Loading...
RES 25-42City of Elk River City Council Resolution 25-42 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Elk River Approving the Record of Decision and a Negative Declaration of Need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Oakwater Ridge Residential Subdivision WHEREAS, Capstone Homes ("Applicant") proposes to develop a residential subdivision which includes approximately 536 single-family homes along with the associated infrastructure such as roads, utilities, sidewalks, trails, and stormwater ponds ("Pro)ect"); and WHEREAS, the Project falls within the mandatory environmental assessment worksheet ("EAW") category of Minn. Rules part 4410.4300, Subd. 19 D; and WHEREAS, the City of Elk River is the Responsible Governmental Unit ("RGU"); and WHEREAS, an EAW was prepared by Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company, on behalf of the Applicant, and submitted the document to the City of Elk River, consistent with Minn. Rules Part 4410.1400; and WHEREAS, the City of Elk River provided a copy of the EAW to all public agencies on the EAW distribution list and published the EANX7 in the EQB Monitor on May 20, 2025, in accordance with applicable state laws, rules, and regulations; and WHEREAS, the EAW comment period lasted from May 20, 2025, to June 20, 2025, and regulatory agencies submitted written comments during the comment period; and WHEREAS, the City of Elk River acknowledges the comments received within the comment period the State Historic Preservation Office, and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and WHEREAS, the Applicant's consultant generated a response to the comments, and prepared a Record of Decision and Findings of Fact and Conclusions; and WHEREAS, City staff reviewed the proposed Record of Decision and finds it to be consistent with the evidence submitted to the city and the applicable statutes and regulations, to the best of their knowledge, and recommends the City Council approve the Findings of Fact and Record of Decision received July 16, 2025, and determine that no environmental impact statement ("EIS") is necessary, reasonable or warranted with respect to the project under the circumstances; and [®NEIII 11 NATURE WHEREAS, the City Council desires to make findings of fact and a record of decision that no EIS is required with respect to the Project ("Negative Declaration"). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Elk River, Minnesota, as follows: Adopt and approve the Findings of Fact and Record of Decision for the Oakwater Ridge Environmental Assessment Worksheet in the form which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and hereby makes the Findings of Fact and Conclusions which are contained therein; and 2. Find and determine that, based upon the Findings of Fact and Record of Decision, no environmental impact statement is required for the Project pursuant to the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act of Minnesota Rules Parts 4410.0200 to 4410.6500. Passed and adopted this 4th day of August 2025. J ,h J. ietz,,AI yor ATTEST: LW Tina Allard, City Clerk ra�ESE� �r NATURE Exhibit A Oakwater Ridge EAW Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Record of Decision IA"H vet PIv[IEI 11 �� INTRODUCTION The Oakwater Ridge residential/commercial development (herein referred to as "the Project") proposes a residential/commercial development on approximately ±248 acres west of U.S. Highway 10/169 and east of the Mississippi River in the City of Elk River, Sherburne County, Minnesota. The project will include 536 single-family residential homes and a commercial parcel (likely consisting of a multi -tenant retail strip and a gas station). The project will include several internal roadways, a river overlook, an open space/recreational area, a future trail, a greenway corridor, and stormwater features. The Project area currently consists of cultivated fields, hayfields, old paddocks, woodlands, wetlands, floodplain, and a farmstead with two single-family homes and barns. A former bus lot with two buried diesel/gasoline tanks is located east of the farmstead structures. One of the structures was utilized as a bus -maintenance garage. The development includes the construction of stormwater ponds and infiltration basins to meet stormwater requirements (water quality, volume, and rate). Mass grading will physically manipulate the site's vegetation, soil, and topography. Grading is required to construct the roadway, stormwater features, and residential/commercial buildings, as well as to install minor utilities (cable/internet) and extend the public utilities (water main and sewer). The phased construction will utilize standard construction methods. A park is planned for the portion of the lower cultivated field above the floodplain and would likely require ground leveling for trails, play structures, and/or a pavilion. The 247.65-acre development is anticipated to occur in several phases over several years (approximately eight phases over nine years). EAW NOTIFICATION, DISTRIBUTION, AND COMMENT PERIOD In accordance with Minnesota Rules 4410.1500, the EAW was completed and distributed to persons and agencies on the official Environmental Quality Board (EQB) distribution list. The EQB published notice of availability of the EAW in the EQB Monitor on May 201h, 2025 initiating a 30-day comment period that concluded on June 20th, 2025. A hard copy of the EAW was made available for review during the comment period at Elk River City Hall located at 13065 Orono Parkway Elk River, MN 55330. Appendix A includes copies of the comment letters and emails received. A copy of the published EAW is included as Appendix B. COMMENTS RECEIVED The following comment letters or emails received. - Letter 1: State Historic Preservation Office Letter dated June 101h, 2025 from Amy Spong, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer. Letter 2: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Letter dated June 181h, 2025 from Chris Green, Project Manager. Oakwater Ridge EAW Findings of Fact and Conclusions, Response to Comments, and Record of Decision RESPONSES TO COMMENTS The following information and clarifications are provided in response to all EAW comments received during the 30-day comment period. Comment responses are provided in italicized text. Letter 1: State Historic Preservation Office Comment 1: As stated in the EAW, the proposed development is located immediately adjacent to the Oliver H. Kelley Homestead, which is a National Historic Landmark, is listed in the National Register of Historic Places, and is also part of the State Historic Site Network. We understand that the developer and the City have been consulting with the Minnesota Historical Society (MNHS) and that the historic farm and modern visitor center are located downhill from any open sight lines to the proposed development. MNHS has informed us that they have been working with the developer and the city on measures to help minimize any effects to the historic property, which include planting trees to help screen the development as people drive into the Historic Site and installing a split rail wood fence along the development's southern property line. We agree that these appear to be reasonable measures to minimize any adverse effects to the historic property. We recommend that the City and the developer continue to work with MNHS as the design for the project proceeds to ensure that any effects to the historic property are considered, especially any visual effects to the historic farmstead's rural setting. Response: So noted. Thank you for the comment. Comment 2: We have reviewed the submitted survey report, Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Oakwater Ridge Project, Sherburne County, Minnesota (April 14, 2025) as prepared by In Situ Archaeological Consulting. According to the report, one archaeological site was identified during the investigations, site 21SH0093. More information is needed about the survey methodology and archaeological site 21 SH0093. The shovel test methods as described in the report do not meet current survey standards and guidelines because they do not extend into the C horizon. The report incorrectly states that digging into the B horizon is sufficient. Both the A and B horizons are part of Holocene -age soil development, and therefore both have the potential to contain archaeological materials. The C horizon is the parent material for the soil (either bedrock or Pleistocene -age sediments such as glacial till). The standard of digging into the C horizon, or encountering it in the case of bedrock, is to demonstrate that the sample from the shovel test addresses the entire time period when archaeological materials might be present. Also, the report states that the shovel tests are 30-40 cm in diameter, but the photos of representative shovel tests appear to be at the lower end of that or smaller. It is difficult to be certain from the photographs, but it also appears that the diameter is smaller at the bottom than at the top. It is likely that 40 cm diameter tests would be needed for the sample to reach into the C horizon in this area. Response: in Situ based their investigation methods from the well documented concept that based on soil formation processes, within upland areas and/or areas with minimal to no deposition, archaeological material ranging from as early as the Paleoindian Period to present, are typically located at the ground surface or are shallowly buried. The Principal Investigator concluded that the shovel testing depths for the project were sufficient for the identification of archaeological sites during the Phase I shovel testing, as there is a low potential for deeper archaeological deposits within the uplands. in consultation for previous projects with SHPO and OSA, In Situ was informed that a Principal Investigator may deviate from the methods outlined in the guidelines, as long as the Principal Investigator can justify the change in methodology in the report, which was the case for this project. However, after recent consultations with OSA and SHPO, In Situ will implement these methodology comments moving forward. Regarding the shovel test size, the shovel test shown in the report was 40 cm in diameter with strait walls. Unfortunately, photographs may not portray these factors well, as the topsoil in the hole may blend in with the ground surface making the hole look narrower. Also in photographs, the walls of the shovel test can have a "tunnel" effect, making the walls appear smaller at the bottom. In Situ does have additional photographs of the shovel test with another ruler/scale to show the width of the shovel test. Oakwater Ridge EAW Findings of Fact and Conclusions, Response to Comments, and Record of Decision Comment 3: Archaeological site 21SH0093 is identified as 21CA0794 in the report section header (pg. 25). We assume this is a typo. Response: So noted. Thank you for the comment. Comment 4: Based on the information provided in the report, we do not agree with the consultant's recommendation that the site is not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). We recommend that either a Phase II evaluation of the site be conducted to determine the site's eligibility for listing in the NRHP, or the site area be protected and preserved during the development. For a Phase II evaluation, a 1x1 formal excavation unit is the most effective method for assessing the site's historic context and integrity. To make an argument regarding Criterion D significance (or lack thereof), we recommend using the historic context document for lithic scatters, because it provides established guidelines for this type of site. This and related documents are available at the State Historic Preservation Office if needed. In our opinion, applying the lithic scatter context with a sample that includes a formal excavation unit should be sufficient to make a defensible statement regarding the site's eligibility for listing in the NRHP. Response: For 21 SH0093, in Situ recommends avoidance of the resource and to have no ground disturbing activities take place within or near the resource. At this time, site 21 SH0093 is at least 25 feet from the proposed extent of ground disturbance for the project, which will avoid impacts to the site. At least a 25-ft cultural avoidance area is recommended to be placed around the site boundary of 21 SH0093 in order to make sure that the site is not impacted by the project. Provided this avoidance measure is followed, the site will not be affected by the undertaking and no further work is recommended for this resource for this Project. However, if avoidance is not possible, as requested by SHPO, a Phase 11 assessment will be completed for 21 SH0093. Until a Phase I/ can be completed, the site is currently unevaluated for the NRHP. Comment 5: Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36 CFR § 800. If this project is considered for federal financial assistance, or requires a federal permit or license, then review and consultation with our office will need to be initiated by the lead federal agency. Be advised that comments and recommendations provided by our office for this state -level review may differ from findings and determinations made by the federal agency as part of review and consultation under Section 106. Response: So noted. Thank you for the comment. Letter 2: Minnesota Pollution Control Actency Comment 1: Wastewater - The information pertaining to the Elk River Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) in Section 12.a.iii(3) is not accurate and could be deleted from this section because the proposed development will not discharge to a surface water. Wastewater information is appropriately provided in a previous Section 12.a.iii(1) because the proposed development will discharge wastewater to a publicly owned treatment facility. Response: So noted. Thank you for the comment. Comment 2: Wastewater - The EAW indicates that an identified portion of the sanitary sewer has been determined by the City to be sized to handle added flow from the Nature's Edge Business Center 3rd Addition development. It is not clear whether the City of Elk River has determined that there is capacity in the sewer system for the wastewater design flow from the proposed Oakwater Ridge development. Response: The Elk River Chief Operator stated that the Elk River Treatment Plant currently treats 1.40 MGD (million gallons per day). The facility is designed to treat an average dry weather flow of 3.98 MGD and an average wet weather flow of 4.54 MGD. The treatment plant can handle more flow; the limiting factor is the collection system. The nearest sanitary sewer connection is Oakwater Ridge EAW Findings of Fact and Conclusions, Response to Comments, and Record of Decision located at 165th Avenue and Gateway Road. The record plans for the extension of gravity sewer to 165th Avenue (dated June 13th, 2023) are included as Appendix C. These plans were developed/evaluated as part of the Natures Edge Business Center 3ro Addition Improvements. The flow rates were al/ based on "the industry standard" per the City of Elk River's Engineering Project Manager. Per the City's Comprehensive Plan (adopted October 1 Sth, 2021), the upgraded treatment capacity was based on estimates of 2035 daily flow and projected areas of development. Section 4000 of the City's Engineering Design Standards states the following: • Sanitary sewer extensions shall consider each residence to include 3.3 people on the average. • Sewage flow design rates shall be 110 gallons per person per day. Comment 3: Wastewater - A figure should be provided that shows the location of the major sewer system features in the Project area that are described in the EAW. Response: See exhibit 1 on the following page. Oakwater Ridge EAW 4 Findings of Fact and Conclusions, Response to Comments, and Record of Decision LE END EXISTING 12" SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED 8" SANITARr SEWER PROPOSED FORCEMAIN PROPOSED LIFT STATION sm SITE DATA PROPOSED COMMERCIAL 9.5 ACRES PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL 536 HOMES owCmu;cm -N- OTES: ELK RIVER 648-1 LAND,'LLC Sui e 400 AKWATER RIDGE SANITARY SEWER EXHIBIT ENGINEERING Ramsey, MN 553�3 Elk River, Minnesota *9556 Comment 4: Wastewater - A table should be provided to identify the wastewater design flow estimates for each of the residential and commercial development types and information should be provided on the composition of the wastewater that will be generated. Response: See Table 1 below. The total proposed flow is 0.2136 million gallons per day. TABLE 1. WASTEWATER DESIGN FLOW ESTIMATES Land Use Rate Quantity Estimate Residential 363gallons/unit/day 536 homes 194,568gallons/day Commercial 2,000 gallons/acre/day 9.5 acres 19,0001allons/da Comment 5: Noise - The Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) and any other land -use decision makers, should consider language in Minn. R. 7030.0030 that reads "[... ] any municipality having authority to regulate land use shall take all reasonable measures within its jurisdiction to prevent the establishment of land use activities listed in noise area classification (NAC) 1, 2, or 3 in any location where the standards established in part 7030.0040 will be violated immediately upon establishment of the land use." The noise section of the EAW does not provide enough detail regarding current and anticipated sound levels in the Project area to determine whether an immediate violation of the state noise standards would occur if the Project were approved. The MPCA has received noise complaints related to seemingly benign sources, such as car wash stations and pickle ball courts. The MPCA recommends the Proposer conduct a noise study and potentially evaluate methods to mitigate noise impacts, especially for residential locations near commercial or retail areas. Response: The City is not requiring a noise study at this time. The easternmost extent of the `Liberty Single Family Homes' shown on the concept plan are 250 feet from US Highway 10/169, A future frontage road with a trail is anticipated west of US Highway 101169. Highway traffic noise originates primarily from three discrete sources: truck exhaust stacks, vehicle engines, and tires interacting with the pavement'. In order to mitigate for noise impacts on future residents, a berm with vegetation is planned west of the future frontage road. It should be noted that noise barriers cannot completely block all traffic noise and are most effective within 200 feet of a highway. Effective noise barriers work by blocking thee line of sight from the noise source (highway traffic) and the receiver (future resident). Blocking the line of sight typically reduces noises levels by five decibels. The berm is anticipated to be built tall enough to block the line of sight of the highway and will mitigate for noise impacts from the majority of the average annual daily traffic. The Highway 10 Corridor Study states that approximately 4% of the daily traffic is heavy commercial vehicles2. The portion of Highway 10 adjacent to the Project boundaries had a current Heavy Commercial Average Annual Daily Traffic (HCAADT) of 1, 400 compared to Minnesota 101 which had a HCAADT of 2,850. Regarding potential noise effects to the surrounding existing residential areas, the proposed development is not anticipated to double the number of vehicles on US Highway 10/169. The Highway 10 Corridor Study states that Highway 10 transports up to 34, 000 vehicles per day. Based on the Traffic Study, the proposed homes are anticipated to generate 375 trips (94 entering and 281 exiting) during the morning traffic peak hour, 503 (317 entering and 186 exiting) during the evening traffic pear hour and 5,054 daily trips. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) notes in FHWA report HEP-18-067 titled "Techniques for Reviewing Noise Analyses and Associated Noise Reports" that "Doubling the number of sources (i.e., vehicles) increases the hourly equivalent sound level by approximately 3 dB, which is usually the smallest change that people can detect without specifically listening for the change." 1 U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. Noise Barriers Design Handbook. Accessed July 101", 2024. Retrieved from: httos•), www.fhwa dot.izov/Environment/noise/noise barriers/de-. _ construction /desi nLdesi¢n03.cfm z Highway 10 Corridor Study. January 2023. Accessed July 101h, 2024. Retrieved from: httas:llelkrivermn.govfDocumentCenterLiew/118151Highwav-10-Corridor-Studv-Final-Renort Oakwater Ridge EAW Findings of Fact and Conclusions, Response to Comments, and Record of Decision Comment 6: We appreciate the opportunity to review this Project. Please be aware that this letter does not constitute approval by the MPCA of any or all elements of the Project for the purpose of pending or future permit actions by the MPCA. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the Project Proposer to secure any required permits and to comply with any requisite permit conditions. If you have any questions concerning our review of this EAW, please contact me by email at chris.green@state.mn.us or by telephone at 507-476-4258. Response: So noted. Thank you. FINDINGS OF FACT Proposed Project The project proposer is planning a residential/commercial development currently referred to as "Oakwater Ridge" in the City of Elk River, Sherburne County, Minnesota. The project was previously referred to as the "Specht Farm" site. The project area is located along the Mississippi River, south of the intersection between Minnesota Highway 169 and U.S. Highway 10/169, adjacent to the intersection between U.S. Highway 10/169 and 165th Avenue Northwest. The site is located in the southeast corner of Elk River, with the City of Otsego west of the Mississippi River, the City of Dayton to the southeast, and the City of Ramsey to the east. The project will include 536 single-family residential homes and a commercial parcel (likely consisting of a multi -tenant retail strip and a gas station). The project will include several internal roadways, a river overlook, an open space/recreational area, a future trail, a greenway corridor, and stormwater features. An EAW was prepared pursuant to Minnesota Rules Part 4410.4300, Subp. 19 (D) and 32. The EAW and the respective comments have been reviewed in accordance with Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 to determine if the project has potential for significant environmental effects. Site Description and Existing Conditions Under existing conditions, the Project Area consists of cultivated fields, hayfields, old paddocks, woodlands, wetlands, floodplain, and a farmstead with two single-family homes and barns. A former bus lot with two buried diesel/gasoline tanks is located east of the farmstead structures. One of the structures was utilized as a bus -maintenance garage. A bluff (per the Sherburne County Zoning Ordinance and Elk River City Code) is present along the hillslope east of the lower cultivated field. Portions of the lower cultivated field and woodland are within shoreland. The 100-year floodplain outlined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is present along the western project area boundary and throughout the lower agricultural field. Decision Regarding the Potential for Significant Environmental Effects Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, Subp. 7 lists four criteria that shall be considered in deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects. Those criteria and the City's findings are presented below. Criteria A: Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Environmental Effects Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 Subp. 7 (A) indicates the first factor that the RGU must consider is the "type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects." The City of Elk River's findings are set forth below. 1 Cover Types. Currently, the project area consists of cultivated fields, hayfields, old paddocks, woodlands, a tributary (Mississippi river oxbow), and a farmstead with two single-family homes and several barns/sheds. The site has been in agricultural production since at least the late 1930s. The Oakwater Ridge EAW 7 Findings of Fact and Conclusions, Response to Comments, and Record of Decision U.S. Geologic Survey's Earth Resource Observation and Science Center's National Land Cover Database (published September 26th, 2024) maps the property as primarily cultivated crops (163.33 acres). Per the database, the project area consists of the following: deciduous forest (32.45 acres), pasture/hay (29.27 acres), emergent herbaceous wetland (13.53 acres), open water (3.20 acres), developed low intensity (2.15 acres), developed open space (1.25 acres), developed medium intensity (1.37 acres), woody wetland (0.95 acres), and developed high intensity (0.14 acres). Shorelands. The MnDNR identifies the Mississippi River as a Public Water Watercourse. The western project area is within three hundred feet of the Mississippi River within the shoreland overlay district. Chapter 30 of the Elk River City code outlines provisions for shoreland use. The use of any shoreland of public waters, the size and shape of lots, the use, size, type and location of structures on lots, the grading and filling of any shoreland area, the cutting of shoreland vegetation, and the subdivision of land shall be in full compliance with the terms of applicable regulations. The City has limitations in place regarding vegetation alterations within shoreland. Generally, vegetation alteration necessary for the construction of structures, roads, and parking areas is exempt. 3. Flood plains. There are areas of Federal Emergency Management Area (FEMA) floodway, 100-year, and 500-year floodplains mapped within the western site boundaries. According to the FEMA floodplain map 27141CO395F (effective date November 16th, 2011) (FIRM number 270436) (panel 0395F), the floodplain within the project area is a `regulatory floodway.' The base flood elevation shown on FEMA's floodplain map is 861 and 860 ft. MSL. Cross sections F and G from the Flood Insurance Study Report of the Mississippi River are detailed in Question 12 of the EAW (Appendix B). In accordance with the City of Elk River code, any use that requires fill, excavation, storage of materials, or placement of anything that may cause a potential obstruction would require a permit. 4 Land Use. The project area is located within the urban service area. The City's Land Use Plan map (dated October 18th, 2021) identified the project area as 'Mixed Residential' and 'Highway Business.' The surrounding land uses include 'Public/Semi-Public, Traditional Single -Family Residential, Industrial, Agriculture, and Business Park.' Page 18 of the comprehensive plan shows the current zoning for the northern portion of the project area as 'FAST — Focus Area Study,' the southern portion as 'R1d — Single Family Residential,' and 'BP — Business Park' along US Highway 101. The master plan for the Elk River 171 st Avenue Focused Area Study (FAST) shows the northern half of the project area as 'Open Space,' 'Higher Density Residential,' and `Destination Retail.' 5. Geology and Soils. Generally, the site is flat, with steeper topography along the Mississippi River. Based on the Digital Elevation Model (DEM), the hillside sloping down to the Mississippi River and the lower cultivated field has slopes >_18%. Portions of this hillslope met the definition of a bluff (per the Sherburne County Zoning Ordinance and Elk River City Code). Per the Geotechnical Exploration Report, "the vegetation and topsoil are not suitable for foundation, roadway, or utility support and will need to be removed from below the building pads, pavements, utilities, and oversize areas and replaced with suitable competed engineered fill, as need, to attain design graded." The underlying native alluvial soils were determined to be suitable for foundation, pavements, and utility support. "However, the upper portions of the soil strata had a very loose relative density and prior to placing additional fill or foundations we recommended compacting any loose soils and any soils disturbed during the excavation and grading activities." Grading of the site would be required during construction. Mitigation based on typical erosion control and sedimentation regulations will be provided. 6. Water Quality. Due to the current agricultural operation and previous bus maintenance operation, runoff currently drains to the onsite wetlands and the Mississippi River, likely containing pollutants like sediment, pesticides, fertilizers, and other nutrients. The established hayfields, open meadows, and forested hillsides serve as buffers and allow for sediment to settle out. No permanent surface waters are present within the Project Area. During construction, a City -approved Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Permit is required. Similarly, the construction/grading activities will be subject to NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit regulations. The site will be graded to promote surface water drainage and to maximize the runoff that is treated before leaving the site. Stormwater from the residential and commercial development will be directed to permanent Oakwater Ridge EAW Findings of Fact and Conclusions, Response to Comments, and Record of Decision stormwater features (infiltration basins and stormwater ponds). The BMPs will control the rate of stormwater runoff discharges to comply with local and state requirements. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA) 2024 impaired waters list designated the portion of the Mississippi River adjacent to the project area as impaired. No other impaired waterbodies are within one mile of the project area. The project area is not within a wellhead protection area. Compliance with stormwater requirements will minimize and mitigate potential adverse effects on receiving waters. 7. Wetlands and Surface Waters. Two wetlands are present within the Project Area. A DNR qualified specialist from Midwest Natural Resources (MNR) found that both wetland features lacked any evidence of calcium carbonate and the soils throughout were generally sandy with some organic matter present but not similar to soils typically found in river terrace fens. The wetlands were determined not to be calcareous fens. The Mississippi River, a MnDNR Public Water Watercourse is along the western site boundary (within 300 ft of the project area). The project area was not within 1,000 feet of any Public Waters or Wetlands. No trout streams/lakes are present within or near the project area. There are no county/judicial ditches within the project limits. 8. Groundwater. Four groundwater seep locations were observed along the base of the hillslope in the lower cultivated portion of the project area associated with the wetlands. Groundwater levels encountered during the geotechnical exploration and piezometer water level readings are summarized in Table 15 of the EAW (Appendix B). Two of the piezometers documented water within 20-feet of the surface during the February and April 2025 readings. The extent/duration of dewatering is still being determined and an MnDNR water appropriation permit for temporary dewatering will be acquired if withdrawal exceeds 10,000 gallons/day or one million gallons/year. The project area is not within a wellhead protection area (WHPA). 9. Wastewater. Sanitary sewer would be extended to serve the commercial/residential development. The existing sanitary sewer connection is located at the intersection of 165th Avenue NW & Gateway Road NW. With project development a lift station will be installed to move sanitary sewer to the 165th and Gateway intersection for the project to have service. The gravity system and the lift station that serves this system are sized to accommodate development per the City Engineer. The total proposed/estimated wastewater flow is 0.2136 million gallons per day. 10. Water Appropriation. Project development will include the extension of a public water main. The City of Elk River's trunk water line is present east of the project area, at the intersection of 165th Avenue NW and Gateway Road NW. The Elk River Municipal Utilities (ERMU) operates the water system for the City and operates six water treatment plants, with capacity to treat eight million gallons of water per day. The four water towers within the City have the capacity to store four million gallons of water. The Project is located within the urban service area boundary and is not anticipated to require the expansion of any municipal water infrastructure. The development will require a DNR water appropriation permit for temporary dewatering and groundwater appropriation if withdrawal exceeds 10,000 gallons per day or one million gallons per year. The current extent of dewatering is not known at this time. 11. Hazardous Materials. A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment was completed in the fall of 2024. The onsite bus repair, maintenance, and fueling activities, particularly the bus maintenance garage, are considered a recognized environmental condition (RECs). Likewise, the diesel and gasoline underground storage tanks (USTs) located on the former bus lot and the gasoline USTs located near the garage are considered RECs. The Phase I ESA did not identify any Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions (CRECs) or Historic Recognized Environmental Conditions (HRECs) within the site. A limited Phase II investigation was completed on January 2°d, 2025. Recommendations from the Phase II ESA will be followed and if contamination is found to be present, a Response Action Plan/Construction Contingency Plan (RAP/CCP) would be prepared for the project area to ensure contaminated media (if encountered) is managed in compliance with local, state, and federal regulations during redevelopment. Prior to site development, underground storage tanks will be removed in accordance with local, state, and federal standards. Surficial solid waste and hazardous chemicals/petroleum products will be removed and disposed of in accordance with local, state, and federal standards. Oakwater Ridge EAW Findings of Fact and Conclusions, Response to Comments, and Record of Decision 12. Ecological Resources. The aquatic resources on/adjacent to the project area, the wetlands, and the Mississippi River, provide habitat for amphibians, fish, and small mammals. The wildlife habitat has diminished value due to historic cultivation and annual tillage. Wildlife is also constrained by the major roadways nearby, U.S. 10/169 and Minnesota 101. The surrounding cultivated fields, residential developments, industrial land uses, and major roadways create limitations for wildlife habitat. The Minnesota DNR shows the northwestern corner of the Project Area as within a Metro Conservation Corridor. A review of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) assessment tool was completed on December 31st, 2024 to identify federally listed species that have the potential to occur within the project area. Utilizing the MnDNR's Minnesota Conservation Explorer tool, a Natural Heritage Review was requested. An official NHIS letter was issued on August 30th, 2024. Mitigation measures outlined in the EAW will be followed to minimize potential impacts to the identified federal and listed species. 13. Historic Resources. The Oliver H. Kelly Farmstead is a National Historic Landmark and is located adjacent to and south of the project area. In order to mitigate potential impacts to the Oliver H. Kelly Farmstead along the southern project area boundary, trees will be planted to screen the farmstead from the development and a split rail wood fence is anticipated along the southern property line. A Phase 1 Archaeological Investigation was completed for the Oakwater Ridge site by In Situ Archaeological Consulting. One newly recorded archaeological resource (21SH0093) and one newly recorded architectural resource were observed and recorded during the cultural resource survey of the Project. The newly recorded architectural resource (vacant house that is part of the farm complex) was recommended as not eligible for the NRHP. For 21 SH0093, In Situ recommends avoidance of the resource and to have no ground disturbing activities take place within or near the resource. At this time, site 21 SH0093 is at least 25 feet from the proposed extent of ground disturbance for the project, which will avoid impacts to the site. 14. Visual Resources. The project area sits adjacent to and above the Mississippi River. This relative highpoint will be maintained, and the potential viewshed will be minimally altered. The proposer is committed to conserving mature trees to the extent possible, specifically along the western hillslope. The western portion of the site is within shoreland and, therefore, subject to stricter vegetation alteration requirements, setbacks, and large lot sizes. Moreover, the development is clustered along U.S. Highway 10, leaving the western portion as open space, which will mitigate impacts on the viewshed from the Mississippi River. Floating docks will be visible on the shore of the scenic river corridor. The development will adhere to the City's landscaping and screening requirements, enhancing the visual character and promoting compatibility between land uses. 15. Air. The development is not anticipated to include any stationary source emissions from sources such as boilers or exhaust stacks. Hazardous air pollutants are not anticipated to be generated onsite post - development. The emissions produced will be in alignment with the planned future land use outlined in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Minor emissions generated from construction equipment will occur during the construction phase. Contractors will be responsible for ensuring equipment is properly maintained and not contributing to excess emissions. Dust and odor (gas machinery, etc.) production will be elevated during construction but will be minimized by standard dust control methods. 16. Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG)/Carbon Footprint. Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions are summarized for project construction and operation. Emissions are reported were annualized over the estimate lifecycle of the development (50 years). Estimated emissions are aligned with the planned land uses. The residential homes are anticipated to include energy efficient appliances. On -site landscaping will absorb a portion of the GHG emissions and reduce the local urban heat island effect. Consideration of additional mitigation opportunities will continue through planning, design, and permitting. 17. Noise. Project construction is anticipated to temporarily increase noise levels for nearby receptors. Development will adhere to the City code, which does not permit construction activities (all Oakwater Ridge EAW 10 Findings of Fact and Conclusions, Response to Comments, and Record of Decision excavation, grading, and filling operations) except between certain hours and days of the week. Construction equipment will be properly muffled and maintained in working order. To mitigate noise from U.S. 10 for future residents, a berm with vegetation (built tall enough to block the line of sight of the highway and will mitigate for noise impacts from the majority of the average annual daily traffic) is planned between the homes and U.S. 10. The easternmost extent of the 'Liberty Single Family Homes' shown on the concept plan are 250 feet from US Highway 10/169. A future frontage road with a trail is anticipated west of US Highway 10/169. 18. Transportation. A Traffic Impact Study was prepared by SSTS, LLC in the spring of 2025. The study estimated that the Project would generate 375 trips (94 entering and 281 exiting) during the morning traffic peak hour, 503 trips (317 entering and 186 exiting) during the evening traffic peak hour, and 5,054 daily trips. The study also included operational analysis for several study area interactions based on 2038 build and no -build conditions. For 2038 Build conditions, this study reviewed potential interim access control scenarios for the Highway 10/165th Ave NW intersection while considering traffic operations, safety and mobility on the Highway 10 corridor. It is noted that long term access to the site will be via the future Highway 10/Twin Lakes Parkway interchange with the removal of the Highway 10/165th Ave NW intersection. The Developer, City and MnDOT will work together during the layout development process to determine the detailed geometrics for the J-Turn intersection. Criteria B: Cumulative Potential Effects Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 Subp. 7 (B) indicates the second factor the City must consider is "whether the cumulative potential effect is significant; whether the contribution from the project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect; the degree to which the project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effect; and the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project." The City's findings are set forth below. The potential cumulative effects on public infrastructure would include municipal water supply systems, sanitary sewer conveyance and treatment systems, stormwater management systems, and traffic and transportation systems. The City of Elk River has planned for growth and increased capacity to address these cumulative effects. The Comprehensive Plan proposes that this area of the City develop into single- family residential and commercial uses based on the zoning map. No development plans for the surrounding parcels are known at this time. The project is not anticipated to contribute to adverse cumulative potential effects. Criteria C: Extent to Which the Environmental Effects are Subject to Mitigation Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 Subp. 7 (C) indicates the third factor the City must consider is the "extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority." The City's findings are set forth below. Environmental effects on water quality, wetlands (if directly/indirectly impacted), floodplains (if directly impacted), shoreland, and traffic are subject to additional approvals and/or mitigation through requirements of local, state, and federal regulations, ordinances, management plans, and permitting processes. The following permits and approvals are required for the Project addressed under the EAW. These processes will provide additional opportunities to require mitigation. Potential environmental effects associated with this project will be mitigated in accordance with applicable rules and regulations. The City of Elk River therefore finds that potential environmental effects of the project are less than significant and "subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority." Oakwater Ridge EAW 11 Findings of Fact and Conclusions, Response to Comments, and Record of Decision Table 8. Permit Approvals, Applications, and Certifications Unit of Government Type of Application Status Federal Wetland Delineation Concurrence and Jurisdictional To be applied for U.S. Army Corps of Determination Section 404 Individual Permit To be applied for, if Engineers needed State National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit To be applied for Sewer Extension Permit Minnesota Pollution Y Control Agency (MPCA) I Water Appropriation Permit To be applied for, if 401 Certification needed I Notice of Intent to Demolish Structures To be applied for, if needed Minnesota Department of Water main Extension Permit To be applied for Health (MDH) Well Sealing Permit To be applied for Water Appropriation Permit Minnesota Department of To be applied for, if Natural Resources (MnDNR) .General Permit for Temporary Appropriations needed Public Water Work Permit Local EAW/EIS Need Decision Pending Wetland Conservation Act - Boundary Approval Approved Wetland Conservation Act - Replacement Plan To be applied for City of Elk River Preliminary and Final Plat Pending Excavation, Grading, and Filling Permit To be applied for Building Permit To be applied for Building Sewers and Connections Permit To be applied for Criteria D: Extent to Which Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and Controlled Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 Subp. 7 (D) indicates the final factor the RGU must consider is the "extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs." The City of Elk River's findings are set forth below. 1. The proposed project design, plans, EAW, related studies, and mitigation measures apply knowledge, approaches, standards, and best management practices gained from previous experience and projects that have, in general, successfully mitigated potential offsite environmental effects. 2. The EAW, in conjunction with this document, contains or references the known studies that provide information or guidance regarding environmental effects that can be anticipated and controlled. 3. Other projects studied under environmental reviews in Minnesota have included studies and mitigation measures comparable to those included in this EAW. Oakwater Ridge EAW 12 Findings of Fact and Conclusions, Response to Comments, and Record of Decision 4. There are no elements of the project that pose the potential for significant environmental effects that cannot be addressed by the project design, assessment, permitting and development processes, and by ensuring conformance with regional and local plans. 5. The environmental effects of this development can be anticipated and controlled by the permit application and review processes of the state and local regulatory authorities. 6. Considering the results of environmental review and permitting processes for similar projects, the City of Elk River finds that the environmental effects of the project can be adequately anticipated and controlled. RECORD OF DECISION Based on the EAW, the Response to Comments and the Findings of Fact, the City of Elk River concludes the following: 1. All requirements for environmental review of the Project have been met. 2. The EAW and the permit development processes related to the Project have generated information which is adequate to determine whether the Project has the potential for significant environmental effects. 3. Areas where potential environmental effects have been identified have included proper mitigative responses to be included within the final design of the Project. Mitigation will be required to be provided where impacts are expected to result from Project construction, operation, or maintenance. Mitigative measures will be required to be incorporated into project design and have been or will be coordinated with state and federal agencies during the applicable permit process. 4. Based on the criteria in Minnesota Rules part 4410.1700, the Project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. 5. Elk River makes a "Negative Declaration;" and 6. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required. Oakwater Ridge EAW 13 Findings of Fact and Conclusions, Response to Comments, and Record of Decision 1 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE June 10, 2025 Zack Carlton Community Development Director City of Elk River 13065 Orono Parkway Elk River, MN 55330 RE: EAW - Oakwater Ridge Residential/Commercial Development Project T32 R26 S11 & S14, Elk River, Sherburne County SHPO Number: 2025-1197 Dear Zack Carlton: Thank you for providing this office with a copy of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the above -referenced project. According to the EAW, the proposed residential/commercial development will include the construction of 536 single-family residential homes, a commercial parcel likely consisting of a multi -tenant retail strip and gas station, a river overlook, an open space/recreational area, a future trail, a greenway corridor, and stormwater and other infrastructure. As stated in the EAW, the proposed development is located immediately adjacent to the Oliver H. Kelley Homestead, which is a National Historic Landmark, is listed in the National Register of Historic Places, and is also part of the State Historic Site Network. We understand that the developer and the city have been consulting with the Minnesota Historical Society (MNHS) and that the historic farm and modern visitor center are located downhill from any open sight lines to the proposed development. MNHS has informed us that they have been working with the developer and the city on measures to help minimize any effects to the historic property, which include planting trees to help screen the development as people drive into the Historic Site and installing a split rail wood fence along the development's southern property line. We agree that these appear to be reasonable measures to minimize any adverse effects to the historic property. We recommend that the city and the developer continue to work with MNHS as the design for the project proceeds to ensure that any effects to the historic property are considered, especially any visual effects to the historic farmstead's rural setting. We have reviewed the submitted survey report, Phase 1 Archaeological Survey for the Oakwater Ridge Project, Sherburne County, Minnesota (April 14, 2025) as prepared by In Situ Archaeological Consulting. According to the report, one archaeological site was identified during the investigations, site 21SH0093. More information is needed about the survey methodology and archaeological site 21SH0093. The shovel test methods as described in the report do not meet current survey standards and guidelines because they do not extend into the C horizon. The report incorrectly states that digging into the B horizon is sufficient. Both the A and B horizons are part of Holocene -age soil development, and therefore both have the potential to contain archaeological materials. The C horizon is the parent material for the soil (either bedrock or Pleistocene -age sediments such as glacial till). The standard of MINNESOTA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE 50 Sherburne Avenue v. Administration Building 203 r, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 it 651-201-3287 mn.gov/admin/shpo w mnshpo@state.mn.us AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND SERVICE PROVIDER digging into the C horizon, or encountering it in the case of bedrock, is to demonstrate that the sample from the shovel test addresses the entire time period when archaeological materials might be present. Also, the report states that the shovel tests are 30-40 cm in diameter, but the photos of representative shovel tests appear to be at the lower end of that or smaller. It is difficult to be certain from the photographs, but it also appears that the diameter is smaller at the bottom than at the top. It is likely that 40 cm diameter tests would be needed for the sample to reach into the C horizon in this area. Archaeological site 21SH0093 is identified as 21CA0794 in the report section header (pg. 25). We assume this is a typo. Based on the information provided in the report, we do not agree with the consultant's recommendation that the site is not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). We recommend that either a Phase II evaluation of the site be conducted to determine the site's eligibility for listing in the NRHP, or the site area be protected and preserved during the development. For a Phase II evaluation, a 1x1 formal excavation unit is the most effective method for assessing the site's historic context and integrity. To make an argument regarding Criterion D significance (or lack thereof), we recommend using the historic context document for lithic scatters, because it provides established guidelines for this type of site. This and related documents are available at the State Historic Preservation Office if needed. In our opinion, applying the lithic scatter context with a sample that includes a formal excavation unit should be sufficient to make a defensible statement regarding the site's eligibility for listing in the NRHP. Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36 CFR § 800. If this project is considered for federal financial assistance, or requires a federal permit or license, then review and consultation with our office will need to be initiated by the lead federal agency. Be advised that comments and recommendations provided by our office for this state -level review may differ from findings and determinations made by the federal agency as part of review and consultation under Section 106. If you have any general questions regarding our comments, please contact Kelly Gragg-Johnson, Environmental Review Specialist, at For questions regarding archaeology, please contact David Mather, SHPO National Register Archaeologist, at david.mather@s.. Sincerely, e Amy Spong Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer cc: Ben Leonard, Senior Vice President of Historic Sites Network & Operations, Minnesota Historical Society MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY Marshall Office 504 Fairgrounds Road I Suite 200 1 Marshall, MN 56258-1688 1 507-537-7146 800-657-3864 I Use your preferred relay service I info.pca@state.mn.us I Equal Opportunity Employer June 18, 2025 VIA EMAIL Zack Carlton City of Elk River 13065 Orono Parkway Elk River, Minnesota 55330 zcarlton2elkrivermn.gov RE: Oakwater Ridge — Environmental Assessment Worksheet Dear: Zack Carlton Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Oakwater Ridge project (Project) located in Sherburne County, Minnesota. The Project consists of the Oakwater Ridge residential/commercial development on approximately +248 acres west of US Highway 10/169 and east of the Mississippi River in the City of Elk River, Sherburne County, Minnesota. The Project will include 536 single-family residential homes and a commercial parcel (likely consisting of a multi -tenant retail strip and a gas station). The Project will include several internal roadways, a river overlook, an open space recreational area, a future trail, a green corridor and stormwater features. Regarding matter for which the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has regulatory responsibility and other interests, the MPCA staff has the following comments for your consideration. Wastewater • The information pertaining to the Elk River Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) in Section 12.a.iii(3) is not accurate and could be deleted from this section because the proposed development will not discharge to a surface water. Wastewater information is appropriately provided in a previous Section 12.a.iii(1) because the proposed development will discharge wastewater to a publicly owned treatment facility. • The EAW indicates that an identified portion of the sanitary sewer has been determined by the City to be sized to handle added flow from the Nature's Edge Business Center 3rd Addition development. It is not clear whether the City of Elk River has determined that there is capacity in the sewer system for the wastewater design flow from the proposed Oakwater Ridge development. • A figure should be provided that shows the location of the major sewer system features in the Project area that are described in the EAW. • A table should be provided to identify the wastewater design flow estimates for each of the residential and commercial development types and information should be provided on the composition of the wastewater that will be generated. Zack Carlton Page 2 June 18, 2025 Noise • The Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) and any other land -use decision makers, should consider language in Minn. R. 7030.0030 that reads "[... ] any municipality having authority to regulate land use shall take all reasonable measures within its jurisdiction to prevent the establishment of land use activities listed in noise area classification (NAC) 1, 2, or 3 in any location where the standards established in part 7030.0040 will be violated immediately upon establishment of the land use." The noise section of the EAW does not provide enough detail regarding current and anticipated sound levels in the Project area to determine whether an immediate violation of the state noise standards would occur if the Project were approved. • The MPCA has received noise complaints related to seemingly benign sources, such as car wash stations and pickle ball courts. • The MPCA recommends the Proposer conduct a noise study and potentially evaluate methods to mitigate noise impacts, especially for residential locations near commercial or retail areas. We appreciate the opportunity to review this Project. Please be aware that this letter does not constitute approval by the MPCA of any or all elements of the Project for the purpose of pending or future permit actions by the MPCA. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the Project Proposer to secure any required permits and to comply with any requisite permit conditions. If you have any questions concerning our review of this EAW, please contact me by email at chris.greenEstate.mn.us or by telephone at 507-476-4258. Sincerely, This document has been electronically signed. Chris Green, Project Manager Environmental Review Unit Resource Management and Assistance Division CG:rs Attachment cc: Dan Card, MPCA Melinda Neville, MPCA Nicole Peterson, MPCA Colin Boysen, MPCA Lauren Dickerson, MPCA Innocent Eyoh, MPCA Deepa deAlwis, MPCA David Sahli, MPCA Julie Henderson, MPCA Scott Niemela, MPCA