The URL can be used to link to this page

3 PCSR 10-19-1993 AK mc,( ( / City of _6 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION i ClkRiver �FROM: STEVEN B. ACH, CITY PLANNE _. DATE : OCTOBER 19, 1993 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, ELK PARK CENTER/PUBLIC HEARING, CASE NO. CU 93-15 This memorandum is to be made part of the previous report distributed on Friday, October 15, 1993 . This issue came up late in the day Friday preventing the inclusion with the original report. PARKING/BUILDING SETBACKS Based on the preliminary building/parking setback plan (C6) submitted by John Oliver & Associates, some additional comments need to be brought to the Planning Commission' s attention. This drawing represents the minimum building and parking setbacks that will be applied throughout the entire PUD. Although the building and parking layouts shown on the outlots are conceptual, I think it is important to point out that the Sparking setback is not met on Lot 1, Block 3, and Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1 . Again, these site plans are subject to modification based on the prospective user of those individual lots . Nevertheless, all setback requirements will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council as part of the specific site plan package presented to develop each individual parcel . 410 P.O. Box 490 • 13065 Orono Parkway • Elk River, MN 55330 • (612) 441-7420 • Fax: (612) 441-7425 tyof , 1kRiver October 11, 1993 Elk River Associates Attn: Scott Erickson 6409 Citywest Parkway Suite 201 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Mr. Erickson, The following are a list of comments based on the revised Elk Park Center plan dated 9/15/93 . The majority of these comments will apply to the conditional use permit for the Planned Unit Development as it is brought forth before the Planning Commission and City Council next week. Some of these comments will apply at the time of specific site plan review. Your • cooperation in making the appropriate revisions to these plans prior to the Planning Commission and City Council meetings, will demonstrate your initiative to address all the issues . A. General Information 1 . Provide information verifying easements have been obtained from the School District for Freeport extension, drainage and landscaped areas . 2 . If the four single family homes along Jackson Avenue are not being purchased by the developer, information must be provided indicating the property owners cooperation for establishing a landscape and drainage easement. 3 . A petition/application signed by all property owners directly involved with the project must be provided. 4 . A letter from United Power Association needs to be provided authorizing use of their easement for parking and ponding purposes . B. Preliminary Plat 1 . All easements shown in the plat shall be dedicated to • the public. P.O. Box 490 • 13065 Orono Parkway • Elk River, MN 55330 • (612) 441-7420 • Fax: (612) 441-7425 • 2 . Outlot A should be deeded to the City for drainage and utility purposes . However, the perpetual maintenance of Outlot A will be the responsibility of the developer and included as part of the development agreement. 3 . Outlot B should be deeded to the City. 4 . Drainage and utility easements on school property should be granted to the City as public. 5 . Each lot contained within the preliminary plat should be listed indicating proposed lot size. 6 . Lot 1, Block 2, may need to be revised in accordance with recommendation to redesign the area around the proposed fast food and Building D. 7 . Park Dedication will be required. Cash payment will be calculated at the time of final plat based on the City' s fee at that time. Currently, the park dedication rate is $1,500 . 00 per acre. 8 . A Developer' s Agreement will need to be prepared and executed prior to releasing the final plat for • recording. C. Site Plan 1 . Site plan should be adjusted to meet established setbacks . 2 . All parking and building setbacks have been identified by staff on a plan on record in the Planning Department. This will be presented at our 10/12/93 meeting. 3 . Concrete curb and gutter (B612) will be required throughout the parking area. However, a note should be made on the site plan acknowledging this improvement. D. Parking and Circulation 1 . According to the City's parking requirements, there appears to be a shortage of parking on the Taco Bell, Perkins, and Midas Muffler sites . The area of greatest concern is the Taco Bell and Perkins area where there appears to be no space for additional parking. • 2 . The area around Building D and the fast food parcel (Lot 8) is a concern. First of all, any access onto Freeport Avenue should align with the drive • immediately to the north. Secondly, pedestrians crossing a drive aisle is unacceptable. Lastly, the 4,500 square foot retail building is a new element that has been introduced since the last plan was submitted to the Planning Commission in June of 1993 . A solution to this area may be to consolidate the development into one building and redesign the site plan to accommodate traffic circulation needs . 3 . The number of access points off of Freeport Avenue to the main retail area should be limited to five locations . Four of these may be along the eastern side of the project and one on the north side. The three access points on the east side may need to be adjusted to accommodate convenient access to this retail area. 4 . The service drive area west of Cub Foods should be extended south connecting with the service area west of Building B. This will allow the middle access drive onto Jackson Road to be eliminated. 5 . The Perkins parking lot has been proposed with a dead-end parking design. This particular design will be recommended to be eliminated at the time of site • plan review. E. Pedestrian Circulation 1 . The sidewalk in front of Building E should be extended to the sidewalk in front of Wal-Mart. F. Landscaping 1 . A landscaping theme should be considered for this project. This design element can be carried throughout the entire project and become an integral part in the continuity aspect of the Planned Unit Development. An example may include a typical planting bed located at all entrances . 2 . Plans should indicate if every parking aisle will be landscaped. 3 . Every attempt should be made to save existing trees and incorporate into the projects design. 4 . Extensive berming along Jackson Road will be required. Berms natural in appearance and a minimum of five feet high along with landscaping will be 111 necessary to screen loading facilities . S5 . Proposed plant materials around ponding areas should compliment the natural appearance of the ponds ( i .e. , dogwoods, river birch, service berry) . 6 . The type of landscaping proposed for the landscape easement both south and west of Wal-Mart should be shown on the plans . A plant material that is conducive to the proposed slopes within both these easements should be considered. 7 . If possible, illustrate landscaping in front of the buildings as shown on the building elevation plans . This concept will be recommended on final design of the landscaping plan. 8 . Undulating berms along Freeport Avenue along with landscaping should be included to reduce the view of the large parking area. G. Building Elevations 1 . The proposed building materials consisting of decorative rock face block, face brick, and decorative glazed concrete block and pre-finished metal canopies is acceptable. These same materials • shall be included on all building elevations . 2 . Consideration should be given to establishing an architectural design element or a common material that is incorporated into every building within the Planned Unit Development. This would accomplish continuity and unify the project as requested in the ordinance. 3 . An elevation of the fence/wall in front of Wal-Mart garden center should be shown. Staff will recommend a design that includes a block wall with wrought iron fencing, similar to other Wal-Mart stores in the area. H. Signs 1 . One freestanding sign will be allowed along Highway 169 identifying the development. This sign must be of a monument style and be constructed of materials which compliment the building. The exact size of the sign should be submitted for staff review and comment. 2 . The development monument sign at the intersection of Freeport and Jackson should not exceed eight feet • above grade and eight feet in width for a total of sixty-four square feet. 3 . Freestanding signs for Cub Foods and Wal-Mart will not be permitted. Both of these anchors can use space on the development sign and utilize wall signage as shown on the building elevation plans . 4 . It will be recommended that all freestanding development sites have one freestanding sign of a monument style. Each of the signs will have an approximate size of eight feet high and eight feet in width or a maximum square footage of sixty-four square feet. 5 . All wall signage on the building shall consist of individual letters and have a uniform design and color scheme. 6 . Ideally, a specific sign package should be submitted for approval by the Planning Commission and City Council as part of the Planned Unit Development. I . Trash Enclosure 1 . Trash enclosures consisting of materials that match the building shall be provided. Selected locations shall be out of public view and provide easy • accessibility by service trucks . 2 . Enclosures should be large enough to accommodate any recycling needs . This concludes a preliminary review of the elements that will be discussed as part of the Planned Unit Development. Assuming the City Council approves the conditional use permit for the Planned Unit Development, specific site plans will need to be provided and a more detailed review will take place at that time. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 441-4902 . Sincerely, tev Ach City Planner SBA:akh • StOCT 1 5 193 CONSULTING ENGINEERS October 15, 1993 File: 230-152-11 Mr. Steve Ach City Planner City of Elk River 13065 Orono Parkway Elk River, MN 55330 RE: Elk Park Center Review Dear Mr. Ach: As requested, we have reviewed the latest revised submittal for the Elk Park Center development. The submittal consisted of the following five plan sheets prepared by John Oliver and Associates with a revision date of October 14, 1993: • 1. Preliminary Plat 2. Preliminary Site Dimension Plan 3. Preliminary Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Plan 4. Preliminary Drainage and Grading Plan 5. Soils Map Based on our review, we would offer the following comments: A. PRELIMINARY PLAT 1. Lots 1, 4 and 8 Block 2 are under 1.0 acre in area. 2. No building setback lines are shown on any of the lots. Therefore, it is impossible to tell if the proposed buildings shown on the site plan meets the City's setback requirements. 3. Outlot B should be deeded to the City and become part of the elevated water tower site. 1326 Energy Park Drive 4. No side yard easements for drainage and utility purposes are shown. St.Paid,M6 55I0S-5202 However, there does not appear to be a need for these for utility service 6I2-644.4389 purposes. Fax:6I2-644.9446 9800 Shelard Parkway,Ste.102 Minneapolis,MS 55441.6451 612-546.0432 Fax:612-544-6398 152-1501.0cr Steve Ach • October 15, 1993 Page Two 5. An administrative subdivision of the Dickenson property will need to be accomplished either prior to or concurrently with this platting process in order to divide that property into the portion to be included in the plat and the portion to be excluded as exception #2. 6. It is not clear if the existing buildings on the exception to the Dickenson property meet City setbacks. If they do not meet setbacks, the amount of property excluded from the plant should be increased slightly to facilitate meeting the City ordinance. 7. It would be the intent of the Elk River Municipal Utilities to provide electrical service to the rear of the main buildings in the proposed development. Adequate easements for these purposes will need to be provided on the final plat. B. PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE AND GRADING PLAN 1. Lot and block numbers should be added to the grading plan for ease of cross- reference. • 2. There are difficult grades to work with in the area of Block 1. The building on Lot 3 is set at a maximum elevation of 955. However, no 954 contour is shown. Elevations in this area result in parking lot grades of 4-6 percent. This may be excessive for these types of developments. Closer review of this area will need to be undertaken during the site plan review. 3. There is a substantial amount of grading along the east property line in the MnDOT right-of-way which will require a MnDOT permit for work within the highway right-of-way. 4. No lot lines are shown for Lot 4, Block 2. These should be added to the grading plan. Also, the grading on Lot 4, Block 2 is extremely flat. This should be reviewed relative to drainage. 5. At the southwest corner of Lot 6, Block 2, the grading plan indicates the need for a retaining wall. We estimate that the maximum elevation of this retaining wall would be 14 feet high. If a retaining wall of this height is allowed on this site, we would recommend that it be designed by a professional registered engineer and the design calculation reviewed by the City Building Inspector prior to construction. Consideration should be given to terracing the wall to reduce its visual affect. • 152-1501.0cr Steve Ach • October 15, 1993 Page Three 6. There is a pond along the entire southern property line between this development and the School District property. Consideration should be given to providing a fence along the ponding area between the pond and the School District property. 7. The main access off of Jackson Avenue for service vehicles to the proposed Wal-Mart store has a driveway opening which exceeds the City standard of 30 feet. However, this may be necessary to facilitate the turning movements of large commercial vehicles. It should also be noted that this driveway has a grade in excess of 4%. Consideration should be given to lessening this grade if at all possible for ease of access during the winter months. 8. There is a low area shown on the grading plan on the Dickenson property which is Exception #2 to the preliminary plat. No attempt has been made to pick up drainage in this area. Consideration should be given to providing a storm water inlet in this area to pick up any runoff that accumulates there. 10. There is an existing 100 foot wide U.P.A. easement running through Block 2 and Outlot A. This existing easement runs through the middle of the proposed III Sedimentation Pond #3 which is proposed to be constructed in Outlot A. Due to the fact that the proposed pond is to be constructed in an outlot, it is likely that the City would end up with ownership of this particular pond. That raises the question of whether it is appropriate to have these types of utilities under the storm drainage pond because of the potential maintenance problems associated between the two. 13. The grading plan shows cuts up to 12 feet over the U.P.A. easement alignment. There are no indications as to how to avoid conflicts between the grading plan and the location of utilities within this easement. This item needs to be addressed. C. STORM DRAINAGE PLAN 1. The majority of storm drainage from the proposed development is shown to flow easterly under TH 169 to an existing ponding area on the east side of the highway. The amount of storm drainage proposed to flow into this pond will cause a rise in the water level of between 2 and 3 feet. Negative comments were received relative to this increase in water level as part of the E.A.W. The City has recently completed development of a Draft Comprehensive Storm II/ Drainage Plan. One of the recommendations of the plan was to provide an outlet to this large ponding area on the east side of TH 169 with the outlet ultimately flowing to the Mississippi River. The City is currently working on the preliminary design of this outlet, cost estimates, and funding scenarios. 152-1501.00T • Steve Ach October 15, 1993 Page Four It will be necessary to coordinate the construction of this outlet with the proposed development of the commercial areas such that there is not a negative impact from the rise of the water elevation in this ponding area. 2. A much smaller portion of the development site is proposed to flow southerly into the existing storm sewer system. The system ultimately outlets to the Mississippi River near the old City Hall site at TH 10 and Main Street. This is the same system that in recent large storms has caused isolated flooding at the intersection of Main Street and Evans Avenue. The increase in flow to this system from the proposed development is relatively small at 14 cfs in a 100-year rainfall event. However, unless provisions are made to provide an alternate outlet for the Main and Evans intersection, this additional flow will only aggravate the existing problem and large frequency rainfall events. Also, this storm drainage flowing south from the proposed development opens up the portion of the School District property which may ultimately develop as commercial property to providing additional flow into this system. As part of the Draft Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan, a solution to the Main and Evans isolated flooding problem has recommended. The City has • authorized additional work on preliminary design of this including cost estimates and funding scenarios. Coordination of the Main and Evans improvements will be necessary to preclude any increase in problem in that area caused by additional flow from this proposed development. 3. The storm drainage design for the Elk Park Center Development has been revised such that the sedimentation ponds now meet the design criteria laid out in the Best Management Practices guidelines. There are a total of six sedimentation ponds proposed on the site. These will all have existing standing water ranging from 3 to 6 feet. During a 100-year rainfall event, the maximum depth of water in these ponds will increase to a minimum of 7 feet and a maximum of 10.9 feet. These existing standing water depths and maximum depths raised the issue of whether or not the liability associated with these types of ponds would require that some type of fencing be provided. 4. The design of the ponds calls for a 4:1 side slope above the static water level with a benched area approximately 10:1 at the water level. The pond slopes beneath the standing water level are shown as 3:1. These slopes are in accordance with the Best Management Practices guidelines. However, the 3:1 slope below the water level may also be a concern given the fact that these ponds will have a standing water depth of approximately 3 to 5 feet. Should • a small child wander into one of these ponds, it would be difficult to exit given a 3:1 side slope. If the ponds are not to be fenced, consideration should be given to lessening the slope below the water level to something that individuals could easily get out of if they should fall in. 152-1501.00T Steve Ach • October 15, 1993 Page Five 5. All the sedimentation ponds on the site are designed for 100-year rainfall event. However, the storm drainage collection system is designed for a 10- year event. This raises the question of whether or not the storm runoff in a 100-year rainfall event will actually get to the ponds and, if so, how long and how much isolated flooding can be expected at the collection points. There are two major collection points proposed in the parking lot in front of the Wal- Mart Store. The elevation of these collection points is approximately 927. The first floor of the Wal-Mart store is only 3 feet above this at 930. The method of overland flow to the ponds needs to be carefully reviewed during the design phase to ensure no negative effects. It is not shown in the drainage calculations how deep or how long flooding can be expected at these locations. Additional information should be provided to show that there will be no negative impact by the size of the storm sewer collection system. 6. The Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan shows additional tributary area for this district lying north of 193rd Avenue on the west side of TH 169. Provisions should be made as part of this development to convey that runoff to the regional pond on the east side of TH 169. • 7. Consideration needs to be given to potential storm drainage runoff from Jackson Avenue into this system. This is a likely scenario, especially when Jackson Avenue is upgraded. D. TRAFFIC ISSUES 1. The revised traffic projections based on the new site plan show a reduction in the PM peak trip generation of approximately 12%. This reduction in total traffic generated by the development does not change or eliminate any of the recommendations for improvements necessary to the external facilities to accommodate traffic generated by this development as outlined in the Traffic Impact Study which was previously completed. Consideration needs to be given to each of these improvements and the timing established to coordinate with the development of this project. 2. Parking stalls are shown to be 19 feet deep by 9.5 feet wide with 24-foot wide isles. This is adequate spacing for parking. 3. Freeport Avenue should be a 52-foot wide roadway as it comes through the development and the access road providing right-in and right-out turns at TH • 169 should be wide enough to facilitate three lanes of traffic, one out-bound and two in-bound. 152-1501.0cr Steve Ach • October 15, 1993 Page Six 4. Consideration should be given to opening the traffic pattern between Lots 2 and 3 and Lot 1 of Block 1. This would provide for a better circulation pattern. 5. Each parking lot must have a sufficient number of handicap parking stalls. 6. There is no clear method shown on the plan to provide delivery vehicle access to Lot 7 or 8, Block 2. This raises a potential problem of delivery access in conflict with customer traffic patterns. The site plan should be revised to provide better delivery vehicle access to these two facilities. 7. The number of access points from Freeport Avenue to Block 2 has been reduced from eight to five. This is a vast improvement and provides for much better access on to and off of Freeport Avenue. 8. An access road is provided across the front of the main buildings on Block 2. An adequate number of pedestrian crossings need to be provided with the appropriate signing and striping. It may also be necessary at some point to • provide speed humps to reduce the speed of traffic in this area. 9. The number of access points on Jackson Avenue for delivery vehicles has been reduced to two with the driving/delivery areas all connected. This provides for the minimum delivery vehicle trips on Jackson while providing good flow for emergency vehicles. E. SANITARY SEWER AND WATER 1. An elevated water tower in the high pressure zone is required to provide water service to this site. The Elk River Municipal Utilities recently awarded a contract for construction of this elevated water tower. It is anticipated the water tower will be in service by the end of July 1994. Sanitary sewer service to the site will be provided by extending the existing trunk line currently located south of School Street through the site, ultimately serving properties to the north and east of the proposed development. It is anticipated that the sanitary sewer and water to serve the site would be constructed as part of a public improvement project, thus requiring a feasibility study after the preliminary plat is approved. The feasibility study would provide detailed information relative to the sizing and location of these facilities. • 2. The preliminary layout of sanitary sewer and water to serve the site appears to be adequate with one exception. The watermain shown in Block 1 should be looped to provide adequate service to the three commercial lots. 152-15O1.0cr • Steve Ach October 15, 1993 Page Seven F. MISCELLANEOUS 1. Street lighting is not shown on any of the submitted drawings. However, street lighting should be a requirement along Freeport Avenue. 2. The ownership of the utilities contained within the site will likely need some discussion. We would recommend that all sanitary sewer and watermain be owned and maintained by the City and/or Municipal Utilities. We would also recommend that Freeport Avenue and the access to TH 169 be considered public roadways. All other internal roadways should be considered private. Finally, we would recommend storm sewer, including the sedimentation ponds, be considered private. This may be difficult to accomplish with Sedimentation Pond #3 which is shown in an outlot; therefore, this may need to be considered the start of the City's overall storm drainage system and, as such, become owned and maintained by the City. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please call. 4111 Sincerely, MSA, CONSULTING ENGINEERS Terry J. Maurer, P.E. TJM:tp • 152-15O1.0cr [ 1/ I/ ^rr February 15, 1993 Y•` Steve Rohif, 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 . Rohif: 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, Gregg M. Downing Environmental Review Coordinator cc : Scott Erickson, Lynn Caswell • t� ENYIRONMENIAI 0011111' BOARR 658 CEDAR STREET, ST. PARI, TNN 55155 612 296-2603 [Al 612 296-3696 STAFF PROVIDED BY m PIANNIN6 CC. lVEu ;puri ..�. � STATEnOF MUV UVESD1TQ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES • 500 LAFAYE I it 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 Stephen Rohlf Page 2 • revegetation of disturbed areas should include the plantingof native trees,woodyshrubs, and g 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.ELKPARKDOC • _ — ��M( STAATEE OF • DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 500 LAFAYETTE ROAD • ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA • 55155-40 07 ONR INFORMATION (612) 296-6157 August 10, 1992 Lynn Caswell John Oliver and Assoc. , Inc. 922 Main St. `\/*\ Elk River, MN 55330 Re: Proposed developments in sec. 27, T33N R26W, Sherburne Co. K1 Dear Mr./Ms. Caswell: The Minnesota Natural Heritage database has been reviewed to determine if any rare plant or animal species or other significant natural features are 7 known to occur within one mile of the above referenced project. There is a record for a mixed oak forest in the NE 1/4 of sec. 27 that was identified during 1989 survey work in connection with the Minnesota County Biological II!! Survey (MCBS) as a good quality example of this vegetation type. The MCBS is a joint project of the Natural Heritage and Nongame Wildlife Programs of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. The survey gathers information, county-by-county, on sensitive natural habitats (plant communities) , and rare plant and animal species, evaluates their importance and establishes priorities for their protection. Relatively undisturbed examples of natural communities such as mixed oak forests are becoming increasingly rare. The Natural Heritage program supports protection of the highest quality remnants as important components of the state' s natural biological diversity. The forested portion of your project area in the NW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of sec. 27 also represents an example of a mixed oak forest. It was eliminated from detailed survey by MCBS because examination of recent air photos showed fragmentation by cultivation on three sides, as well as other evidence of disturbance. The Natural Heritage database is maintained by the Natural Heritage Program and the Nongame Wildlife Program, units within the Section of Wildlife, Department of Natural Resources. It is the most complete source of data on Minnesota's rare, endangered, or otherwise significant plant and animal species, plant communities, and other natural features, and is used in fostering better understanding and protection of these rare features. Thank you for consulting us on this matter, and for your interest in minimizing impacts on Minnesota' s rare resources. Please be aware that review by the Natural Heritage and Nongame Programs focuses only on rare natural features. It doe's not constitute review or approval by the Department of .z• vY• ,•� ...+,<..�. ...a z. •. ... ...-. .J."a;... .. ._ ... . .. -i _ ..e..,, � oos.:tom.:�:.. 41110 MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY March 5, 1993 /RECEIVED Mr. Lynn P. Caswell �r $/q John Oliver & Associates, Inc. JOHN OLIVER&ASSOC. 580 Dodge Avenue Elk River, Minnesota 55330 Dear Mr. Caswell: Re: Elk Park Center commercial development SW/4 SE/4 & E/2 SW/4 S27, T33, R26, Elk River, Sherburne County MHS Referral File Number: 93-1163 Thank you for providing this office a copy of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the above-referenced project. It has been reviewed pursuant to responsibilities given to the Minnesota Historical Society by the Minnesota Historic Sites Act and the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act and through the process outlined in Minnesota Rules 4410.1600. There are no properties in the project area that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places or included in our inventory. In the absence of • reported properties, we have also evaluated the likelihood that unreported historic or archaeological properties may be present. Although we cannot state with certainty that there are no significant unreported historical or archaeological properties within the project area, we feel that the probabil- ity of such properties being present is low. Therefore, in our opinion, the "no" response to question 26a is appropriate. Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Sec- tion 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36CFR800, Pro- cedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for the protection of historic properties. If this project is considered for federal assistance, it should be submitted to our office with reference to the assisting federal agency. Please contact Dennis Gimmestad at 612-296-5462 if you have any questions regarding our review of this project. Sincerely, : Leftil\ - -- ritta L. 131 mberg Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer BLB:dmb • cc: Office of the State Archaeologist, c/o Donn Coddington, MHS 345 KELLOGG Rour.RVARII WF.ST i SAINT PAI1I. MIN/WC/WA sc1n9.1onc iTF1 RPH(lNR• !11.9ob_l.11A T t • cw :ZEN 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 Ritter, Section 9000.42 - 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 EIk 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. • 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, p /9 .4c__ oCare • �� fele.„,... n 2� ,,,,,-.:-...,z....„..•; E C l Y D MAR 2 9 1993o r Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Y� • Celebrating our 25th anniversary and the 20th anniversary of the Clean Water Act 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 4111 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, Paul Hoff, Director Environmental Analysis Office Administrative Services Division PH:pnk S RECEIVED MAR 04 1993 � "�T DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY /4� '�\ St PAUL 01STRIC.CORPS OF ENGINEERS W. ;. a•: NIIII 180 E.KELLOGG MVO_ROOM 1421 P L.MINN ET5517;79 / I�arcri 3, 1993 REPLY TO Construct& -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 • 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 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, co 4 Ben Wopa Chief, 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 • • "` Minnesota Department of Health • Division of Environmental Health 925 Delaware Street Southeast 41.---.. P.O. Box 59040 Minneapolis, MN 55459-0040 (612) 627-5100 . f IJ L( V. D MAR 18 1993" March 17, 1993 Steve Rohlf Building and Zoning Administrator City of Elk River 720 Dodge Avenue Elk River, Minnesota 55330 Dear Mr. Rohif: Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) staff has reviewed the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed Elk Park Center in the City of Elk River and offers the following comments for consideration. Re: permits. Well sealing notifications must be submitted prior to sealing abandoned wells. Also, dewatering well permits must be applied for and approved prior to construction of II dewatering wells greater than 45 feet deep (or greater than 25 feet deep, if constructed after June 30, 1994). Re: water use. The EAW indicates about seven wells will be abandoned. These wells must be sealed by a licensed well contractor or licensed well sealing contractor. Dewatering wells greater than 45 feet in depth must be constructed by a licensed well contractor or licensed dewatering well contractor. After June 30, 1994, a license will also be required to construct dewatering wells greater than 25 feet in depth. The EAW also states that dewatering should have little long term impact because the immediate area has full utilities. There are several potable water supply wells near the site; most are deep wells not likely to be affected by dewatering. Our computer records indicate that some wells in the area are completed in the surficial aquifer. Depending on the location and extent of the dewatering, these shallow water supply wells may be affected. A licensee (well contractor) who installs a dewatering well that causes the loss of an adequate private potable water supply must provide the private well owner with a temporary supply of potable water during the operation of the dewatering well. The supply must be adequate for drinking, cooking, and other household uses. The commissioner (of health) may require the private well to be tested to determine if a health risk exists before the licensee discontinues an alternate water supply. The licensee must assure that the required testing • is completed and reported to the commissioner. An Equal Opportunity Employer • Page Two • Steve Rohif March 17, 1993 If you need to discuss these comments, please call Ed Schneider, Well Management Unit, 218/723-4642. Thank you for the opportunity to review this EAW. Sincerely, • Judith A. Ball Environmental Review Coordinator JAB:sdr cc: Ed Schneider • i