Loading...
Agenda PCSR 06-10-1993 ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 1993 7 : 00 P.M. SAUK JR. HIGH COMMONS AREA 1 . CALL MEETING TO ORDER 2 . CONSIDER 6/10/93 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA 3 . CONSIDER A ZONE CHANGE REQUEST BY JOHN WEICHT, ELK RIVER ASSOCIATES, AND AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS/PUBLIC HEARING, CASE NO. ZC 93-01 . 4 . CONSIDER PRELIMINARY PLAT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR ELK PARK CENTER BY JOHN WEICHT & ASSOCIATES, MIDWEST COMMERCIAL BROKERAGE, AND AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS/PUBLIC HEARING, CASE NO. P 93-08 AND CU 93-15 . 5 . ADJOURNMENT • • MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT THE SALK JR. HIGH SCHOOL, ELK RIVER, MN THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 1993 Members Present: Chairman Minton, Commissioners Eberley, Emerson, Kuester, Spotts and Tveite. Members Absent: Commissioner Kreger Staff Present: Stephen Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator; Terry Maurer, City Engineer; Peter Beck, City Attorney; Bill Weber, Planning Consultant; and Catherine Schmidt, Recording Secretary 1. Call Meeting to Order Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission was called to order at 7:05 pm by Chairman Minton. 2. Consider Planning Commission Agenda COMMISSIONER EBERLEY MOVED TO APPROVE THE 6/10/93 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. COMMISSIONER TVEITE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. • 3. Planning Commission Meeting Process Chairman Minton briefly explained the process of a public hearing. Peter Beck, City Attorney, explained the proposed zone change request, the conditional use permit request, and the preliminary plat request. Mr. Beck stated the requests are appropriate. 4. Proposed Elk Park Center Project Developers: Scott Erickson and John Weicht Architect: Mike Shields Traffic Engineer: Jim Benshoof Architect: Ron Anveny Civil Engineer: John Bogart The aforementioned addressed the Planning Commission and staff regarding the original site plan and stated that after several meetings with various groups, they are presenting a revised site plan. From this point, the group addressed the revised site plan, which included a WalMart and a Cub Foods, however it did not contain the Menards originally proposed. Chairman Minton addressed the public regarding procedures during a public hearing and reviewed the types of comments appropriate to the • proposed request. Chairman Minton stated with the revised site plan, this meeting would have to be continued to allow staff time to review the revised site plan and make the appropriate recommendations, Elk River Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 June 10, 1993 • however, public comments would be heard at this meeting and the public hearing would be continued to a later date. Chairman Minton entered into public record; 1) Minutes from the Park and Recreation Board dated February 3, 1993; 2) Letter from the Architect, Mike Shields; 3) Letter from the Elk River Chamber of Commerce dated November 12, 1992; 4) Letter from David Shay, Attorney for the Elk River Mall dated June 1, 1993; 5) Several responses regarding the EAW (included in the packet) ; 6) Letter from Citizens Who Care dated June 15, 1993. Chairman Minton opened the public hearing. Phil Johnson, 19440 Oak Street NW, Elk River stated his concern and the concern of the Citizens Who Care group; the location of this proposed project. Mr. Johnson quoted from page 68 of the Focus Area Study, Subarea B-3, and stated that this proposed project is not consistent with the Area Focus Study or the Comprehensive Plan, note Condition #2 of the Seven Standards for granting a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Johnson quoted Condition #4 of the Seven Standards for granting a Conditional Use Permit and stated that this proposed project requires widening area streets, relocating utilities, the installation of sidewalks, it affects school crosswalks, increases police and fire needs and, in particular, will create traffic congestion and interfere with neighboring public thoroughfares. Mr. Johnson continued with • Condition #5 of the Seven Standards for granting a Conditional Use Permit and addressed the Environmental Assessment Worksheet, page 5, #23, which states that an Indirect Source Permit is required to access the effect of the increased levels of carbon monoxide caused by high levels of exhaust in the immediate vicinity. Mr. Johnson stressed that this particular project does not meet the Seven Standards for granting a Conditional Use Permit and requested the Planning Commission to require the developer to re-scale the proposed project to fit within the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan and the Focus Area Study. David Shay, Elk River Shopping Mall, stated this proposed use was not consistent with the covenants of the Elk River Shopping Mall which states Jerry Hagen can not start a new grocery store near that mall. Dennis Gorman, 12905 Highland Road, Elk River, expressed concern regarding the Area Focus Study and addressed several concerns regarding the Riverdale Crossing shopping mall and its insufficient roadway. Mr. Gorman is concerned with the increased traffic so near to the schools and asked that the Planning Commission take testimony from the school bus drivers regarding the current traffic problems and related safety issues. Tom Dillon, 824 Jackson, Elk River, expressed concern regarding traffic issues, particularly the corner of Jackson and School Street. Diane Schmacher, 11063-208th Avenue, Elk River, indicated she was in • favor of the Elk Park Center project and was confident City staff would make the appropriate recommendations. Elk River Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 June 10, 1993 • Ken Williams, 19762 Brentwood Lane, Elk River, stated he is opposed to this proposal in the school area. Mr. Williams requested a poll of citizens present at this meeting to show how the majority of the citizens feel. Further, he commented on the environmental impact this project would have in this particular location. Ed Stoutenberg, 19032 Yale Circle, Elk River, voiced concerns regarding traffic around Jackson and School Street. The Elk River Police Department currently directs traffic in this area daily. Would this proposed project increase traffic problems in the area and how would this increase of traffic affect the safety of the children. Carla Fourniar, 716 Washington Court, Elk River, explained her concerns for the safety of children so close to the proposed mall and crime and gang activity increasing due to the close proximity of the schools to the proposed mall. There is no youth facility in the area, therefore, our youth will gravitate toward this location possibly increasing gang activity. Ms. Fourniar questioned the developer and/or City staff regarding additional security in the proposed mall and who is liable for the safety of children in and around the mall. Fred Short, 16651 Kangaroo Circle, Ramsey, commented on crime and the affects on our youth. By choice, Mr. Short sends his child to school in Elk River and is very concerned about the close proximity of the proposed mall to the schools. He is opposed to the proposed mall in • this location. Ed Renkin, 816 Jackson, Elk River, stated he recently moved to Elk River from Egan to avoid the gang activity in Egan. Mr. Renkin is concerned about the safety of children around the proposed mall area, especially at night. Nancy Schumacker, 1127-5 Street, Elk River, iterated concerns for child safety, however, she did like the idea of the proposed mall but on a smaller scale than what is being proposed. Jack Sheedy, 4940 Viking Drive, Minneapolis, representing the managing firm for the Elk River Shopping Mall, questioned if this development would be paying its share of taxes. Rolf Anderson, 19411 Irving Circle, Elk River, reiterated concerns for child safety, an increase in traffic, and the overall scope of this project. Mr. Anderson introduced Ken Anderson, Anderson Engineering, an independent engineer hired by the Citizens Who Care group to review and identify potential traffic concerns regarding the proposed mall. Ken Anderson, Anderson Engineering, submitted copies of his memo to the Planning Commission and staff. Mr. Anderson reviewed his memo and felt this site would be overdeveloped, even if the proposed mall would be reduced in size. Also, a traffic study was done in this area however, it was done by Maier Stewart in July. Mr. Anderson would like to • suggest a new study be done during peak traffic hours and also with consideration to seasonal traffic. He would like to meet with Terry Elk River Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 June 10, 1993 • Maurer, City Engineer, to discuss the necessary details this proposal would involve. Sharon Bromen, 20969-152 Street NW, Elk River, stated she is in favor of the project. She is a retail business owner and welcomes the proposed project. Cathy Wise, 19424 Irving Circle, Elk River, explained that she is a school bus driver and commented on the pedestrian traffic around the Jackson and School Street area. Reiterated concerns regarding pedestrian safety and increased gang activity. Jeff Polger, 13131 Mississippi Road, Elk River, is in favor of the proposed project and stated he would like to see the additional retail business in the City. Fred Short, 16651 Kangaroo Circle, Ramsey, presented the Planning Commission and staff with signatures in favor of this type of development but not in the proposed location. Darlene Jacobson, 10730-198 Avenue NW, Elk River, stated she is opposed to the proposed mall due to the close proximity to the schools. Steve Patterson, Chamber of Commerce, 372 Jackson Avenue, Elk River, informed the public attending the meeting that growth is essential to • the City of Elk River and that this project would be a benefit to the community. Mr. Patterson reviewed his memo included in the packet. Charlie Blesner, 19360 Norfolk, Elk River, stated he is concerned about the size of the development. Further concerns included signage on Jackson, storm water and drainage, and trees and landscaping. Karri Ryans, 19128 Carson, Elk River, informed the Planning Commission that she is a teacher and reiterated concerns regarding the safety of children and environmental issues. There being no comments at this time, Chairman Minton asked City staff and the developer's staff to respond to the aforementioned concerns. Stephen Rohlf addressed the signage issues and indicated further review was necessary due to the revised site plan. Terry Maurer commented on the storm drainage plan and discussed the City's current storm water plan that is being reviewed. John Bogart, John Oliver & Associates, stated that after reviewing the 100 year storm plan, this request can meet the necessary requirements. Jim Benshoof, Traffic Engineer retained by the developer, requested a meeting with the City Engineer to discuss all areas of concern. • Testimony from the public continued. . . Elk River Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 June 10, 1993 • Duane Kropuenske, 20760 York Street, Elk River, addressed concerns relating to crime and gang activity. Mr. Kropuenske pointed out that this proposed project will not bring crime or gang activity to Elk River because it is already here. Further, the Focus Area Study is intended to be a guideline to work with the community yet allowing for growth and change within the community. Mr. Kropuenske reminded the citizens to look at the merits of this project not at their emotions. Phil Johnson, 19440 Holt Street, Elk River, addressed the Focus Area Study. Fred Short, 16651 Kangaroo Circle, Ramsey, asked if this type of project (a mall so near to area schools) has been done anywhere else in Minnesota. Greg Johnson, 11880 Highland Road, Elk River, commented that his wife is the head of the school patrol and school patrol participants have received letters warning them not to patrol should this project be approved (due to the increased traffic) . Mr. Johnson questioned if tax increases would cover the cost of additional people to patrol? Further, if the residents of Elk River paid for the Growth Management Plan to be done, why isn't the City using it? Tom Dillan, 824 Jackson, Elk River, reiterated traffic concerns. • Ken Williams, 19762 Brentwood Lane, Elk River, stated he is not opposed to the growth of Elk River, however, he is opposed to the location of this proposed project. Lloyd Johnson, representing Cub Foods, stated they are excited about working with the City. Mr. Johnson is aware of the traffic concerns, however, he feels they may be somewhat exaggerated. Further, this is an excellent location for this type of project due to the proximity of adjacent retail businesses. Mr. Johnson stressed the advantages of increased tax dollars and employment for the City. For the record, Mr. Johnson did request to further review the revised site plan with regard to pedestrian traffic areas. Dan McCullen, 810 Jackson, Elk River, reiterated traffic concerns. Ed Renkin, 816 Jackson, Elk River, reiterated concerns regarding the location of the proposed project. John Fantasia, 11955 Highland Road, Elk River, responded to a letter from MnDot regarding Freeport Avenue and 169 (traffic issues) . The letter was entered into public record. Alma Olson, 11964-194 Circle, Elk River, reiterated concerns regarding the location of the proposed project. Dennis Gorman, 12095 Highland Avenue, Elk River, requested • clarification regarding funds for the proposed project with regard to signalization. Mr. Gorman reiterated concerns regarding the location of the proposed project. Elk River Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 June 10, 1993 • John Cannon, 11794-190 Avenue, Elk River, stated he felt the mall project does not meet the seven standards for a conditional use permit. There being no comments at this time, Chairman Minton requested City staff and the developer's staff respond to the questions asked. Mike Shields, Architect for the proposed mall, responded to the question of liability/safety of children in and around the proposed mall. Mr. Shields informed the residents that it is not the developer's or the school's responsibility to try to reduce gang activity or crime and therefore, this project should not be judged by possible increases in crime/gang activity. Scott Erickson, developer for the proposed project, suggested the Planning Commission look at the Minneapolis based Calhoun Square project. It is in an area that had a high crime rate, however, the mall project helped to reduce crime in the area because individual business owners took an active part in security, etc. Testimony from the public continued . . . Sue Deliden, 19243 Lowell Street, Elk River, requested the developers consider the Area Focus Study. Shelia Hileman, 11774 Highland Road, Elk River, reiterated concerns • relating to safety issues and increased crime. Carla Fourniar, 716 Washington, Elk River, reviewed a newspaper article regarding crime and juveniles and reiterated her concern regarding crime. Rosalie Ezati, 19498 Lowell Street, Elk River, works in a retail store in Elk River and knows many of the area youths. Ms. Ezati is concerned with the affect this proposed project would have on area youths. Ken Williams, 19762 Brentwood Lane, Elk River, questioned if the Planning Commission was limited to making a decision using only the facts, or would they be able to use their own judgements. Planning Commission recessed at 9:30 p.m. and reconvened at 9:35 p.m. Stephen Rohlf discussed the Focus Area Study and explained the memo included in the packet dated June 4, 1993. Phil Johnson, 19440 Holt Street, Elk River, commented on storm water run-off, the memo in the packet from the DNR, and explained the sedimentation pond and culvert. Terry Maurer, City Engineer, addressed driveway accesses, traffic issues, and costs related to improvements. Mr. Maurer also explained that the pond behind the school currently has no outlet. This project • is proposing an outlet. Elk River Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 June 10, 1993 • Chairman Minton addressed City staff: what would be required to review this proposal further. Commissioner Eberley requested more details regarding the traffic issues, Commissioner Tveite stated more information is required as per the memos from the BRW and Maier Stewart. Commissioner Tveite commented that many details must be supplied to properly review this plan. Michael Shields, Architect, requested a general approval of the concept of this proposal. Commissioner Tveite stated that too many details are lacking to approve a concept of this plat. Chairman Minton questioned staff if another meeting day could be set to continue the public hearing and discussion on this proposal. Discussion ensued. A meeting date of July 15, 1993, was set. COMMISSIONER SPOTTS MOVED TO CONTINUE THE SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE PROPOSED ELK PARK CENTER PROJECT ON JULY 15, 1993, AT THE ELK RIVER CITY HALL AT 7 P.M. COMMISSIONER EBERLEY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 5. Adjournment There being no further business, COMMISSIONER TVEITE MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. COMMISSIONER KUESTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. • The meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission adjourned at approximately 10:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, (,41 YAbuiLe- le4m0 Catherine M. Schmidt Recording Secretary • Jy of k/ TO: PLANNING COMMISSION 1 • Riverr FROM: STEPHEN ROHLF, B & Z ADMINISTRATOR DATE: JUNE 4, 1993 SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE REQUEST BY JOHN WEICHT AND ASSOCIATES/PUBLIC HEARING APPLICANTS John Weicht and Associates in cooperation with Elk River Associated Investors and the following property owners : Clara Chouinard, Dennis and Lori Anderson, Rita and Robert Walz, and Betty Munich. REQUESTED ACTION A zone change from R-2b Townhouse District, to PUD. The applicants are also requesting that the underlying land use for this property be amended to HB, Highway Business . The current land use designation on this property is MR, Medium Density Residential . • LEGAL DESCRIPTION The affected properties are all situated in the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 27, Township 33, Range 26 , lying east of Jackson Road. The actual legal descriptions are quite long and cumbersome, but can be made available upon request. The affected properties are the four single-family houses shown in the southwest corner of the Elk Park Center site plan. The yards of these four single-family houses extend into the proposed Menards Lumberyard area. ZONE CHANGE The City' s policy now dictates that the a site plan accompanies a zone change to PUD. The Elk Park Center site plan has been provided in this packet, which includes the property in question with this zone change. Apparently, the four single-family homes are proposed to be owned by the developer and left as single-family homes to help buffer the project from adjacent property owners . If this is the case, the Planning Commission may wish to consider not changing the land use on the west half of the lots in question where the single-family homes are situated. RECOMMENDATION • Staff will elaborate more on this zone change request and provide a recommendation at Thursday night ' s meeting. P.O. Box 490 • 13065 Orono Parkway • Elk River, MN 55330 • (612) 441-7420 • Fax: (612) 441-7425 \i0/ y oft TO: PLANNING COMMISSION .1 River FROM: ASTEPHEN DMINISTRATOR BUILDING & ZONING DATE: JUNE 4, 1993 ;5t- SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY PLAT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ELK PARK CENTER BY JOHN WEICHT & ASSOCIATES, ELK RIVER ASSOCIATES, AND VARIOUS PROPERTY OWNERS/PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. P 93-07 AND V 93-04 OVERVIEW Elk Park Center, originally "Elk Park Center West, " is the proposed site of Cub Foods, Wal-Mart, Menards, and various smaller businesses . The total square footage of building proposed in this site is 477,885 sq ft. The total acreage of this site is approximately 50 acres . Other site information can be found on the attached site plan. PAST APPROVALS • Past approvals related to this project include the following: 1 . A zone change on the northern portion of the 50 acre site from R2b to PUD, was approved by the City Council on September 23, 1991 . The land use map was also approved to be changed to Highway Business at this same Council meeting. This zone change was applied for by John Weicht & Associates and the six property owners affected. 2 . A zone change for the southern portion of the project from R2b and C3 to PUD. The applicants for this zone change request were John Weicht, Midwest Commercial Brokerage, with the consent of Arlis Cristek and Bill Dickenson, property owners . This zone change was approved on June 15, 1992 . At that time, the land use map was also amended to reflect Highway Business . 3 . Preliminary plat and conditional use permit for this project was first considered by the Planning Commission on August 25, 1992 . The issue was tabled for lack of information. Copies of minutes and past memos for the aforementioned items are available upon request. Staff will have copies available at the June 10, 1993, meeting for Planning Commission review. • P.O. Box 490 • 13065 Orono Parkway • Elk River, MN 55330 • (612) 441-7420 • Fax: (612) 441-7425 Elk Park Center Project Page 2 June 4 , 1993 • PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION The Planning Commission will be reviewing the preliminary plat of Elk Park Center, a conditional use permit for the development of the PUD, and a zone change for the property in the southwest corner of the proposed project. Staff will prepare a separate memo on the zone change request. PAST MATERIALS SUPPLIED The Planning Commission has been supplied with a site plan, building elevations for the major tenants, a landscaping plan, a proposed preliminary plat, a grading and drainage plan, a site lighting plan, and a proposed utility plan. The site plan, grading and drainage plan, utilities plan, and preliminary plan have been revised. New copies are included with this memo. The Planning Commission has also been supplied with the Environmental Assessment Worksheet and traffic study for the project, as well as a feasibility study for the extension of services for the entire undeveloped corridor of Highway 169 . NEW MATERIALS INCLUDED WITH MEMO • A revised site plan, grading and drainage plan, and utility plan are included as well as a revised preliminary plat. Also included are the following: 1 . The comments staff received regarding the Environmental Assessment Worksheet, which includes comments of concern by the "Citizens Who Care" group. 2 . The minutes from the February 3, 1993, Park and Recreation Committee meeting when they gave a recommendation on pedestrian ways and parks for the project. 3 . Comments from Michael Sheilds, of AKR (the developer' s architect) responding to concerns raised by Bill Weber, Planning Consultant for the City. 4 . A letter from the Elk River Chamber regarding the project. 5 . A letter from David Shay, Attorney for the Elk River Mall regarding the status of the lease agreement between Hagen' s Food and the Elk River Mall . All the above referenced items should be added to the public • record. A petition from the "Citizen' s Who Care" raising concerns with the project has already been added to the public record at the April 25, 1992, Planning Commission meeting. Elk Park Center Project Page 3 June 4 , 1993 • Lastly, a memo from Terry Maurer, City Engineer, dated June 4, 1993, and Bill Weber, Planning Consultant, dated June 4, 1993, regarding their review of this project are attached. Terry Maurer' s and Bill Weber' s memos addressed most of staff ' s issues regarding this project, however, there are a few additional points that should be elaborated on. SPECIFIC SITE PLAN APPROVALS Staff is recommending the Planning Commission and City Council review the site plans for each building prior to construction. This approval is beyond the overall review of this PUD. The developers would like the specific site plan approval for buildings A-E . Staff is recommending more detail such as spot elevations for the parking lots, dumpster locations, location and type of screen for mechanical equipment, sign detail, revised lighting plan, revised landscaping plan, etc. , be provided prior to the Planning Commission considering these specific site plan reviews . USES Staff is recommending that the type of uses listed on the site plan be incorporated in the PUD Agreement not specific • tenants . If alternative uses are requested later, it would take an amendment to this PUD agreement. The Planning Commission should also consider if there are uses that do not belong in this location and should be specifically spelled out as prohibited. This is especially important for the spaces to have that open-ended designation such as lease space or retail space. The Planning Commission should specifically consider open storage and screen storage. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission' s recommend this project is tabled until the information lacking and revisions recommended in Mr. Maurer' s memo and in Mr. Weber' s memo are accomplished. However, the Planning Commission should open the public hearing, take testimony and then continue it until a meeting to be advertised. Staff feels that to address the accumulative effects of the many issues raised, it may require a reduction in the total square footage of buildings in this project. • ^ += February 15, 1993 Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator City of Elk River 720 Dodge Avenue Elk River, MN 55330 RE : Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Elk Park Center Dear Mr. Rohlf : This letter acknowledges receipt of the EAW for the above-named project . The Environmental Review Program rules (at Minnesota , Rules, part 4410 . 1500, item B) require that a press release containing notice of the EAW availability be provided to at least one newspaper of general circulation within the area and that copies of the EAW be distributed to all points on the EQB distribution list. We presume that these requirements have been met . Notice of the EAW availability will be published in the EQB • Monitor on February 15 , 1993 . The 30-day comment period will begin on that day and will expire on March 17 , 1993 . Pursuant to Minnesota Rules, part 4410 . 3100, subpart 1, no final governmental decision to grant a permit, approve the project, or begin the project may be made until a negative declaration or EIS adequacy determination has been made. Please contact me if any questions arise about the Environmental Review process . My phone number is ( 612 ) 296-8253, or you may call toll-free by dialing 1-800-657-3794 . Sincerely, &JAI 6frui-n,v)g_ --- Gregg M. Downing Environmental Review Coordinator cc : Scott Erickson, Lynn Caswell • C, ENYIRONMENIAL ODALIIY BOARD 858 CEDAR SEREET, SI. PAH, MN 55155 612 296-2603 FAN 612 296-3698 SEW PRODDED BY ® PLANNING ECTEIV STATE OF n DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES • 500 LAFAYETTE ROAD • ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA • 55155-40 10 DNR INFORMATION (612) 296-6157 March 15, 1993 Stephen Rohlf Elk River Building & Zoning Administrator 720 Dodge Avenue Elk River, MN 55330 RE: Elk Park Center Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Dear Mr. Rohlf: The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the EAW for the Elk Park Center project. We offer the following comments for your consideration. Item l lb should have indicated that the Natural Heritage Program has identified a significant natural mixed oak forest community in the NE 1/4 section 27, T33N, R26W, which is within one mile of the Elk Park Center project. We have attached a copy of an earlier correspondence with the Natural Heritage Program for your information. Item 12 states, "A portion of the storm water will be routed east...to wetlands which are proposed • to be designated as a city storm water ditch system." The unrestricted and untreated discharge of stormwaters into a natural wetland is generally opposed by the DNR. This use of wetlands as a stormwater treatment pond is not advised and we recommend the construction of on-site sedimentation ponds (with skimmers where needed) for stormwater treatment and retention. The use of natural wetland systems to treat urban runoff degrades and eventually destroys valuable wetland habitat through sedimentation, contamination, and increased nutrient loading. We will review this aspect of the project during the federal permitting process and we will likely recommend denial of the use of protected wetlands for this purpose. Item 12 also states, "The water surface elevation of the wetlands east of the site will be temporarily raised approximately 5.5 feet by the runoff of the project during a 100-year storm (event)." The information provided in Item 12 is insufficient to determine the overall project impacts to the wetland in question. The EAW should include an evaluation of expected changes in water surface elevations for 1, 5, and 10-year storm events to allow a more accurate appraisal of project impacts. The developer should be required to construct properly sized sediment basins and retention ponds to prevent the 5.5 foot "bounce"which is expected to occur for large scale events. Large fluctuations in water levels negatively impact nesting birds and permanent changes in the water level regime can change the character of vegetation found in wetlands to the detriment of the existing natural community. The proposed project could benefit, harm, or have minimal effects on the wetland in question and further information is required to make this determination. The appropriate erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be followed during construction activity. Every effort should be taken to minimize sedimentation and erosion during construction. Proper silt fences and floating silt curtains should be used during construction and • for 72 hours after construction activity ceases. We also recommend the mulching and seeding of all disturbed areas within 72 hours of project completion; the AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER • y Stephen Rohlf - Page 2 • revegetation of disturbed areas should include the planting of native trees,woody shrubs, and grasses where possible. Wetland impacts associated with this project must be fully addressed for both the wetland in question and water management purposes. The information provided indicates further development is expected in this watershed and the project may require mitigation under the Wetlands Conservation Act. The EAW should address these issues as well as those mentioned above. We recommend that decision on the need for further environmental review be postponed for 30 days as provided by Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, subpart 2a(B), to collect the necessary information. It may also be possible to provide the needed information during the record of decision process in your responses to comments made on this EAW. No matter which outcome unfolds, we request the opportunity to review any future information gathered in this regard. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. We look forward to receiving your record of decision and responses to our comments. Minnesota Rules part 4410.1700, subparts 4 & 5, requires you to send us your Record Of Decision within five days of deciding this action. Please contact Don Buckhout of my staff, at (612) 296-8212, if you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, • Thomas W. Balcom, Supervisor Natural Resources Planning and Review Section Office of Planning c: Bob Hance Steve Colvin Tom Lutgen Bonita Eliason Lynn M. Lewis, USFWS Gregg Downing, EQB Scott Erickson, Nu-Western Development Company #930146-01 ER7.ELKPARK.DOC • john Oliver & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineering •Land Surveying 580 Dodge Avenue, Elk River,MN 55330 Land Planning (612)441-2072 • Fax:441-5665 April 27, 1993 Steve Rohlf Building and Zoning Administrator City of Elk River something address Elk River, MN 55330 Re: Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Elk Park Center We have prepared the following responses to the comments received for the above referenced project. If you have any questions concerning these responses feel free to give us a call. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,Thomas Balcolm Mr. Balcolm comments on item 11b, That there is a significant mixed oak forest within one mile of the project that should be mentioned in the EAW. At the time of writing the mixed oak forest to which he has referred had been partially clear cut and partially developed. • Mr.Balcolm stated concern over the release of untreated water into a natural wetland system from the proposed project. As a result of his comment and concerns by the city engineer a system of skimmer and sedimentation basins will be created. This system will completely retain a 2" rainfall on the site. These sedimentation ponds will incorporate skimmers in the design. He also raises concerns over the volume of runoff going to the wetland. He states that a rise of 5.5 feet in the wetland area is unacceptable. The EAW did not state the impact for the creation of this site correctly. The impact of the entire tributary area to the site after full development is 5.5 feet for a one hundred year storm. After discussions with the City Engineer sedimentation/water quality ponds will be used throughout the site to retain the first 2" of runoff. The impact from the subject project itself for a 100 year storm is 1.5 feet. The following table provides an estimate of the impacts created from the proposed development. STORM EVENT IMPACT (year) (ft) 1 0 2 0 5 0.06 10 0.34 100 0.85 In addition the City Engineer is looking at providing an outlet from this wetland to mitigate the impact of the runoff to this wetland from a fully developed tributary area. Erosion control shall be implemented according to the MPCA Best Management Practices manual. The city will require that such practices be followed. • Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,Bonita Elison • Ms. Elisons concerns are addressed above concerning the mixed oak forest. Citizens Who Care,Rolf Andre Mr.Andre states that the project is incompatible with the cities comprehensive plan. We believe that the project is compatible with the cities comprehensive plan. The area is currently zoned B-3, Highway commercial. This project will has requested that the project be rezoned to a commercial PUD. This does not change the use for which the current zoning has reserved the site. Mr. Andre discusses the need for the ISP to be completed before construction commences. We agree. Mr.Andre states that MNDOT has stated unofficially that the project will cause gridlock in the area. The City Engineer in conducting a traffic study identified concerns about the traffic surrounding the site. He has also identified the necessary mitigation measures to allow traffic to flow freely. The project will incorporate the cities traffic recommendations. Corps of Engineers.Ben Wopat Mr. Wopat states that a 404 permit may be required. At the appropriate time a submittal will be made to the Corps of Engineers for such a permit. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,Paul Hoff Mr. Hoff states that the EAW does not provide adequate information to evaluate noise and air quality issues. • The Indirect Source Permit (ISP) application submitted to the agency does however. This permit application has or soon will be submitted to the agency for their approval for this project. Mr. Hoff states that the improvements stated in the EAW for the improvement of traffic conditions will need to be required to have binding commitments for construction before the ISP is issued. The city will be constructing these improvements as part of the developers agreement and improvement project. Mr. Hoff other comments concerning water quality have been addressed above. Minnesota Department of Health.Judith Ball Ms. Ball expresses concern about the possibility of some surficial aquifer wells used for potable water being affected by dewatering during construction. Potable water is supplied by the municipal water distribution system in the surrounding area. Sincerely, J Oliver &Associates Bogart, P.E. III r w Y • C ZENS t; W, 4o ARE March 15, 1993 City of Elk River Steve Rohlf Building &Zoning Administrator 720 Dodge Avenue Elk River, MN 55340 RE: Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Elk Park Center,Elk River, MN A review of the aforementioned document provides some concern relative to the complete- ness and accuracy of the worksheet. Several items in the EAW appear to not be in compli- ance with conditions stipulated in the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Elk River, Section 900.42 - Conditional Use Permits. Also, there are various items within the worksheet that are not in agreement with other City documents. 1. The Zoning Ordinance requires the use under 900.42, 4.ii.: "Will be consistent with the • comprehensive plan." The EAW states in #28 - "The project is compatible with Elk River's comprehensive plan." However, a review of the City of Elk River, Focus Area Studies, July 1990, by BRW, Inc. presents a different plan. The area under review for the Elk Park Center is identified as Focus Area "B" in the Focus Area Studies. On page 68, under the Focus Area "B" land use and circulation plan heading. the study states: "Subarea B-3 (west of Highway 169) would include approximately 28 acres for commercial development along an extension of Freeport Avenue, multiple-family housing, single-family and the existing water tower." Also, the City of Elk River Zoning Map, revised March, 1992, shows a mixture of commercial, multi-family, and single-family as described in the Focus Area Studies. The proposed Elk Park Center is showing 50 acres dedicated to commercial develop- ment which is not in agreement with the two mentioned City documents. If the area in question has been rezoned to reflect all commercial development, then it is requested that the rezoning process be reviewed to insure that proper procedures were followed and notification of affected property owners was accomplished. Also,if the area has been rezoned,the changes should be reflected in the official City documents mentioned above. 1111 1 � 2. The Zoning Ordinance requires the use under 900.42,4.iv.: "Will be served adequately • by and will not adversely affect essential public facilities and services including streets, police and fire protection, drainage, refuse disposal, water and sewer system. parks and schools; and will not, in particular,create traffic congestion or interference with traffic on adjacent and neighboring public thoroughfares." Also, under 900.42, 4.v: "Will not involve uses, activities,processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons or property because of excessive traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare,odors, dust or vibrations." In #23, the EAW requires an Indirect Source Permit. The ISP should be completed and reviewed before any work begins on this proposed project. As the EAW states in #32 - "The critical issue of this development is the traffic increase." An unofficial review of the referenced Traffic Study by an MnDOT traffic engineer indicates that this area will suffer"gridlock" do to the inability to handle the increased traffic even with the suggested improvements mentioned in the Traffic Study. With the proximity of schools to this proposed project, it is imperative that the Indirect Source Permit be completed and that the Traffic Study and recommendations be further reviewed. 3. Considering the impact on the proposed area due to water drainage, traffic, noise, and pollution, and the proximity of schools and residential areas, it is strongly requested that an Environmental Impact Study be completed before any construction activity is allowed. • It is further recommended that the City prohibit the clearing on this property of trees, brush,and other natural landscaping until all issues relating to this proposed development are resolved. Sincerely, it 1,9„.4___ Ci ' ;. o Care • Celebration ,2 RE( f V kU MAR 29 1993 • Minnesota Pollution Control Agency • Celebrating our 25th anniversary and the 20th anniversary of the Clean Water Act 14111111110.. March 19, 1993 Steve Rohlf City of Elk River 720 Dodge Avenue Elk River, Minnesota 55330 Dear Mr. Rohlf: RE: Elk Park Center Environmental Assessment Worksheet The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff has completed a review of the above-referenced project. Relative to those areas for which the MPCA has jurisdiction, the staff does not believe the project has the potential for adverse environmental impacts and therefore, does not recommend the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). However, the staff does have the following comments on the project: • Air Quality Although a traffic study was done, the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) does not contain the air quality and noise information needed for an adequate evaluation of the project. 1. An analysis of carbon monoxide ambient air quality with and without the project for current and projected years is not given for the critical intersection(s) for the project. Both the EAW and the Indirect Source Permit (ISP) should contain this information. 2. In addition, worst case noise levels are not evaluated. Both the EAW and the ISP should contain this analysis. 3. The staff wishes to note that certain geometric improvements, including traffic signal installations, were assumed in the traffic impact study as viable improvements that would assist in providing acceptable traffic operation to the the Elk River Center. As such, traffic assignments, future conditions, and traffic volumes, as well as capacity calculations were based on the premise that improvements to these roadways were completed and were operating as functional facilities. Legally binding commitments for funding the assumed improvements would be needed before an ISP is issued in final form. • TDD: 297-5353 or, for Greater Minnesota, TDD: 1-800-627-3529 Printed on recycled paper containing at least 15% fibers from paper recycled by consumers 520 Lafayette Rd.; St. Paul, MN 55155-3898; (612)296-6300; Regional Offices: Duluth•Brainerd•Detroit Lakes•Marshall• Rochester Equal Opportunity Employer•Printed on Recycled Paper Steve Rohlf • Page 2 Water Quality 1. Item 17 indicates that measures will be taken to prevent erosion and sedimentation. We recommend that an erosion/sedimentation plan be specifically developed for the site including the following items to prevent sediment runoff by: 1) keeping exposed soil to a minimum; 2) using sediment barriers such as straw bales and fabric barriers in all drainage channels; 3) constructing a runoff collection ditch and sediment pond; and 4) mulching and seeding appropriate areas after construction. A system for routine inspection of the erosion control devices should be developed and include an inspection regime for after storm events. Erosion devices that have failed or have been displaced should be re-established or re-evaluated for a more appropriate device after failure is discovered. 2. The EAW indicates that 100 square feet of wetlands will be filled as part of this project. This acreage, though perhaps not extensive, should still be evaluated in accordance with an alternative to avoid this area if possible. A sequenced action to avoid, minimize, and mitigate should be demonstrated by the applicant to have been accomplished in order to concur that the taking and loss of wetlands is the only alternative. • 3. Item 18 indicates that sedimentation ponds with skimmers will be constructed along the project to handle the storm water. We are very supportive of this proposal for treatment of storm water. The EAW also indicates that 50 percent of the storm water will be routed from the ponds east under Highway 169 through an existing culvert to a series of wetlands on the east side of the highway. As a result the surface water elevation will be temporarily raised approximately 5.5 feet during a 100 year storm. An increase of greater than one foot in surface water elevation is considered to negatively impact a wetland. For this reason the impact wetlands must be mitigated. Thank you for the opportunity to review this EAW. We regret that our comments will be received after the close of the comment period. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Meri K. Nielsen of my staff at 612/297-1766. Sincerely, ?C‘ ‘‘64 4511 ' Paul Hoff, Director Environmental Analysis Office Administrative Services Division PH:pnk • RECEIVED MAR 0 4 1993 : ` T °p DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY p �\ 4���, -.Iv `I��� �1n\ ST.PAUL DISTRICT,CORPS OF ENGINEERS 180 E.KELLOGG BLVD. ,ROOM 1421• 1wl o:. n\ T � ST.P LarES�AS191-194793• -� - . , �,_, REPLY TO Construction-Operations Regulatory (93-02310-SF-GAE) Mr. Scott Erickson Nu-Western Development Company 6489 City West Parkway Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Dear Mr. Erickson: We have reviewed the information provided us about a project proposed by Nu-Western Development Company to grade and fill isolated wetland basin(s) to facilitate commercial development (Elk Park Center) at a site located in the S 1/2 Section 27, T. 33 N. , R. 26 W. , of Sherburne County, at Elk River, Minnesota. We believe that a Department of the Army permit may be required for this proposed commercial development because of the proximity of the project to a wetland basin(s) located in the area and its potential to have an adverse impact on this wetland resource. Enclosed are application materials. The orange booklet (EP-1145-2-1) gives background information about our program III and instructions for preparing the application. Because we must notify certain other agencies about your project and provide them a reasonable opportunity to comment, our review for most projects may take at least 90 days. You can help expedite this procedure if you -- * Fill out the application completely and specifically. Please note the instructions on pages 10 and 11 of the orange booklet. * Send accurate drawings, including smaller 8 1/2 by 11 inch copies for our public notice, illustrating the wetland areas to be filled and/or altered for the proposed project. See the check list on pages 14 and 15 and the examples on pages 16 and 17 of the booklet. Following these examples will help ensure that the drawings will be accurate and usable. * Describe any and all alternatives to the project as planned that have been considered. This consideration should include other potential sites and other methods of accomplishing the proposed activity. Federal laws and guidelines often prevent issuance of permits when there are less environmentally damaging alternatives available. For instance, if the project involves placing fill in a waterbody or wetland, there may be _ alternatives available that would accomplish the project purpose but would not require filling, or would not require as much fill in as large an area. • If your project would include any temporary placement of excavated or 0 fill material into a waterbody or wetland, you may need authorization for that work. Be sure to include that information in your permit application. Also, • you may need State, County, and/or city permits for this project. If you have any questions, please call Gary Elftmann of this office at (612) 220-0355. Sincerely, d-A-47 •-•n4 i 40, -"---1L- Ben Wopat tChief, Regulatory Branch Construction-Operations Division Enclosures Copy furnished: Mr. Steve Rohlf City of Elk River 720 Dodge Avenue Elk River, Minnesota 55330 Ms. Lynn Caswell John Oliver and Associates, Inc. 580 Dodge Avenue Elk River, Minnesota 55330 • III