HomeMy WebLinkAbout15.D.1. New High School Environmental Assessment Worksheet-Res. No. 6153
)el 0 j L
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council, City of Shako pee
From: Ryan Hughes, WSB & Associates
Date: November 12, 2004
Re: New Shakopee High School
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
WSB Project No. 1281-71
The public comment period for the New Shakopee High School Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EA W) ended November 10,2004. The purpose ofthe EA W is to identify
potential environmental impacts and determine whether or not an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) is required. An EIS is a more extensive environmental review process.
Determining whether or not an EIS is needed does not relate to providing approval or denial
for the project.
Based on the information in the EA W and review agency comments regarding the EA W, the
project does not have.the potential for significant environmental impacts that cannot be
addressed as part of the permitting process. Therefore, it is our recommendation that an EIS
is not required
Enclosed, please find the following items for your review relating to this EA W:
. X The Findings of Fact on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS).
X Draft memo dated November 12, 2004 to the review agencies responding to
comments received on the EA W (hereby referred to as the comment/response
memo). This memo responds to each review agency issue.
X Draft resolution relating to a Negative Declaration of Need.
Summarv of Ma;or Comments
Comments were received from the Shakopee Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC),
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA), and the Metropolitan Council. These comments were general in nature. The EAC
and Metropolitan Council comments related to items to be addressed in the plat review
process. The MnDOT and MPCA comments did not raise significant issues.
Citv Council Decision Action
The decision before the City Council regarding the EA W is to decide whether or not the
project has the potential for significant environmental impacts that cannot be addressed
through the permitting processes. If the Council determines that the project does not have
November 12,2004
Page 2 of2
the potential for these significant environmental impacts, the Council should issue a
Negative Declaration of Need for an EIS. Ifthe Council determines that the project does
have the potential for significant environmental impact that cannot be addressed through the
permitting and approval process, the Council should require an EIS. Based on the review
completed by WSB & Associates, it is our recommendation that an EIS is not needed for
this project.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (763)541-4800.
c. Michael Leek, City of Shakopee Development Director
John McBroom, Shakopee Independent School District #720
Don Sterna, WSB & Associates
Andrea Moffatt, WSB & Associates
C:\Documents and Settings I TVidmarILocal SettingslTemporary Internet Files\OLK6\11 1204CouncilMemo.doc
RESOLUTION 6153
RESOLUTION ISSUING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF NEED
WHEREAS, the preparation of the New Shakopee High School EA W and
comments received on the EA W have generated information adequate to determine
whether the proposed project has the potential for significant environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, the EA W has identified areas where the potential for significant
environmental effects exist, but appropriate measures have or will be incorporated into
the project plan and/or permits to reasonably mitigate these impacts; and
WHEREAS, the New Shakopee High School project is expected to comply with
all the City of Shakopee and review agency standards; and
WHEREAS, based on the criteria established in Minnesota R. 4410.1700, the
project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects; and
WHEREAS, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the project does not
have the potential for significant environmental impacts.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City of Shako pee has determined
that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
Adopted by the Shakopee City Council this 16th day of November, 2004.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Documentl
CITY OF SHAKO PEE
In the matter ofthe
Decision on the Need for an
Environmental Impact FINDINGS OF FACT
Statement (ElS) for the AND CONCLUSIONS
New Shakopee High School
in Shakopee, MN
Independent School District #720 is proposing a project that includes the construction of
a 310,000 square foot New Shakopee High School as well as parking, athletic fields,
storm water ponds, and open space for possible future expansion on approximately 88
acres located in the southwestern corner of County Road 79 and the 17th Avenue
Extension. Pursuant to Minnesota R. 4410.4300, subp. 14, the City of Shakopee has
prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) for this proposed proj ect. As
to the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on this project and based on the
record in this matter, including the EA Wand comments received, the City of Shakopee
makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Project
The proposed project involves grading the 88-acre site to construct parking,
athletic fields, storm water ponds, and open space for possible future
expansion. The project is anticipated to convert 2 acres of brush/grassland
and 84 acres of cropland to create an additional 12 acres oflawn/landscaping
and 20 acres of impervious surface as well as create 48 acres of park/open
space and 6 acres of storm ponds.
B. Project Site
The proposed proj ect is located in the southwestern corner of County Road 79
and the 17th Avenue Extension. The site currently contains 2 acres of
brush/grassland, 84 acres of cropland, and one farmhouse with sunounding
buildings and lawn/landscaping.
II. PROJECT HISTORY
A. The project was subject to the mandatory preparation of an EA Wunder
Minnesota R. 4410.4300 subp. 14.
B. An EA W was prepared for the proposed proj ect and distributed to the
Environmental Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parties
on October 7, 2004.
C:\Documents and SettingslTVidmarILocal Settings I Temporary Internet Files1OLK61110904FOF.doc
C. A public notice containing information about the availability of the EA W for
public review was published in the Shako pee Valley News on October 14,
2004.
D. The EA W was noticed in the October 11, 2004 EQB Monitor. The public
comment period ended November 10, 2004. Written comments were received
from the Shakopee Environmental Advisory Committee, Minnesota
Department of Transportation, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and the
Metropolitan Council by the comment period deadline. A copy of these
letters is hereby incorporated by reference.
III. CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS.
Minnesota R. 4410.1700, subp. 1 states "an EIS shall be ordered for projects that
have the potential for significant environmental affects." In deciding whether a
project has the potential for significant environmental affects, the City of
Shakopee must consider the four factors set out in Minnesota R. 4410.1700, subp.
7. With respect to each of these factors, the City finds as follows:
A. TYPE, EXTENT, AND REVERSIBILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS
The first factor that the City must consider is "type, extent and reversibility of
environmental effects", MinnesotaR. 4410.1700, subp. 7.A. The City's
findings with respect to each of these issues are set forth below.
1. The type of environmental impacts and mitigation efforts anticipated
as part ofthis project include: .
a. Land Use: The land use will be converted from agriculture to
an institutional facility. To address this change, the
development plans contain parks, open space, and storm
ponding areas to mitigate the land use change.
b. Wastewater and Water Consumption: This development is
anticipated to use and generate a daily demand of
approximately 51,760 GPD of water and wastewater. The
Shakopee Public Utility Commission has confirmed that this
capacity will be available for this development. The
sunounding sanitary system was constructed with the
anticipation of future development and the Blue Lake
Treatment Facility is anticipated to have adequate capacity to
handle the sewage volumes from this site. The increase in
water will be mitigated by the expansion of the City's water
supply, storage, and distribution systems.
C:\Documents and SettingslTVidmarILoca! Settings I Temporary Internet Fi!esIOLK61110904FOF.doc
c. Storm Water: The project is anticipated to generate some
additional storm water runoff. This runoffwill be treated
within on-site ponding facilities to NURP guidelines. The
design ofthe on-site stormwater management system is
required to be sized to accommodate the 100-year, 24-hour
critical storm event.
d. Traffic: Traffic volume on CSAH 15, CR 77, CR 79, and 1 ih
A venue will increase. The proposed site traffic now and in the
future will have a minimal impact on the existing and proposed
roadway system with the anticipated extension of 1 ih Avenue
and the recommended lane geometrics and intersection traffic
control improvements. The intersections of CSAH 15 at 17th
A venue and CSAH 15 at TH 169 should continue to be
monitored to determine when improvements will be justified.
2. The extent and reversibility of environmental impacts are consistent
with those of residential development.
B. CUMULATIVE POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF RELATED OR
ANTICIPATED FUTURE PROJECTS
The second factor that the City must consider is the "cumulative potential
effects of related or anticipated future projects", Minnesota R. 4410.1700
subp.7.B. The City's findings with respect to this factor are set forth below.
1. Construction of the Countryside Residential Development is
anticipated to occur in the area east ofCSAH 15, west ofCR 79,
and north ofthe newly constructed 17th Avenue. A separate EA W
has been completed for the Countryside Residential Development.
The regional land use conversion from agriculture to a developed
institutional facility is anticipated to have a cumulative impact on
the area. Attempts to mitigate this impact will include providing
open space, providing adequate storm water management facilities,
and addressing traffic impacts. The City's current ordinances,
standards, and policies are anticipated to be adequate to address
these issues.
C:\Documents OJId SettingslTVidmarILocal Settings I Temporary Internet Files1OLK61110904FOF.doc
C. THE EXTENT TO WHICH ENVIRONMENTAL AFFECTS ARE
SUBJECT TO MITIGATION BY ONGOING PUBLIC REGULATORY
AUTHORITY
1. The following permits or approvals will be required for the project:
MPCA NPDES Construction permit
MPCA Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit
Metropolitan Council-Municipal Sanitary Services Extension
Services Construction Permit
Minnesota Department of Health Water Main Extension Permit
Scott County Access Permit
City of Shakopee/Scott County Platting
City of Shakopee Building Permit
City of Shakopee Site Plan Review
City of Shakopee Grading Permit
MnJDOT , Grading Permit
MnJDOT Drainage Permit
2. The City finds that the potential environmental impacts of the project
are subject to mitigation by ongoing regulatory authorities such that
an EIS need not be prepared.
D. THE EXTENT TO WHICH ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS CAN BE
ANTICIPATED AND CONTROLLED AS A RESULT OF OTHER
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES UNDERTAKEN BY PUBLIC
AGENCIES OR THE PROJECT PROPOSER, OR OF EISs
PREVIOUSLY PREPARED ON SIMILAR PROJECTS.
The fourth factor that the City must consider is "the extent to which
environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other
environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer,
or ofEISs previously prepared on similar projects," Minnesota R. 4700.1700,
subp.7.D; The City's findings with respect to this factor are set forth below:
The proposed project is subject to the following plans:
1. City of Shako pee Comprehensive Plan (Updates 1999 and 2004)
2. City of Shakopee Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan
3. City of Shakopee Comprehensive Transportation Plan
4. Scott County Comprehensive Plan
C:\Documents and Settings I TVidmarILocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files IOLK6111 0904FOF.doc
The City finds that the environmental effects of the project can be anticipated
and controlled as a result of the environmental review, planning, and
permitting processes.
CONCLUSIONS
The preparation of New Shakopee High ~chool EA Wand comments received on the
EA W have generated information adequate to determine whether the proposed facility
has the potential for significant environmental effects.
The EA W has identified areas where the potential for significant environmental effects
exist, but appropriate measures have or will be incorporated into the project plan and/or
permits to mitigate these effects. The project is anticipated to comply with all City of
Shakopee standards and review agency standards.
Based on the criteria established in Minnesota R. 4410.1700, the project does not have
the potential for significant environmental effects.
Based on the Findings of Pact and Conclusions, the project does not have the potential for
significant environmental impacts.
An Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
C:IDocuments and SettingslTVidmarILocal SettingslTemporary Internet FileslOLK6111 0904FOF.doc
Memorandum
To: Terry Meiller, Shako pee Environmental Advisory Committee
Juanita Voigt, MnDOT Transportation Planner
James Sullivan, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Phyllis Hanson, Metropolitan Council
Copy: Michael Leek, City of Shakopee Development Director
John McBroom, Shakopee Independent School District #720
Don Sterna, WSB & Associates
Andrea Moffatt, WSB & Associates
From: Ryan Hughes, WSB & Associates
Date: November 12,2004
Re: Responses to Comments
New Shakopee High School EA W
WSB Project No. 1281-71
The public comment period for the New Shakopee High School Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EA W) ended November 10,2004. At this date comments were received from
the Shakopee Environmental Advisory Committee, Minnesota Department of
Transportation, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and the Metropolitan Council.
Outlined below, please find responses to comments. The comment letters are attached for
reference.
Responses to Comments from the Shakopee Environmental Advisorv Committee
Response to Comment #1: The ball playing fields are not being designed for night lighting
and are not anticipated to include lights to facilitate night play. The City will take this
comment into consideration during final plan review.
Response to Comment #2 - Item 6: Future improvements to the site are not phased as part
of this project, firmly planned for the future or are the environmental impacts of these
expansions addressed in this EA W. Potential options for future expansion include
expansion ofthe New High School and providing additional parking spaces or a new
building in the undeveloped northeast corner of the site for an elementary school.
Response to Comment #3 - Item 10: The woodland/forested area is adjacent to the
proposed construction site of the New Shakopee High School. This woodland/forested area
is identified in the City of Shako pee Comprehensive Plan as part of the Shakopee Greenway
Corridor. Due to the designation of this area as a greenway corridor potential impact to the
woodland/forested areas were evaluated in the Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive
Resources section. Small portions of the woodland/forested areas may be present on the
November 12, 2004
Page 2 0/4
proposed New High School site but did not occupy a sufficient area to be listed in the cover
types. No significant impact to this area is anticipated with thIS project.
Response to Comment #4 - Item 17: The updates to the City of Shakopee's
Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan include more details on drainage
requirements, ponding areas, and infiltration considerations for this site and others located
within the Jackson Township Annexation Area. The updated Comprehensive Stormwater
Plan will be completed soon.
Response to Comment #5 - Item 19: Development ofthe site is not anticipated to create
the potential for groundwater contamination as hazardous waste will not be present on-site.
Storm ponds on the site will be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP)
standards. To satisfy NURP recommendations for the site, approximately 4 acre-feet of dead
pool storage volume is required. This storage will provide pretreatment prior to discharge to
downstream infiltration areas. The storm water ponds will be lined to prevent infiltration of
the untreated water into the ground. This will reduce the potential for stormwater
contamination of the groundwater.
Response to Comment #6 - Item 20: Underground storage tanks are not anticipated to be
used on the site. However, if underground storage tanks are to be installed in the future they
will be required to be in conformance with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency rules.
Response to Comment #7 - Item 21: The traffic volumes assumed for the EA W included
traffic proposed to be generated by New Shakopee High School as well as the Countryside
Development. A worse case scenario was analyzed, assuming that the peak school arrival
and departure would correspond with the peak hour of street traffic.
Pedestrian paths and sidewalks are being proposed on both sides of 1 ih Ave. Specific
crossings were not reviewed as part of the EA W but will be addressed in the platting
process.
Regional impacts as they relate to TH 169 were addressed in the EA W. It was determined
that the Countryside development and New School development did not have a significant
impact on the regional facility. The river crossing issues are being address in the TH 41
study currently in progress. It can be assumed that traffic from new developments such as
Countryside and the New School is included in the background traffic projections in that
study. The amount of traffic from these developments by themselves is extremely small in
the overall traffic projections for the river crossings.
Response to Comment #8 - Item 23: It is anticipated that a central heating and cooling
plant will be required by the high school. This will normally require a registration permit
from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
C:\Documents and Settings\TVidmar\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6\110904CRmemo1.doc
November 12, 2004
Page 3 of 4
Response to Comment #9 - Item 24: Best Management Practices to control erosion and
sedimentation issues, including dust, will be addressed for the construction on the New High
School during the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Permit Application process. As part ofthis
process a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required. The SWPPP
will be required to address erosion and sediment control within the project site prior to
construction until final stabilization or turf establishment on the site.
Responses to Comments from the Minnesota Department of Transportation
Response to Comment #1: The Findings of Fact has been updated to include the
requirement of a Minnesota Department of Transportation grading permit, as well as a
drainage permit for this project. The developer will be required to obtain all required
permits.
Responses to Comments from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
Response to Comment #1: No response is necessary. The School District will be
responsible for obtaining all necessary permits.
Responses to Comments from the Metropolitan Council
Response to Comment #1 - Item 8: The necessary plans will be distributed to the
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services, Municipal Services for review and approval.
Response to Comment #2 - Item 8 and 27: The City will submit the Plan Amendment to
the Metropolitan Council for review.
Response to Comment #3 - Item 10: The City will take this comment into consideration
during final plan approval and continue to work with the County to meet or exceed all
County requirements.
Response to Comment #4 - Item 17: Currently the site is designed to National Urban
Runoff Program (NURP) standards. To satisfy NURP recommendations for the site,
approximately 4 acre-feet of dead pool storage volume is required. This storage will provide
pretreatment prior to discharge to downstream infiltration areas.
Response to Comment #5 - Item 25: The City will take this comment into consideration
and anticipates continued coordination between the City, School District, and the County
during the design and implementation ofthis development. Plans will be submitted to the
County to receive county road access approval and permits. At this time the county will be
able to review and comment on the plans.
C:\Docurnents and Settings\TVidmar\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6\1 lO904CRmerno1.doc
November 12, 2004
Page 4 of 4
This concludes our responses to comments on behalf ofthe City. If you have any questions,
please feel free to contact me at (763)541-4800.
C:\Docurnents and Settings\TVidrnar\Local Settings\Ternporary Internet Files\OLK6\110904CRmernol.doc
~ Metropolitan Council
- m1!mrnm
November 10,2004
., . .:~ ::~l~i G~!~..
Michael Leek, Development Director ~-:.~l ',.:.. ~ : ,.I
City of Shakopee
129 Holmes Street South
Shakopee, MN 55379-1376
RE: City of Shakopee Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W)
New Shakopee (ISD #720) High School
Metropolitan Council District 4 (Jules Smith, 952-361-9988
Metropolitan Council Review No. 19338-1
Dear Mr. Leek:
The project proposes the constmction of a new fudependent School District #720 high school, including
room for future school expansion. The 88 acre project is located between County Roads 77 and 79
(Townline Road) and south of proposed 1 ill A venue in the City of Shakopee. Metropolitan Council staff
review finds that the BA W is complete and accurate with respect to regional concems and raises no major
issues of consistency with Council policies. An EIS is not necessary for regional purposes. However,
staff offers the following comments for your consideration.
Item.8 - Permits and Approvals Required
Sanitary sewer service connection plans for the proposed project will need to be submitted to
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services, Municipal Services staff (in addition to the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency) for review and cOlllinent, and issuance of a construction permit before
connection can made to either the municipal or metropolitan wastewater disposal system.
Item 8 -Permits and Approvals Required and Item 27 -Compatibility with plans and land use regulations.
When the Council acted 011 the City's Comprehensive Plan Update in 2002, it found that the
Comprehensive Plan included land use proposals fOI' areas outside the City's jurisdictional boundaries.
The areas outside of the jurisdictional boundaries could not be fOffilalIy reviewed by the Council until the
areas were annexed to the City. The project area has now been annexed by the City, therefore, the City
wiIlneed to submit a Plan Amendment for review to the Council for the proposed project area.
Item 10 - Land Cover
The plan calls for 13 acres of "lawn/landscaping" and 48 acres of "park/open." Council staff
recommends that appropriate areas (such as expansion areas, steeper slopes and backbluffs/ridgelines) be
landscaped using native vegetation.
The proposal would alter the back bluff/ridgeline of the Minnesota River on the southwest part of the site.
Scott County is in the process of adopting a bluff ordinance. Council staff encourages the School District
and City to review the proposed project in relation to the proposed county ordinance.
Item 17- Water Quality; Swjace Water Runoff
Council staff encourages the incorporation oflow impact development (LID) stormwater runoff treatment
techniques throughout the project site. The siting ofbio-infiltration depressions within parking areas and
subsurface infiltration of roof-top mnoff would allow increased recharge on the site and a reduction in the
frequency, volume, and duration of off-site runoff events. Site soils have been characterized as being
www.metrocouncil.org Metro Info Line 602-1888
230 East Fifth Street · St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1626 · (651) 602-1000 · Fax 602-1550 · TTY 291-0904
An Equal Opportunity Employer
November 10,2004
Mr. Michael Leek
Page 2 of2
sands and 10ams that are well- to excessively-drained, making them good candidates for incorporation of
infiltration techniques. Utilization of these techniques could also allow a reduction in the size and
expense of planned stOlID water management basins. Inforrnation on these and other LID runoff
reduction methods can be found in the Council's Urban Small Sites Best Management Practices Manual
at: http://www.metrocouncil.org/environment/Watershed/BMP/manual.htm
Item 25 - Nearby Resources; Parks and Trails
The Scott County Regional Trail is proposed to be built along CSAH 79 (Townline Avenue). A sidewalk
is proposed along the south (school) side of the 17th Avenue extension, and a trail along the north side.
Council staff encourages further City/School District/County coordination of trail connections and design
to and within the project site.
If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Greg Pates, Principal Reviewer at
651-602-1410.
s~nc)e ely,
. /,1 ~i
,\ ~. . ;f ~-..~!.. . .. . . ~
iWs, &.. ,~--
/'
Phyllis anson, Manager
Plann'ing & Technical Assistance
cc: Jack Jackson, MultiFamily Market Analyst, MHF A
Tod Sherman, Development Reviews Coordinator, MnDOT Metro Division
Jules Smith, Metropolitan Council District 4
Keith Butt1eman, Environmental Services
Tom Caswell, Sector Representative
Greg Pates, Principal Reviewer
Cheryl Olsen, Reviews Coordinator
V :\REVl EWS\Cornmunjtit.~s\S!'iHk(jpcc\Lc1ter~\SI'l;:!knpc(.' :.'(l()4 F'.!\ W New Hli::.h SdiO,)! 1')3.'11)- j .doc
Minnesota Pollution ContrQI Agency
p nt'" -i ,-. r.."..
"..c II, l'J ) ~) iF; Ii
.... ~ . ',Ie.. .Jt ~.
November 9,2004
Mr. Michael Leek
City of Shakopee
129 Holmes Street South
Shakopee,MN 55379
RE: New Shakopee High School
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Dear Mr. Leek:
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has received copies ofthe Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EA W) prepared for the above proj ect, prepared by the city of Shakopee,
Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU). The MPCA has not reviewed the EA W for this project.
Therefore, the MPCA has no specific comments to provide the RGU. This decision not to
review the EAW does not constitute waiver by the MPCA of any pending permits required by
the MPCA. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the project proposer to secure any required
pennits and to comply with any requisite permit conditions. The enclosed checklist identifies
permits that the project may require, together with the most recent contacts at the MPCA.
We remind the RGU that, pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 5 (Environmental Quality
Board Rules), a copy of the RGU's decision on this EAW needs to be sent to the MPCA.
Sincerely,
u~~JJL-
. James E. Sullivan
Project Manager
Environmental Review and Operations Section
Regional Division
JS:gs
Enclosure
cc: John McBroom, Superintendent, Independent School District #720
520 Lafayette Rd. N.; Saint Paul, MN 55155-4194; (651) 296-6300 (Voice); (651) 282-5332 (TTY); www.pca.state.mn.us
St. Paul · Brainerd · Detroit Lakes · Duluth · Mankato · Marshall · Rochester · Willmar
Equal Opportunity Employer' Printed on recycled paper containing at least 20 percent fibers from paper recycled by consumers.
CHECKLIST
After reviewing the proposed project, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff noted areas that
may need additional follow-up and/or a permit from the MPCA. Those specific areas are checked below:
~ SDS Permit - Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit
..._A_St1ite.Jdi~PQ~.l;llSY~l~mJSInnp~l,TIl.itj~_!~qlljI.~_<:lJ().r._.~~y~;o(.t.~~.~I()~.()f.l:l. ~l:l!?:i tl!ty..s~~~.~:._. If a sanitary
sewer is proposed as a part of this project, an application for the SDSPermit should be made to.the....
MPCA by contacting David Sahli, Regional Environmental Management DivisiDn (REM), Metro.
Region, at 651/296-8722.
o NPDES/SDS Permit for dredged material disposal. If disposal of dredged material is anticipated, then
Brett Ballavance (Duluth office) at 218/723-4837 or Jaramie Logelin (Duluth office) at 218/529-6257
(nDrthern), or Elise Doucette (REM/Metro Region) at 651/296-7290 or Jeff Smith (REM/Metro
Region) at 651/296-7367 (southern) shDuld be contacted.
W NPDES Permit - Stormwaler
A General NatiDnal Pollutant Discharge EliminatiDn System (NPDES) Permit from the MPCA for
. construction activities will be required for all projects that disturb Dne (1) Dr more acres ofland. The
NPDES Permit specifically requires Best Management Practices which are detailed in the permit .
(additiDnal information can be found in the MPCA document Protecting Water Quality in Urban
Area) to. prevent erosion and cDntrDI sedimentation during construction and a stormwater pollution
preventiDn plan to. manage pDllutants in stDrm-water runoff from the site that will occur after
constructiDn is cDmplete. As a requirement of the NPDES Permit, storm-water wet-detention ponds ..
must be installed to treat the storm-water runoff whenever a project replaces surface vegetatiDn with'
one or mDre cumulative acres of impervious surface. If you have any questions regarding this, please
contact Michael Findorff (REM/MetrD Region) at 651/296-6798. For more infDrmation, please
contact the appropriate MPCA Regional Office staff below:
[Z( Construction Stormwater:
D Brainerd, Lisa Woog at 218/855-5017
D Duluth, Jim Dexter at 218/529-6253
D Detroit Lakes, Joyce Cieluch at 218/846-7387
0 Willmar/Marshall, Judy Mader (St. Paul office) at 651/296-7315 or
Mark Hanson (Marshall Office) at 507/537-6000
D Rochester, Dave Morrison 507/281-7763
~ Metro, Brian Gove (REM/Metro Region) at 651/296-7597 Dr
Duane Duncanson (REM/Metro Region) at 651/296-7072 .
D Industrial Stormwater
0 Brainerd, Robin Novotny at 218/828-6114
D Duluth, John Thomas at 218/723-4928
D Detroit Lakes, Jack Frederick at 218/846-0734
D Marshall, Brad Gillingham at 507/537-6381
D Mankato, Teri Roth at 507/389-5235
D Rochester, Dennis Hayes at 507/280-2991
0 Southeast Region, Jeff Smith (REM/Metro Region) at 651/296-7367
D Major Facilities, Elice Doucette (REMlMetro Region) at 651/296-7290
D Willmar, Ben Koplin at 320/231-5321
1
D Water Quality Certification
Waiver of the Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality' Certification is required. When wetlands
are altered or impacted by either filling, drainage, excavation, or inundation as part of the federal
Clean Water Act Section 404 permit process, a statement waiving the 401 Certification from our
agency must be obtained.
If you have any questions regarding this, please contact Jennifer Olson, of the Regional Environmental
Management Division, Business Systems Unit I, at 651/297-8611. The MPCA requires the project be,
evaluated for mitigation in accordance with the following hierarchy of preference:
a. A void the impact.
b. Minimize the impact.
c. Mitigate the impact through wetland replacement.
0 Septic Tank System
Individual septic tank systems design and construction must comply with Minn. R. 7080.
For additional information, c~:mtact Mark Wespetal (REM, Water Policy and Coordination) at
651/296-9322.
D Demolition Debris
Demolition debris must be disposed of at a properly permitted disposal facility. For information on
'. the location of one nearest you, please contact the appropriate MPCA Regional Office staff below:
0 Brainerd, Curt Hoffman at 218/828-6198
0 Detroit Lakes, Roger Rolf at 218/846-0774
D Duluth, Heidi Kroening at 218/723-4795 or Tim Musick at 218/723-4708
0 Marshall, Brad Gillingham at 507/537-6381
D Rochester, Mark Hugeback at 507/280-5585
0 Metro, Jeff Connell (REMlMetro Region) at 651/296-7271
D Asbestos
Asbestos may be present in the building(s) that will be demolished, which requires special care and a
permit. Please contact Jackie Deneen (REM/Metro Region) at 6S 1/297-5518 or Cynthia Hanson
(REMlMetro Region) at 651/297-8504 for additional information.
0 Wells
Abandonment and/or installation of wells must be done by a licensed well driller. Please contact the
Minnesota Department of Health 651/215-0823 for additional information.
0 Above and Below Ground Tanks
The installation and/or removal of ALL above and below ground tanks must be reported to the MPCA
before any work begins. Please contact the MPCA Customer Assistance Center at 651/297-2274 or
800/646-6247 for additional information.
2
NOV-12-2004 11:13 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.02
.
.
.
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
From: Terry Meiller, Natural Resource Specialist
Date: October 19,2004
Subject: EA W comments for Countryside Residential and proposed High School
5ite:
INTRODUCTION:
The Enviromnental Advisory Committee was asked to review the Enviromnental
Analysis Worksheets for Countryside Residential and the proposed High School site and
provide comments to City Council. A list of comments regarding the developments
follows:
COMMENTS:
Followed is a list of comments regarding the Countryside Residential EA W:
A. Impervious Surfaces increased in the area: The EA W shows 53% impervious
surfaces for the entire development with an impervious surface calculation
estimated area as 40% of each lot. Are these impervious areas meeting the city
requirements?
B. The location of a gas line and power line easement in proximity to many
residential lots is in question. Is there a better configuration of the development
to reduce this potential conflict?
#9 Land Use: EAC would like more explanation on the contamination of soils and
solid waste dump and how it will be addressed.
# 10 Cover types: The EA W report is not clear on the types of cover around the stream
and wetland areas. If vegetation is currently present in the area the EAC would like
efforts to keep and enhance the vegetation because of sandy soil types in this
environmentally sensitive area.
#12 Wetland Issues: There needs to be further clarification on the stormwater ponds
around the wetland and how they will impound or affect these nearby wetlands. There
are some questions as to the replacement rates for these wetlands. Do wetlands need to be
replaced because of this development, if so, where?
NOV-12-2004 11: 14 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.03
.
.
.
#17 Water Quality - Surface Water Runoff: The EAC is unaware of the revisions to
stormwater plans in Jackson Township. What are the updates to the plan, and when will
they be forthcoming?
#19 Geologic Hazards: Further explanation is needed on the last paragraph of this
section regarding the aquifer. How is the developer addressing the high susceptibility of
contamination, and storm water pond maintenance? What types of storm water ponds are
being proposed, and are there any other mitigation efforts that can be used?
#21 Traffic: The RAC feels there are some unrealistic as~umptions regarding peak traffic
time and the accumulative impacts of the additional traffic used in these high traffic
areas. There is much concern for the pedestrian and bike traffic in this area because of the
proposed school system nearby, along with some heavily used parks nearby as well. The
regional impacts were also not addressed, specifically the accumulative impacts on traffic
commuting both ways across the river.
#24 Dust: The EAC feels wind erosion control and enforcement of best management
practices must be adequately addressed. There is a large potential for dust issues in this
large development area
Following is a list of comments regarding the High School Site EA W:
A. Lights will not be installed at ball playing facilities on the school grounds.
If this is true it should state clearly.
#6. Description: There was a contradictory statement in the EA Won page 3, #d. Please
clarify the paragraph describing future stages.
# 10 Cover Type: Woodland acres shows a "0 acres" before and a "0 acres" after
development However the EA W does address woodlands later in this packet. Can there
be clarification or more detail as to this to assure no woodlands be impacted?
#17 Water Quality: Surface Water Runoff: The EAC is unaware of the revisions to the
stormwater plans in Jackson Township. What are the updates to the plan, and when will
they be forthcoming?
#19 Geologic Hazards: Further explanation is needed on the last paragraph of this
section regarding the aquifer. How is the developer addressing the high susceptibility of
contamination, and storm water pond maintenance? What types of storm water ponds are
being proposed, and are there any other mitigation efforts that can be used?
#20 Storage Tanks: Will underground emergency backup tanks be used? For example,
Diesel or Fuel oil tanks?
NOV-12-2004 11: 14 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.04
"
.
.
#21 Traffic: The.EAC feels there are some unrealistic assumptions regarding peak traffic
time and the accumulative impacts of the additional traffic used in these high traffic
areas. There is much more interest in this issue because the schools potential for children
walking or riding bikes to within the area. Regional impacts were also not addressed,
specifically the accumulative impacts on traffic commuting both ways across the rivet.
#23 Stationary Source Air Emissions: Will there be a boiler onsite for heating? Would
this not be considered a stationary air source that should be discussed in this section?
#24 Dust: The EAC feels wind erosion control and enforcement of the enforcement of
best management practices must be adequately addressed. There is a great potential for
dust issues in this area because of the large area disturbed at one time while construction
is taking place.
TOTAL P.04
NOIJ-09-2004 09:40 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.02/03
NOIJ-09-2004 09:39 952 233 3801 P.02/03
~o/'..,
! (1\ Minnesota Doportmont 01 Transportation
~ ~ Metropolitan Division
(lFTII~ Waters Edge
1500 West County Road 82
Roseville. MN 55113
November 5t 2004
Michael Leek
Development Director
City of Shakopee
129 South Holmes Street
Shakopee. MN 55379
Subject: New Shakopee Fligh School/ Mn/DOT Review # EA W04-028
SouthofTH 169, West ofCountyRd 79, East of CSAH 15
Shakopee / Scott County
m169
Mn/DOT Control Section # 7005
Dear Mr. Leek:
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the above
referenced Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W). Please address the following
issues before any further' deveiopment:
. In Section 8 - Pemtits and approvals required, a MnlDOT Drainage Permit should
be added to the list. Please direct any questions regarding this issue to,Derek
Beauduy(651-634-2233) ofMnlDOT's Water Res'ources Engineering'Section.
. Any use of or work within Mn/DOT right of way requires a permit. Permit forms
are available from MnDOT's utility website at
www.dot.state.mn. us/tecsuo/utilitv . Please direct any questions regarding
permit requirements to Keith Van Wagner (651-582-1443), or Buck Craig (651-
582-1447) of MnDOT's Metro Permits Section.
As a final request, could you please send an electronic .pdf file copy of your plan
submittal for our record keeping purposes to iuanita.voiszt@dot.state.mn.us . Please refer
to MnlDOT Review # EA W04-028 when emailing the .pdf file. Thank you for your
consideration in this matter.
As a reminder, please address all initial future correspondence for development activity
~~~~.~~' ' ',';,
. . " . ...... ': ,'. ," ";
Develop~ent Review Coordinator
. ',', 'Mn/DOT-:Metro'DiVislon":' ,"
Waters Edge ' , " ,
" '
An equal opportunity employer
NOl)-09-2004 09:40 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.03/03
NOl)-09-2004 09:39 952 233 3801 P.03/03
1500 West COWltyRoadB-2
Roseville. MiImesota 55113
MnlDOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and
two (2) copies of other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three
(3) copies of a plat and/or two (2) copies of other review documents will make a
submittal incomplete and delay MnlDOT' $ 3D-day review and response process to
development proposals. We appreciate your anticipated cooperation in providing the
necessary number of copies, as this will prevent us from having to delay andlor return
incomplete submittals.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 651-634-2083.
Sincerely,
Transportation Planner
Copy to:
Ryan Hughes - WSB Assocites
TOTAL P. 03
TOTAL P. 03