Loading...
93-071 RES e e e RESOLUTION 93 - 71 RESOLUTION FOR THE CITY OF ELK RIVER A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ELK RIVER REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE PROPOSED ELK PARK CENTER PROJECT; RESPONDING TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET; SETTING FORTH THE CITY COUNCIL'S FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT; AND DECLARING THAT THE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT IS NOT NECESSARY WHEREAS, Elk River Associates and Kraus-Anderson Construction Company (the Developers) propose to construct a 374,000 square foot shopping center (the Project) on approximately 50 acres of land located north of the school district property between Jackson Avenue and Highway 169 in the City of Elk River (the City); and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Rules, Parts 4410.0200 to 4410.7800 (the EQB Rules) the Project requires the preparation of a mandatory environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) under the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA); and, WHEREAS, the Developers supplied data on the Project to the City and the City, as the responsible governmental unit (RGU) under the EQB Rules, prepared and EAW as required by the EQB Rules; and, WHEREAS, the EAW was mailed to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB); notice of availability of the EAW was published on February 15, 1993, in the EQB monitor; a press release was given to the Elk River Star News on February 2, 1993, and copies of the EAW were supplied to all persons and agencies on the EQB official EAW distribution list; and, WHEREAS, the thirty day period under the EQB Rules for submitting comments on the EAW expired on March 17, 1993; and, WHEREAS, comments have been received on the EAW from the following persons and agencies; which comments are responded to as follows: 1 . The United States Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, by letter dated March 3, 1993, from Ben Wopat, commenting that a department of the army permit may be required because of the proximity of the Project to a wetland basin. In response, the Developers have confirmed, by letter dated April 27, 1993, from their consultant, John e e e Bogart of John Oliver & Associates, that an application will be submitted at the appropriate time for a Department of the Army permit. 2. The Minnesota Historical Society, by letter dated March 5, 1993, from Britta L. Bloomberg, commenting that there are no properties in the Project area that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places or included in the Minnesota Historical Society Inventory and that there are no archaeological, historical, or architectural resources on or in proximity to the Project site. 3. Citizens Who Care, by letter dated March 15, 1993, from Rolfe E. Anderson, with the following three comments: a. The Project is not consistent with the City's zoning ordinance and comprehensive land use map. In response, the Project site was rezoned to Planned Unit Development and the City's comprehensive land use map amended to designate the Project site for Highway Business uses by the Elk River City Council on September 23, 1991 (with respect to the northerly 17 acres), and June 15, 1992 (with respect to the remaining 33 acres). The proper procedures were followed with respect to these rezonings and property owners were notified as required by state law and city ordinance. b. The area will suffer gridlock due to increased traffic, and an indirect source permit should be completed. In response, the City Engineer has conducted a traffic study which concludes that traffic on surrounding streets can be managed with certain improvements at key intersections. The Project will require the issuance of a conditional use permit for a planned unit development. It is anticipated that on one condition of the PUD approval will be a requirement that the Project bear the cost of improvements to surrounding streets and intersections to ensure that the Project does not degrade levels of service at key intersections. The most recent communication from the Minnesota Department of Transportation, District 3, a letter dated October 15, 1993, from Anthony J. Kempenich, District Traffic Engineer, indicates that traffic at the key intersection of Highway 169 and School Street will be at an acceptable level of service and that certain e improvements could be made to mlnlmize impacts due to increased traffic. The city will work with MnDOT to identify potential improvements and anticipates requiring the Project to bear the costs of improvements necessary to ensure that the Project does not degrade service levels at this and other key intersections. An indirect source permit (ISP) from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (PCA) will be required for the Project. The PCA will not act on an ISP until local governmental approvals have been obtained. However, no building permits can or will be issued until an indirect source permit is obtained. c. Requesting that an environmental impact statement be prepared. For the reasons set forth in this resolution, the City has determined that an EIS in not necessary. 4. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, by letter dated March 15, 1993, from Thomas W. Balcom, with the following comments: e a. The Minnesota Natural Heritage data base identifies a mixed oak forest within a mile of the Project. In response, the mixed oak forest identified in the Natural Heritage data base is located east of Highway 169. Since the preparation of the EAW, the Project has been reduced in size and revised to eliminate any development on the east side of Highway 169. The smaller project, located entirely west of Highway 169, will not have any impact on the oak forest identified in the Natural Heritage data base. b. The Project will have unacceptable impacts on wetlands east of Highway 169. e In response, since preparation of the EAW, the Project has been reduced in size and revised to increase on-site ponding and reduce runoff to the wetland identified in Mr. Balcom's letter, as specifically addressed in a letter dated April 27, 1993, from the Developers consultant, John Oliver & Associates, Inc., to the City. These changes in the design of the Project, coupled with City requirements which will be imposed in the course of Planned Unit Development review and approval and Corps of Engineers requirements imposed for a wetland permit, will ensure e e e protection of the wetland area identified in Mr. Balcom's letter. c. Erosion must be controlled during construction activity. In response, erosion control will be implemented according to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Best Management Practices Manual. 5. Minnesota Department of Health, by letter dated March 17, 1993, from Judith A. Ball commenting on well permits and uses. In response, all requirements of Department of Health will be met. 6. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, by letter dated March 19, 1993, from Paul Hoff, stating that the Project does not have the potential for adverse environmental impacts and that the PCA does not recommend the preparation of an environmental impact statement. Mr. Hoff goes on to comment briefly on the issues of noise, air quality, and water quality. In response, an indirect source permit will be required before there is any construction activity on the Project. Indirect source permit application materials, and the permit itself, will thoroughly address all noise and air quality issues. See response to comment number 4 above regarding water quality issues. 7. Minnesota Department of Transportation, by letter dated April 12, 1993, from Gerald Larson, commenting that MnDOT has no environmental comments on the Project. WHEREAS, all comments received on the EAW have been responded to appropriately by the Developers and City as RGU; and, 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 e e e criteria set forth in Section 4410.1700 subpart 7 of the EQB Rules. 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 PROJECT PRESENTED BY THE DEVELOPERS AT A PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON OCTOBER 26, 1993, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ELK RIVER MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION ON THE NEED FOR AN EIS FOR THE ELK PARK CENTER PROJECT: 1. The only potential environmental effects of the Project relate to noise and air quality concerns as a result of increased traffic; and surface water quality as a result of increased surface water runoff. 2. The Project as presently proposed is over 100,000 square feet smaller than the Project analyzed in the EAW. This reduction in size will significantly reduce traffic and runoff. 3. The Project will require the issuance of a conditional use permit for a planned unit development from the Elk River City Council. As part of the PUD approval, it is proposed that the Project will pay for the costs of all off-site traffic improvements necessary to ensure that the Project does not degrade the level of service at affected intersections. 4. The Project will require an indirect source permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The PCA will ensure that there will be no adverse noise or air quality impacts before issuing an ISP. 5. Revised plans for the Project show increased on-site ponding for sedimentation control and that all drainage will be filtered through two ponds before being released to any wetlands. This will ensure that there will be no significant adverse effects on wetlands. The City will also require that erosion control be implemented during construction according to Best Management Practices. 6. The Project will require a wetlands permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which permitting process will also ensure the protection of wetlands. 7. 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 EAW and will be addressed in the PUD approval for the e It e Project and other state and federal permits required for the Project. 8. Therefore, the Project does not require preparation of an environmental impact statement. The DIETZ HOLMGREN Resolution: Mayor Duitsman, and Holmgren foregoing resolution was introduced by Councilmember and duly seconded by Councilmember The following voted in favor of the Councilmembers Dietz, Scheel, Farber The following voted against: None The following were absent: None Whereupon the resolution is adopted. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Elk River this 26th day of October, 1993. Mayor ATTEST: k