Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout15.B.1. Countryside Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)-Res. No. 6133 /0:6./, CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum C^lU(;~~ ' '; ,t" ,~, ";;r- " TO: Mayor and City Council " Uf~~tjVr Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Countryside Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) MEETING DATE: October 19,2002 CASELOG NO.: 04-067 INTRODUCTION: Tollefson Development requested the preparation of an EA W for the project that they identify as "Countryside." Notice was duly published, and the comment period ended on or about October 13, 2004. Comments were received from the Metropolitan Council and Minnesota Department of Transportation (copies attached), and are expected from the City's Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC). Any further responses to these, or other comments received late, will be provided to the Council at the meeting. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Offer and pass Resolution No. 6133 making findings relative to the Countryside EAW. 2. Direct staff to prepare an alternative resolution regarding the Countryside EA W. 3. Table the Countryside EA W for additional information. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternatives No.1. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer and pass Resolution No. 6133 making findings relative to the Countryside EA W. /~~' -/), ;b€"~~~~ R. Michael Leek Community Development Director I EA WCountryside.doc RESOLUTION NO. 6133 In the matter of the Decision on the Need for an Environmental Impact FINDINGS OF FACT Statement (EIS) for the AND CONCLUSIONS Countryside Residential Development in Shakopee, MN WHEREAS, Tollefson Development is proposing development consisting of 449 single-family homes on a 1 southeastern comer ofTH 169 and CSAH 15; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota R. subp. 19D, the City of Shakopee has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA W) for this proposed project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, as follows respect to the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on this project, on the record in this matter, including the EA W and 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 172-acre site to construct streets, utilities, and residential units. The project is anticipated to remove 1 acre of wooded area, 35 acres of brush/grassland, and 127 acres of cropland to add 85 acres of lawn/landscaping and 49 acres of impervious area. The proposed project includes preserving 3 acres of wetland, creating 5 acres of storm water ponding area, and providing 24 acres of public park and open space. B. Project Site The proposed project is located in the southeastern comer ofTH 169 and CSAH 15. The site currently contains 35 acres of brush/grassland, 127 acres of cropland, 1 acre of wooded area, 3 acres of wetland, and an existing farmhouse. II. PROJECT HISTORY A. The project was subject to the mandatory preparation of an EA Wunder Minnesota R. 4410.4300 subp. 19D. 2 EA WCountryside.doc B. An EA W was prepared for the proposed project and distributed to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parties on September 8, 2004. 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 September 16, 2004. D. The EA W was noticed in the September 13, 2004 EQB Monitor. The public comment period ended October 13, 2004. Written comments were received from the Minnesota Department of Transportation by the comment period deadline. A copy of this letter 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", Minnesota R. 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 of this project include: a. Land Use: The land use will be converted from agriculture to residential. 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 112,250 GPD of water and wastewater. The Shakopee Utility Commission has confirmed that this capacity will be available for this development. The surrounding 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 3 EA WCountryside.doc by the expansion ofthe City's water supply, storage, and distribution systems. c. Storm Water: The project is anticipated to generate some additional storm water runoff. This runoff will be treated within on-site ponding facilities to NURP guidelines. The design of the on-site storm water 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 geometries 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 new Shakopee High School is anticipated to occur in the area east ofCR 77, west ofCR 79, and south of the newly constructed 17th A venue. A separate EA W has been completed for the High School site. The regional land use conversion from open space and agriculture to developed residential space is anticipated to have a cumulative impact on the area. Attempts to mitigate this impact will include providing open space in the developments, 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. THE EXTENT TO WHICH ENVIRONMENTAL AFFECTS ARE SUBJECT TO MITIGATION BY ONGOING PUBLIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY 4 EA WCountryside.doc 1. The following permits or approvals will be required for the project: Army Corp of Engineers Wetland Permit MPCA NPDES storm water 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 Permits City of Shakopee Site Plan Review City of Shakopee WCA Permit City of Shakopee Grading Permit MnlDOT Grading Permit MnJDOT Drainage Permit 2. The City finds that the potential environmentalimpacts ofthe 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 Storm water Management Plan 3. City of Shakopee Comprehensive Transportation Plan 4. Scott County Comprehensive Plan 5 EA WCountryside.doc The City finds that the environmental effects of the project can be anticipated and controlled as a result ofthe environmental review, planning, and permitting processes. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council adopts the following CONCLUSIONS; The preparation of Countryside Residential Development EA W and 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 Fact and Conclusions, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental impacts. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Held the _day.of , 2004. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk 6 EA WCountryside.doc . J5b \ 'i, ; ~ WSB & Associates, Inc. Memorandum To: Phyllis Hanson, Metropolitan Council Marv McNeff, Transportation Planner From: Ryan Hughes, WSB & Associates Date: October 14,2004 Re: Responses to Comments Countryside Residential Development HAW WSB Project No. 1281-69 The public comment period for the CountIyside Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) ended October 13, 2004. Comments were received from the Metropolitan Council and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Outlined below, please fmd responses to comments. The comment letters are attached for reference. ResDonses to Comments from the MetroDolitan Council Response to Comment #1 - Item 8: The Findings of Fact has been updated to include the requirement of a Sanitary Sewer Extension Construction Permit from the Metropolitan Council Municipal Services staff. The developer will ~e required to obtain all permits. Response to Comment #2 - Item 9: The City will take this comment into consideration to meet the requirements of the Metropolitan Council. Response to Comment #3 - Item 12: The City will take the comment into consideration during the permitting and review process for the development. Response to Comment #4 - Item 2S:The Scott County Comprehensive Plan was reviewed in preparation of this EAW and a copy of the EA W was distributed to the Scott County Community Development Office and the Scott County Highway Department. The City anticipates working with Scott County Departments to implement specific trail locations and design. ResDonses to Comments from tlte Minnesota DeDartment of TransDortation 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 permits. . October 14,2004 Page 2 of2 Response to Comment #2: This has been noted in the Findings of Fact. These intersections will continue to he monitored to determine when the recommended lane geometries and intersection traffic control improvements will be justified. Response to Comment #3: The design of the road will meet county design standards. The Scott County Comprehensive Plan was reviewed in preparation of this EA W and a copy of the EA W was distributed to' Scott County Community Development Office and the Scott County Highway Department. Response to Comment #4: The developer will be responsible for providing noise mitigation measures, if necessary. The City will take the comment into consideration during the plan review and permitting process. 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. Michael Leek, City of Shakopee Development Director ~ Matthew Weiland, Tollefson Development Don Sterna, WSB & Associates Andrea Moffatt, WSB & Associates F:\ WPWlN\1281-69\lO 1404CRmemo,doc -.: 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 site: INTRODUCTION: The Environmental Advisory Committee was asked to review the Environmental 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 EAW 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? Response: The EA W shows 53 acres of impervious surface, not 53%. TIle 53 acres represents 31 % of the total site. The percent of impervious area on each lot can be addressed through thepre1iminary plat process. 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? Response: This comment will be provided the Planning Commission and City Council as part of the preliminary plat review process. #9 Land Use: EAC would like more explanation on the contamination of soils and solid waste dump and how it will be addressed. Response: A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was completed by American Engineering Testing for Tollefson Development. Based on this assessment, the solid [~ waste dump is associated with a former demolition debris dump. Some farm equipment parts, metal, and pieces of brick were noted during the review. Some soil staining was noted where farm equipment was stored and where the septic area. These areas will be addressed to the extent necessary as deemed necessary. #10 Cover types: The EAW report is not clear on the types of cover around the stream and wetland areas. Ifvegetation 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. .Response: The wetland areas are dominated by reed canary grass and showed disturbance from agricultural activity. The EAC's comment will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council as part of the plat review process. #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, ifso, where? Response: The water elevations of the adjacent ponds will be similar to the elevation of the wetland. Water will be treated before it is discharged into the wetland. As indicated in theEA W, it is anticipated that 0.1 acres of wetland impact will occur with this development. The Wetland Conservation Act requires mitigation at a 2:1 ratio. The wetland impact and mitigation issues will be addressed through the permitting process. #17 Water Quality - Surface Water Runoff: The EAC is unaware ofthe revisions to stonnwater plans in Jackson Township. What are the updates to the plan, and when will they be forthcoming? Response: The City is completing a storm water management study for the annexed area within Jackson Township. This study will identify allowable discharge rates, ponding areas, and infiltration areas. Meetings with the County, the developer, and the High School have been held to discuss this study. The developer will design the site to meet the recluirements of this study. #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? Response: The storm water ponds will be lined to prevent infiltration of the untreated water into the ground. Additionally, storm water treatment is required prior to discharge to an infiltration area within the City. , #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 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. Response: The traffic volumes assumed for tbe EA \V included traffic proposed to be generated by the new school also. A worse case s~enario 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 17th Ave. Specific crossings were not reviewed as part of the EAW 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 County Side and the New School is included in the background traffic projections in that study. The amount of traffic from these developments by them selves is extremely small in the overall traffic projections for the rivel' crossings. #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 Response: The developer will be required to meet the requirements of the NPDES permit through the MPCA. Erosion and sedimentation can be addressed through this permit. This concern will be provided to the developer. OCT-14-2004 10:24 WSB & ASSOCIATES OCT-14-2004 10:23 7635411700 P.03/04 952 233 3801 P.03/04 , . ~ Metr~poIitaD Council. . - . r October 13. 2004 Michael Leek, Development Director City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee. 'N!N 55379-1376 . RE: City of Shakopee Environmental.Assessn:tent Worlaheet (EA W) Co~de Residential DeveJpptnent Metropolitan Council District 4 (Jules Smith, 952-:J61-9988) Metropolitan CouncURovicwNo.19316.1 Dear Mr. Leek: The project proposes the consfnlction of 449 single-family homeS an 172 acres in the southeastern area ofTH 169 and CSAH 15. The project is located in the City of Shako pee and in j ackson Township. Metropolitan (=ounci1 staffrevieNI finds that the EA W is com.plete and accurate with respectto regional ccmeem& and raises 110 major issues of consistency with Comcil policies. An BIS is not necessary for regio1'1al purposes. However, staff offers the following comments for your eonsideration. Ite.m 8 -Pel'ltlits ana Approyals Required Prior to connecting to either the m\ulloipaJ or m~tropolitan wastewater di~osal system, sanitary sewer service comeetion plans for the proposed project will need. to be submitted to Metropolitan council :Enviromnen1al Services. Munic:ipaJ StrVices staff (in addition to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agenc)y) for review and comment. and issuance of a construction permit. Item 9 - Land Usst and Item 17 - Compatibility with plam and land usa regulations. Current infon:nation available from the City in4icates thAt part of the site has been annexed from JackSon Townsbip by the City of SMkDp~ witb the remainder. of the site soon to be annexed from the Township. When the Council acted on the City's Comprehensive-Plan Update in 2002. it found that the Comprehensive Pllm included. land use propog~s for areas outsid.e the City's present jurisdictional boundaries. 1:1lose areas of the Plan could not be formally reyiewed by the Council until su.oh lauds were anne:(ed to the City. The City must submit Plan Amendments to the Council for review for all lands annexed. including the lands annexed with this proposed project. . Item 12 . P'h.;y:;icallmpact on Water R'es(JII1'~es The EA W states that a buffer will be preserv.ed around the'intexmittent stream on the site. However, two streams crosS the southwestpart of the site and merge into one.sttemn just,west of the property boundary. It is recomm~deQ tl12.t stJ:"eam channels have appropdate native . vegetation buffers. . 'II'WW'.~.....~il.or8 . . Metro rnm LUle fl02.1898 230 US~Y-iltb $t7$ln' -St. PaW. Mimlc:iota 5S10I-ll,i2G to (651) (0),1000 · p~ 602-1550 . Tn' 2el~O~ An Eqrol OppOI1Ul\II)' Enlpl~ , "., . : , OCT-14-2i21i214 1121:24 WSB & ASSOCIATES 76354117121121 P.i214/i214 OCT-14-2i21i214 1121:23 . --- -.. . 952 233 381211 P.i214/i214 , . October 13t 2004 , Mr. Michael Leek . Page 2 of2 Item 25 - NetlJ"by Resources. The future Scott County Regional Trait is proposed along CSAH 79/Townline AV61lue, on the east side of the site. It is recornmend~lf that the City work with the appropriate Scott County departtnents and regional parks implementing agency on the specific traill'Ocatiol1 and design. I If you have any questions or need ~er infonna.tiol'7 please contact' ~eg ~ates, Principal Reviewer at 6S1~602-t410- ~ , ~~i ~ . Hanson. Manager ~ Office cfPJanuing & Technical AssiS;tance I ce: Jack Jackson, MultiFamily M~et Analyslt MKFA . Tod Shennan, Development Reviews Coordinator. MnDOT - Metro Division MHFA ] ules Smith. Metropolitan Co~cil District 4 Keith Buttlema.n. Environmental Services TOM CaswelI. Sector Representative Greg Pates, Principal Review~ Chery'l Olsen, Reviews Coordinator , I I WRlivtnWS\r.4lrnm!ll'litie;\Shllknpi.!l!\rel1l:U'$\Shakcp~ :0114 U W ('ol1nlry,idc Hcs 19~ I ci.l.d(l~' I I I I I I . I I I I I I I i ' I I i I I I I I I ! . j I ! TOTAL P.i214 TOTAL P.04 OCT-14-2004 09: 19 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.02/04 OCT';" 14-2004 09:18 952 233 3801 P.02/04 . ;. "~ flt ~nnesola Ileparlment of Transportetion . ..... ,., -, " Metropolitan Divi$ion OF TIt Waters Edge 1500 West County Road 82 Roseville, MN 55113 October 11. 2004 '. .. ~ " . . ... Mr. Michael Leek .'... ". ~... . I :, ;'':;'' '. Director. Community Development ....,...:.." :...;;~.,.. .. ..../ ' .. City of Shakopee ./ d~"}j$./ 129 Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 SUBJECT: EA W - Countryside Residential Development MnlDOT Review #EA W04-024 Southwest quadtant ofTH 169 and Townllne Road (County Road 79) - extends west to CSAH IS City of Sh~kopeet Scott County CS 7005 Dear Mr. Leek: The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnIDO'I) has reviewed the above referenced Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). Please address the following issues before any further development: . MnlDOT needs to be listed as a pennitting authority on page 3. Also, Section 8., Pennits and Approvals required, must be revised to list Mn/DOT as a pennitting authority for, grading permits and drainage pennits. Discussions are underway with Sean Cul1en~ engineer for the developer, to allow some grading on MnIDOT right of way toward the east end of this development. MnlDOT has agreed to the concept that has been discussed. When plans for this grading are complete~ the developer will need to submit a detailed grading plan, and apply for a grading permit, in addition to a drainage permit. Any use of or work within MnlDOT right of way requires a permit. Permit forms are available from MnDOT"s utility website at www.dotstate.nm.usltecsup/utility. Please direct any questions regarding permit requirements to Keith Van Wagner (651-582-1443). or Buck Craig (651- S82-1447) of MnDOrs Metro Permits Section. . This development will generate additional traffio that will impaot the CSAH 17 (Marschall Road) and CSAH 15 (Marystown Road, and Adan1s Street) interchanges. . These interchanges will be monitored for indications that additional turn lanes, or. traffic signals, may be justified, to maintain efficient functioning of these interchanges. For questions on this point, please . call Lars hnpola, MnlDOT Metro District Traffic Studies Engineer, at (651) 634-2379. . As a reminder, CSAH 17 (Marschall Road) is County State Aid Highway Route 17, and Marystown Road, and Adams Street are CSAH Route 15. Any work on.R CSAH route must .meet State Aid rules and policies. Also, the County must review any changes to its County State Aid Highway system so that they stay within its system limitations. Please note that CSAH 17 and CSAli 15 are within Scott County's jurisdiction and the County must have the opportunity to review and conunent on the development as well. An equal opportunity employer OCT-14-2004 09:19 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.03/04 OCT-14-2004 09:18 952 233 3801 P.03/04 . ~ .. . Mr. Michael Leek Page 2 October 11,2004 You may obtain additional information regarding State Aid rules and policies in any of the following ways: )> http://www.dot.state.mn.uslsta.teaidl shows or has links to the applicable fonDS and the MnlDOT State Aid Manual. )- Refer to the Mn/DOT State Aid Manual, Chapter 5-892.200 for information regarding standards and policies. )> Please go to http://www.revisor.Iel!.state.mn.us/arule/88201 for infonnation regarding State Aid Operations Rules Chapter 8820. )> For driveway standards, the designer is directed to refer to the MnlDOT Road Design Manual (English) Table S.3.04A and Figure 5~3.04A for guidance and policies. Please contactJim Deeny in out' State Aid section at (651) 582-1389 with any additional questions, . Mn/DOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from TH 101 could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible for taking all reasonable mea.$UI'eS to prevent land use activities listed in tbe MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of the land use would result in violations of established noise standards. MnlDOT polioy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway fimds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The project proposer should assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to m11'1imi7'.e the impact of any highway noise. If you have any questions regarding MnlDOT's noise policy please contact Peter Wasko in our Design section at (651) 582.1293. As a reminder, please address all initial future correspondence for development activity such as plats and site plans to: Development Review Coordinator MnIDOT. Metro Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B~2 RoseviUe, Minnesota 55113 MnIDOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2) copies of other review documents. including site plans. Failure to provide tl1ree (3) copies of a plat and/or two (2) copies of other review documents will make a submittal incomplete and delay MnlDOT's review and response to development proposals. We appreciate your anticipated cQoperation in providing the necessary number of copies, as this will prevent us from having to delay andlor return incomplete submittals. OCT-14-213134 139:19 WSB & !=Issac lATES 763541171313 P.134/134 OCT-14-213134 139:18 952 233 38131 P.134/134 . - - . Mr. Michael Leek Page 3 October 11, 2004 I{you have any questions regarding this review please feel free to contact me at (651) 582-1462. Sincerely, fg~.~ Marv McNeff Transportation Planner Copy: Greg llkka, Acting Scott County Engineer James Hentges, Scott County Surveyor Sean Cullen, McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Plymouth, MN Gerry Larson, MnlDOT Environmental Services, Saint Paul, MN Ann Braden, Metropolitan Council TOTAL P. 134 TnTAI P lil& , . RESOLUTION 2004._ RESOLUTION ISSUING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF NEED WHEREAS, the preparation of the Countryside Residential Development 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 Countryside Residential Development 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 Shakopee has determined that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. Adopted by the Shakopee City Council this 19th day of October, 2004. Mayor ATTEST: City Administrator F:\WPWINl1281-69\lOl104Resolution.rif , , 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 site: INTRODUCTION: The Environmental Advisory Committee was asked to review the Environmental Analysis Worksheets for Countryside Residential and the proposed High School site and provide comments to City Couneil. A list of comments regarding th~ developments follows: COMMENTS: Followed is a list of comments regarding the Countryside Residential EAW' 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. # 1 0 Cover types: The EA W report is not clear on the types of cover around the stream and wetland areas. Ifvegetation 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? ~ . . #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 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 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? . I . #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 <;m traffic commuting both ways across the river. #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.