94-092 RES
e
RESOLUTION 94- 92
RESOLUTION FOR THE CITY OF ELK RIVER
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ELK RIVER REGARDING
THE ENVlRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE PROPOSED HILLSIDE
ESTATESIHILLSIDE CROSSING PROJECT; RESPONDING TO COMMENTS RECEIVED
ON THE ENVlRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET; SETTING FORTH THE CITY
COUNCIL'S FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING THE NEED FORAN ENVlRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT; AND DECLARING THAT THE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVlRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT IS NOT NECESSARY
e
WHEREAS, Phoenix Enterprises, LLC (the developer) proposes to
construct a mixed Single-Family Residential/Commercial Development (the
project) consisting of approximately 286 unattached, single-family lots and
206,800 square feet of Commercial buildings on approximately 196 acres of
land located east of Highway 169, and adjacent to 193rd Avenue in the City
of Elk River (the City); and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Rules, Part 4410.4300, Subparts
14 and 32 (EQB Rules) the Project requires the preparation of a mandatory
environmental assessment worksheet (EA W) under the Minnesota
Environmental Policy Act (MEP A); and,
WHEREAS, the Developers supplied data on the Project to the City
and the City, as the responsible governmental unit (RGU) under EQB Rules,
prepared and EA W as required by the EQB Rules; and,
e
e
WHEREAS, the EA W was mailed to the Environmental Quality Board
(EQB); notice of availability of the EA W was published on July 18, 1994, in
the EQB monitor; a press release was given to the Elk River Star News on
July 13, 1994, and was published in said paper on July 20, 1994; posted
notice was given at the Elk River Public Library, Elk River Municipal
Utilities office, and Elk River City Hall, on July 13, 1994, and copies of the
EA W were supplied to all persons and agencies on the EQB official EA W
distribution list; and,
WHEREAS, the thirty day period under the EQB Rules for submitting
comments on the EAW expired on August 17,1994; and,
WHEREAS, comments have been received on the EA W from the
following persons and agencies; which comments are responded to as follows:
e
1.
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, by letter
dated August 15, 1994, from Thomas Balcom, commenting that:
a. The DNR encourages the measures detailed in the EAW
to protect trees, but recommends the City develop a tree
ordinance to protect the trees from future landowners.
In response, it is noted that the City is cooperating with
Sherburne County in developing a county tree ordinance.
b.
Six wetlands in the project have lot lines through them.
The DNR is strongly suggesting that conservation
easements which include a 50 foot vegetative buffer strip
be established to prevent activities such as mowing to
retain wildlife benefits.
--
e
e
e
In response, because of liability and maintenance, the
City does not want ownership of wetlands that are not
part of the storm sewer system, therefore, lot lines
running through these wetlands are appropriate. The
City can encourage future lot owners to leave natural
areas around these wetlands and avoid chemical run-off
to them, however, in an urban setting leaving these areas
totally natural may not be appropriate and enforcement of
conservation easements on the multitude of wetlands
within the City would be impractical.
Lastly, the developer has indicated that he will redesign
193rd Avenue to avoid filling the eastern most wetland
identified by the DNR.
c.
Pretreatment of all storm water run-off prior to discharge
into natural water bodies and water retention so there is
no net increase in run-off is recommended.
In response, the developer has indicated that typically the
run -off from the roads and storm sewer system in the
residential area and the commercial area will be directed
to created sedimentation ponds, which will act as
retention areas also. There is a large pond directly
adjacent to the south and east of the project that will be
utilized as a regional storm water pond by the City.
Sedimentation of run-off will be required and the City
acknow ledges that an outlet will most likely be needed to
control bounce.
e
e
e
d.
Will the wetland in the commercial area be filled or
turned into a storm water retention pond?
In response, no, this pond will remain ...
e. Is the area highlighted in yellow on the attached map a
wetland ?
In response, yes, it is a wetland.
f. It should be noted that efforts to save individual trees will
not result in the retention of the intact oak forest as it
now exists.
In response, the City acknowledges that the area included
in the project will not remain a "Forest". The City will try
to achieve a balanced landscape by preserving significant
natural areas where feasible and practical (typically
outside of the urban service area) through public
ownership.
2.
The Minnesota Historical Society, by letter dated August 5,
1994, from Britta Bloomberg.
a.
No reported properties on the National Register of
Historic Places exist in the project area and the likelihood
of unreported properties is low.
In response, the City will take appropriate action if any
such properties are discovered.
e
b. Notification of a permit issued by the U.S. Army Corp of
Engineers was not given to the Minnesota Historical
Society.
In response, this notification is the responsibility of
the U.S Army Corp of Engineers. The City is also
reviewing the work in question through the Wetland
Conservation Act and has sent out the appropriate joint
notification.
WHEREAS, all comments received on the EA W have been responded
to appropriately by the Developers and City as RGU; and,
e
WHEREAS, the environmental reVIew process mandated by the
Minnesota Environmental Policy Act and implemented through the EQB
Rules has been followed and this resolution shall be the City's record of its
compliance with the EQB Rules and decision in this matter; and,
WHEREAS, the City, as RGU, shall order the preparation of an EIS if
the Project has the potential for significant environmental effects; and,
WHEREAS, in deciding whether a project has the potential for
significant environmental effects, the City is to apply the criteria set forth in
Section 4410.1700 subpart 7 of the EQB Rules.
e
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE INFORMATION GATHERED
DURING THE EAW PROCESS, THE COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE
EAW AND THE RESPONSES THERETO FROM THE DEVELOPERS AND
THE CITY, AND THE NEW INFORMATION ON THE PROPOSED
e
PROJECT PRESENTED BY THE DEVELOPERS, THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ELK RIVER MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS A FACT
IN THE DECISION ON THE NEED FOR AN EIS FOR THE HILLSIDE
ESTATESIHILLSIDE CROSSING PROJECT:
1. The only potential environmental effects of the Project relate to
noise and air quality concerns as a result of increased traffic; a
loss of the area as an intact forest; and surface water quality as
a result of surface water runoff.
2.
The City will require of the Developer the right-of-way for the
reconstruction of 193rd Avenue to accommodate traffic from this
development. Further, as part of the plat approval process of
future phases, the project will pay all costs of on-site traffic
improvements necessary.
e
3. The Project will reduce the impacts of sediment and erosion on
surface water run-off by filtering run-off through
sedimentation ponds prior to discharge to receiving bodies. The
City will require that erosion control be implemented during
construction of each phase according to Best Management
Practices. Retention of storm water and/or outlets to receiving
bodies will also be used to avoid excessive bounce in natural
water bodies.
4. Efforts will be made to preserve trees and control oak wilt in the
project area.
e
e
5.
For the reasons set forth in this resolution, the Project does not
have the potential for significant environmental effects as
defined in Section 4410.1700 subpart 7 of the EQB Rules. All
potential environmental effects have been identified in the EA W
and will be addressed in the plat approval for each phase of the
Project and other state and federal permits required for the
Project.
6. Therefore, the Project does not reqUITe preparation of an
environmental impact statement.
The foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member
Roger Holmgren and duly seconded by Council Member
John Dietz
The following voted in favor of the Resolution:
e
Mayor Duitsman, Council Members Dietz, Holmgren, and Scheel
The following voted against: None
The following were absent: Larry Farber
Whereupon the resolution is adopted.
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Elk River this 12th day
of September, 1994.
a~i~-
A. Duitsman, Mayor
ATTEST:
. czI.~?l~~
Sandra A. Thackeray, City C~