!1115 �1 If 6: k_____*-H W 1 L ,z, 1 '15 IIA3Tn.1 c)'IS A3SMtl II _ w )M r [w f�/•yy� ' -3xMrN$ 15 I`e 7 V Otl �I IIYXOStivN L _+ V 1 1 %` .. o �at . lS LbW.M` ��O8 � � ` IOP3lFmx:C/� i v a Eb I _IVB ♦1SX� I,1 1\ .�1T IlO '15 3ltlirbd 4a� U 31bl..An '� ^I 1S J ...,s, Qp. I = Y10"° •-•:,.„ .0 '\ feu* -Dlao..ol1 II •l S° ,. 0 ,„ � 1 j u '15 !! * 10... .../, ♦ may,`�J' . jl ).... <p ,T � 1 LOI II j 3tltiv p5.;":;n01:':; 7)151X1 i•17 $ 5i J IQt7T '1 •1 �1i� -1M31nPr O315,.ON I +®•� '15 f t,-- OOOI I"3"dS ! �y 2 1 3A. 3x1—± 0 $ a 1 kkQo�O„rea1 3111A—os .3, 1 1T I1, 1t T3n1oN U i V _v_,03 ®©❑®aDlillitl y,NY I W� 'tl0 YNII _ *goaciltl3l,n! c 10313 oo® o Willi d ' �- / ©2QaQ� ®I ^ r•15 •15 M3llnlar f © 3Ar b3a30b uM Gn XOS !!3 1 y a � I [ ,�1\19�❑❑15t Fit igz# Ai' I UPN U 103NfOYYaz 1 1Ttl34 y1_�_ LL / 13 ®�J 1S I ikil O m N \ \ 1 1S A3N1n01� 3i ^ill- V. ♦ �\ ©�NOTb3ll3fll I ® m C Rl+» 6\` , it 1 U soda.-ID r N Ay 3DEN011 -l0 ea- - A' I b) W \ \\Slyb N� xDS>aYf ( �I • 1 O a ' '1S "1, a I :/ �r. L50` A/ � � ��15 � 111g51tlb1X 1 / � x. �tr//•—1l\_lU\\ N 1,l J�.15 I 11•b31a1 1_ �U 4 0. i\u -',.,,,,L ' ,-''.{ / ' {; f8310I3 - c r+vXn ,_--� 1 - 11 i— ll X —.' 1.— 1 o V N Q N I— 0 r- _ --71-4 ••••'-'07 • j rem_ =ar(_a __C �E R CO LL / IIS�- •I Ii;) < 1 W 1 iiuitj'ei o ` • Z I, ° f� lJ/ v O� Q p 'I L ti u r�., • �� I I :at:t a ij y ' 1 II 0 1 1 IL 1 4 9'i{ 41 ' iiiilliDI /o ( c III '.• I // 1II: t ) /,4z....r........,,, i 0 , i ., -,, I Ill 0 . +(; .; , 1 ,i,1t l 4' Ir bl r'/�JjI� Q4 Avi j: a' I U! O ' , ,s41:ii/Li i i \—i"1 y q)(J' 1 �' 5, .j 1 :ii �. .y% / x iii /.tet: I J o e, i // 0 X11 ) /�J ~ � / 1�63f• n 1 �I/ e ,///�o _ /(//u � � cd 1 U l'i' // cn *i/ 2 li / /�j :f. 1 / r ' a II ii / /j , 0%1,,,..,_ . i ,.;.,„p....,., ::'y�/,/ / 1. II lje i• ii / 3 ` t i �' 1 �� I ss� I 7d: �' J"p • 1 _ vto 6�„y 1 I ? �/'\ N°mss ♦ 11 �I • I • m' I �O o 114 /// \ ; ° - f/ -7(1 ( 13 I sfV dyo t W o0 1 5• ��� .:.(.7 • c0 1 • ;, /t I 1; it o f 17 _-_ ,' c� lic\''''' jjj I 00 v i`•.\• `./://i �y °• ..;<:- ‘1,.\ it //j� •1 L O! Jl 5) ( N I \\. C • l', iii N 11 1 - eal /// it ' .'+i'l O I y9 C I 2 1 sr • u I [1 tE • •>U� l i �Mj y I`,Iit Ld - -} / 'I_ �._-. ° I I 'IW 7'I 33dO�YHS ;� ',. IO.R , 1 ' z `o '1W L N3SSVHNVH� .• 3 .. n ^� e MINI NM ■� s a - - MN E11E1 IMO NOMNMI Ell OM =I MI IIMI )....., iii.....:, :,,,,,,!. ‘- . . :_..,,,,..:‘ \ \ i, H 3 I` i O CO i r `� / ' r. A , 1, w i is c I$ � R I .•rt Y{L '; I', d !' t Y 3{ f i ). • � k rB t i iI ., I { ? 1i t -r o { j ¢ c � t 1,i f/:rte s tt 4 (III) i...- s t t 'r _ ' t /� ' © ° �, � rtio 0 co i �+ `' hti �, 'ri ;, 1 // 4 / t 1 � : 4''t • 1 I! ! �� It r�14 .' ' J 4l �`Z. 4/ ''7 �. t fi [ q w i1 S11 41 4 s„� 1 �1 - "� i `l �' 1 k{ f T�•` ''7 iT�—rte _ _ - - IS_k l a ' 1 ,, .� �: t3J 4,14.04-.14''i.,`, �{p lS�•i t 1 t { I, 333 t Jf k,-f- '' j"Tr g ' i ` f I. 1 fi • t { i ii fi t DISK DRIVE", a S 9 i; i t ', !� • m�€"S' J31 4 F ii I Y 4rT, k ry L i � .i \''''!;116M1:::.!,11',::,;:.,' .P �. F p 14 1 ac'it 1 I, i \ k 1+ y, °J`r X e j y r \ 111 4 t t { , . \;,",,,,,,,,,,,,,,;9; er,+'.n a,w r .S ! 1. Y k j ` ''. r !"'t - `� \'-: ,,,W,',,,,','\''. S 4i ttt�� 'd Y'' 4 f t P� t rj ( , I�. S ` r ;.a r gxr tir 1 T j i t RFs � q I, t 33 ,i F+Y ;.. �. „ .''3 t rrfrlIt y �ba �Ti I i .r; _ ,Ia. -,._.- __ .� � - -" -_ °._ y� /L 't/aI 'fir ..,--'.,,u'"f�Dh ,3�-waz .r 'mo i,. . '''-'' Mir '•• - ' ,,..z4 cr. i . z --o g I aril, , oq N J ,„ „ Aog^ a ........,4. s > N t'7,z o t al'' 1 r bl r 1,*1 FA 1 V ♦/ 1/ m A ,.,1 I I I I I I APPENDIX B Minnesota Natural Heritage Database Information I I I I I I I I I y�P��pF MINIrk:s, ' Minnesota Department of Natural Resources • m w r Alb° 500 Lafayette Road oFNATUSt.Paul,Minnesota 55155-40_ •� 29 December 1997 DEC 3 1 1997 Andrea Moffatt, Biologist , r r. q WSB &Associates 350 Westwood Lake Office 8441 Wayzata Blvd. Minneapolis, MN 55426 Re: Seagate Facility. T115N R22W Section 9; Scott County Dear Ms Moffatt: According to the map you enclosed, the correct township is 115, and not T116N, Scott County. The Minnesota Natural Heritage database has been reviewed to determine if any rare plant or animal species or other significant natural features are known to occur within an approximate one-mile radius of the above referenced project. Based on this review, there are no known occurrences of rare species or natural communities in the area searched. ' The Natural Heritage database is maintained by the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, a unit within the Section of Ecological Services, Department of Natural Resources. It is the most complete source of data on Minnesota's rare, endangered, or otherwise significant plant and animal species, plant communities, and other natural features, and is used in fostering better understanding and protection of these rare features. The information in the database is drawn from many parts of Minnesota, and is constantly being updated, but it is not based on a comprehensive survey of the state. Therefore, there are currently many significant natural features present in the state which are not represented by the database. We are in the process of addressing this via the Minnesota County Biological Survey (MCBS), a county-by-county inventory of rare natural features, which is now underway. Because 1 survey work is in progress for Scott County, our information about natural communities judged to be significant by our program is quite good for that county. The MCBS survey work for rare and endangered animals and plants is less comprehensive; it is therefore possible that occurrences of these features exist in the project area for which we have no records. In addition, because there has not been an on-site survey of the biological resources of the entire project area, it is possible that ecologically significant features exist for which we have no records. ' Thank you for consulting us on this matter, and for your interest in minimizing impacts on Minnesota's rare resources. Please be aware that review by the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program focuses only on rare natural features. It does not constitute review or approval by ' the Department of Natural Resources as a whole. An invoice for the work completed is enclosed. You are being billed for map and computer search and staff scientist review. Please forward this invoice to your Accounts Payable Department. ' DNR Information:612-296-6157, 1-800-766-6000 • TTY:612-296-5484, 1-800-657-3929 An Equal Opportunit;Employer 1 r4Printed on Ree clod Paper Containing a ' - Who Values Diversity `4,1 Minimum of 107 Post-Consumer Waste i 1 1 I ' APPENDIX C Traffic Volume Map i 1 1 1 1 1 I Z 1 0 8 us O p U m CO1 CL °,7 — co 0 a Cn • N I-- \O\ 1 i 1 N / I ji t .- G if Z r t1 CO 'Ole ' cv t '4y- J 'Otl .r«3M > ;.-11.3 tl.3 a3,1rA r a 1 i Z i 0 t L1 :/' g A I _h + /I o N 1 QyQ OD A •009 3.00 AM1BVi1nY] \... ® Cd (00E1$z) $3 gr , p 00Z(0 0051 ,r �Z� 0 .1 IA ,a 9.0.::,. g Ev S."I`' b„ + W + � � 1 ' � j1j - I � w ° ate. ` cc -� (y�p0 Z '\' 43 Q ,\ •tl0 HrpM.R3tlS J� i0 o L" O 40 tX �.. 35 �� �0n1, I C '10itl31^ •� Oigu ) nrxl • (' ;�nj +': �t %13A.1'1]1].'J.lro3n I.. g rs ��,II \ ;` >�/ 1 uitla3n $ tji71 iM' • M ® n O.....n 'r A:..i •1S nR.tlrS 13315 ORIMIA is 4,4 Y 'ls tl3„In I\ + S `_,\ II / ri ``/ as II 1alYsl j 1nMs I1' �.. i : //:" ''''' 4�o ( 15IL0,3nrblOLsl3 Mtl 'I . L R• 15 I ,,.IOStl.n 7 'tll ii '� \ figir il �e lair -}�$r 1 1111Y MS ,I I 111 ;,ER - I .7... ---,, 1, 3O.,,, V / Fgg t• g �1- Or31rR1nR '15 3ItlI.W1 J L 'rliii 1 \ •1�IIa83tl1Yb F,la y� of 3$ Qtly s. 'I �V g I `\ `O �I®O® YlOM.OII I 15 l0>I10 4 ♦ i • •15 �a 0C3111=1;201 II J— '1 tl3A0 ;'�!0 S i`i III - A0M 0 g 1,O WWII ^�I 3 ] 1SIR1 •10 N p \ Oa ' L i EI WII 1� - b A i s/,.A1 01315, OR �� 0) m X w 3 IZId3N H , •1 QR a11�� 1s®��G �0s3ndn ' as tl..on \ <. ads `� J m z _— \\\ �:1Q®©©❑ �) 1133b3as �S. �� -0— /a 3A. )dw01 ` g '�LL / •ls a 3,17A Iw s N ct 7 �� ❑® l I 15 IM3, I a^r a "M%+ a• 11003V5300° 1sO©��OIsIM3ll :'t � Q J y f N _i _tit 53RlDM AI Kms, ♦ 'tl0 lean O © 1'ir yRtl' R '" c • ►�o� altl3„nYI� t. ©15 1 IJ JO rIS�' i I i• ®O❑ e�I110x1 \ t.,.33,,33-war 91 � 11. r <'15 '!S i(311n! Ass '3A. M3a30b / .©QO aII"DII® YM it DI !!3 1 is O 1 �r 0 E+ I arra .1 vn 31n3n=.v sans i 1 1 APPENDIX D ' Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Fish and Wildlife Information 1 1 1 1 � LETTER TO BE FORWARDED I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX E Minnesota Historical Society I I I I II I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � LETTER TO BE FORWARDED 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 c c Y. lg.. MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Apportionment of Assessments for Prairie Bend 3rd INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND: The City Council is asked to adopt Resolution No. 4827, apportioning special assessments against the newly created lots in Prairie Bend 3rd Addition and rescinding Resolution No. 4825 . Resolution No. 4825 was adopted by City Council on January 6, 1998 . The exhibit attached to Res . No. 4825 erroneously identified the apportionment and the total special assessments due for the 1994- 11 Project . The total amount was identified at $2, 000 less than it should have been. Resolution No. 4827 correctly identifies the total assessment due and the appropriate apportionment . RECOMMENDED ACTION: Offer Resolution No. 4827, A Resolution Apportioning Assessments Among New Parcels Created as a Result of the Platting of Prairie Bend 3rd Addition and Rescinding Resolution No. 4825, and move its adoption. RESOLUTION NO. 4827 A RESOLUTION APPORTIONING ASSESSMENTS AMONG NEW PARCELS CREATED AS A RESULT OF THE PLATTING OF PRAIRIE BEND 3RD ADDITION AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 4825 WHEREAS, on November 5, 1997, Resolution No. 4776 adopted by the City Council levied assessments against properties benefited by construction of Sarazin Street between 4th Avenue and CR-16, Roundhouse Street between 4th Avenue and CR-16, and 4th Avenue between Shawnee Trail and Sarazin Street, Project No. 1996-10; and WHEREAS, on December 3, 1996, Resolution No. 4567 adopted by the City Council levied assessments against properties benefited by the County Road 16 Sanitary Sewer and Water Services between County Road 17 and County Road 83, Project No. 1994-11 . WHEREAS, Outlot E, Prairie Bend First Addition has been subdivided into the plat of Prairie Bend 3rd Addition; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to apportion the installments remaining unpaid against Outlot E, Prairie Bend First Addition because of the platting of Prairie Bend 3rd Addition. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1. That the 1997 payable remaining balance of assessments to parcel 27-191068-0 is $27, 765 .02 for the 1994-11 Public Improvement Project and is $140, 850 . 11 for the 1994-10 Public Improvement Project and is hereby apportioned as outlined in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2 . That all other parts of Resolution Numbers 4567 and 4776 shall continue in effect. 3 . That Resolution No. 4825, adopted on January 6, 1998, is hereby rescinded in its entirety. Adopted in adjourned regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this 13th day of January, 1998 . Mayor . City Clerk EXHIBIT A Assessment Reapportionment for Prairie Bend 3rd Addition December, 1997 P.I.D.NO. OWNER LEGAL 1994-11 1994-10 DESCRIPTION ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT 27-239001-0 KLINGLEHUTZ DEVELOPMENT LOT 1 BLOCK 1 $2,126.07 $10,060.72 350 HWY 212 E PRAIRIE BEND CHASKA,MN. 55318 3RD ADDITION 27-239002-0 KLINGLEHUTZ DEVELOPMENT LOT 2 BLOCK 1 $2,126.07 $10,060.72 350 HWY 212 E PRAIRIE BEND CHASKA,MN. 55318 3RD ADDITION 27-239003-0 KLINGLEHUTZ DEVELOPMENT LOT 3 BLOCK 1 $2,126.07 $10,060.72 350 HWY 212 E PRAIRIE BEND CHASKA,MN. 55318 3RD ADDITION 27-239004-0 KLINGLEHUTZ DEVELOPMENT LOT4 BLOCK 1 $2,126.07 $10,060.72 350 HWY 212 E PRAIRIE BEND CHASKA,MN. 55318 3RD ADDITION 27-239005-0 KLINGLEHUTZ DEVELOPMENT LOT 5 BLOCK 1 $2,126.07 $10,060.72 350 HWY 212 E PRAIRIE BEND CHASKA,MN. 55318 3RD ADDITION 27-239006-0 KLINGLEHUTZ DEVELOPMENT LOT 6 BLOCK 1 $2,126.07 $10,060.72 350 HWY 212 E PRAIRIE BEND CHASKA,MN. 55318 3RD ADDITION 27-239007-0 KLINGLEHUTZ DEVELOPMENT LOT 7 BLOCK 1 $2,126.07 $10,060.72 350 HWY 212 E PRAIRIE BEND CHASKA,MN. 55318 3RD ADDITION 27-239008-0 KLINGLEHUTZ DEVELOPMENT LOT 8 BLOCK 1 $2,126.07 $10,060.72 350 HWY 212 E PRAIRIE BEND CHASKA,MN. 55318 3RD ADDITION 27-239009-0 KLINGLEHUTZ DEVELOPMENT LOT 9 BLOCK 1 $2,126.07 $10,060.72 350 HWY 212 E PRAIRIE BEND CHASKA,MN. 55318 3RD ADDITION 27-239010-0 KLINGLEHUTZ DEVELOPMENT LOT 10 BLOCK 1 $2,126.07 $10,060.72 350 HWY 212 E PRAIRIE BEND CHASKA,MN. 55318 3RD ADDITION 27-239011-0 KLINGLEHUTZ DEVELOPMENT LOT 11 BLOCK 1 $2,126.07 $10,060.72 350 HWY 212 E PRAIRIE BEND CHASKA,MN. 55318 3RD ADDITION 27-239012-0 KLINGLEHUTZ DEVELOPMENT LOT 12 BLOCK 1 $2,126.07 $10,060.72 350 HWY 212 E PRAIRIE BEND CHASKA,MN. 55318 3RD ADDITION 27-239013-0 KLINGLEHUTZ DEVELOPMENT LOT 13 BLOCK 1 $2,126.07 $10,060.72 350 HWY 212 E PRAIRIE BEND CHASKA,MN. 55318 3RD ADDITION 27-239014-0 KLINGLEHUTZ DEVELOPMENT LOT 14 BLOCK 1 $2,126.11 $10,060.75 350 HWY 212 E PRAIRIE BEND CHASKA,MN. 55318 3RD ADDITION TOTAL= $29,765.02 $140,850.11