Loading...
5.1. SR 03-11-1996'ity of iver ITEM 5.1. FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM City Council Stephen Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator March 4, 1996 Environmental Review Regarding Hillside Crossing II (Menards) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) When the EAW was done for Hillside Estates, it included all lands shown as shaded on the attached map. It did not include the Super America site (this site was not in the control of the developer of Hillside) and it did not include the first phase of Hillside Crossing (preliminary plat was approved prior to the EAW). The cumulative impacts of Super America and the first phase of Hillside Crossing were, however, consider in the EAW under "Related Developments". Attached, is a letter from Greg Downing of the Environmental Quality Board confirming this interpretation. The estimated commercial acreage in the EAW was 37 acres. The project now includes 42 acres of commercial land (+5 acres). More land than anticipated was zoned commercial. The estimated square footage of commercial development in the EAW was 206,800 sq. ft.. The project now includes an estimated 335,000 sq. ft. (+129,000 sq. ft.). COUNCIL OPTIONS The increase in the project's acreage and commercial square footage does not automatically require that the EAW be redone. As the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) it is the Council's decision. If the Council finds that the larger project size significantly increases the potential for significant environmental impacts, you should pass a motion requiring that the EAW be redone. 13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490 · Elk River, MN 55330 · (612) 441-7420 · Fax: (612) 441-7425 Page 2 If the Council finds the larger project size does not significantly increase the potential for significant environmental impacts, you should pass a motion declaring the previous EAW adequate. RECOMMENDATION Staff feels no new issues would arise if the EAW were to be redone and little would be gained. Staff is recommending that the EAW not be required to be redone with the finding that all environmental issues involved with the project were identified and addressed during the original EAW process and a negative declaration regarding the need for an Environmental Impact Statement would still result. o INDIRECT SOURCE PERMIT (ISP) An ISP is a permit required by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) that considers air quality issues. The city as well as the developer would be the permittees. Because the Hillside project is located within 1/4 mile of a major highway the thresholds for when an ISP is required are as follows: When the number of parking stalls proposed within a phase of a project makes the total number of parking stalls for that and all previous phases total 1,000 or more stalls, an ISP is required. · When any one phase of a project includes 500 or more parking stalls, an ISP is required. The ISP thresholds only consider commercial and industrial parking, not residential. Further, the project being considered for an ISP is Hillside Estates, as identified in the Hillside Estates EAW. Therefore, Hillside Crossing's (the first phase) and Super America's parking should not be considered when calculating the ISP thresholds. However, if and when an ISP is required, the impacts of these projects as well as previous and future phases on lands included in the Hillside Estates EAW must be considered. Menards' receiving and loading areas should not be considered when calculating parking for the ISP threshold. Neither should space for future parking until it is proposed to be built. Lastly, the future s:\b&zksteverXhill-en2.doc Page 3 commercial lots shown as outlots on the Hillside Crossing II plat should not be considered when calculating the ISP threshold until they are proposed to be buildable lots. Staff and the developer met with a representative of MPCA to help us understand these rules and show him the particulars of the project. Attached is a letter from MPCA staff member Innocent Eyoh summarizing that meeting. ISP CONCLUSION The number of parking stalls proposed on Lot 1, Block 1, Hillside Crossing II (Menards) is 410 stalls. This is the total for this current phase. To date, the total number of parking stalls from this phase and all previous phase on lands included in the Hillside Estates EAW is 624, which includes Hillside Crossing South. · In conclusion, an ISP is not required at this time. NOTE: Elk Park center was required to do an ISP at the front end of their project because the platted lots in their first phase exceeded 500 parking stalls in a single phase. s:\b&zXstever\hill-en2.doc Cheryl R. Becker 11452 197th Avenue Elk River, MN. 55330 Planning Department Elk River City Hall PO Box 490 Elk River, MN. 55330 RE: P96-1 Project (Mennards) Attention Debbie Kleckner, Steve Ach, and Council, members, I would like all this information to go into the packet for the council members for the March 11, 1996 meeting concerning the P96-1 Project. I was at the public hearing on Feb. 27th regarding this new project and had to think about all that was happening. My back property line is the same property line for the project. My home sits off the south~side of 197th, half way along~the back property line and only 30 f~et from the back property lind. I own and operate my licensed daycare business out of my home and have done so f~r 10 years. These are my concerns: 1. The state wilt ~equire me to put in a fenc~ Along my back property line for the safety of the children. 2. Since a sidewalk along the "PARK" will be put in, I am concerned with strangers walking along with access to ~y property and it isn't safe with child abductions and children wandering off or following people. 3. I need it quiet for nap times and I want the children to be able to play in the back yard safely without the worry of them disappearing. 4. The school bus'stops at the end of my driveway 5 different times during the school day to pick up and drop off 5-6 children. I am concerned with their safety with the increased traffic flow. 5. For myself and family I will no longer be able to have a barbeque or sit on my deck with privacy and people can look in and see what I have with easy access to the property therefore I feel I am in jeapardy with burglaries, and crime, and vandalism. I would have not purchased no~ built here if I knew this commercial developement was coming in. It will decrease my value and oppor- tunities to sell when that time comes. As a homeowner, I was here first and all these changes in zoning occured after. I am asking the developers and council to work with me and feel for me and help me in this situation. Here is what I am asking: 1. I would like to see a larger buffer of trees left so myself and neighbors do not have to look at backs of buildings, dumpsters, parking lots and parked cars. Do not cut away the trees along the property lines of the project. We as residential home-owners were here first and hate to see beautifUl hardwoods torn down. 2. I would like an 8-9 foot privacy fence put up along my back property line for consideration of my privacy that is being taken away, for the property value itself, and for my daycare business that is being infringe~ upon and for safety and crime. I am asking that this expense to not come out of my pocket. 3. I do not want to,be charged any assessments on a sidewalk or any others that would develope f~m this project. I am a single mom with 3 children and maintaining the home, raising my children and running my business on my own. I do not have the resources of funds available to put up this privacy fence or pay assessments. THIS PROJECT WOULD CAUSE ME SEVERE HARDSHIP FINANCIALLY AND EMOTIONALLY WITH WORRY FOR THE CHILDREN IF I HAD TO PUT UP THIS FENCE OR PAY ANY ASSESSMENTS. This would be impossible to afford as the property owner and could force me out. I a~ not against this project but I do feel they owe me for the changes of my family, property, property value,privacy and for my business which is my only source of income. I see they are working with the other homeowners affected by this so I am asking for help also. I plan on being at the March 11 meeting but I run a very busy schedule with my 3 children and my daycare hours. Sincerely and very concerned and worried, " '71. t' May 24, 1994 Mr. Stephen Rohlf Building and Zoning Administrator City of Elk River P.O. Box 490 Elk River, MN 55330 RE: Hillside Estates Dear Mr. Rohlf: This letter is in response to yours of May 16 regarding interpretation of the EQB rules relative to the Hillside Estates project. As I understand the situation, the developer originally owned a parcel for 73 residential lots and 13 acres of commercial development, and received preliminary plat approval on the whole parcel and final plat approval on part of the residential portion. Then, the proposer obtained an option on adjoining land, which has not yet received any plat approvals. At an earlier date, the proposer built 61 lots in an adjoining development, CherryHill Bluffs. Finally, the proposer wishes to trade part of the 13 acres of the commercial land that received preliminary plat approval to another developer and to add one acre of the newly optioned land to the remaining commercial land. The questions being asked are what is subject to an EAW, and how should other lands be treated in question number 30 of the EAW? I believe that the lands subject to the EAW is only the newly optioned land, minus the one acre added to the existing commercial plat. That is, the following parcels should not be subject to the EAW: the 61 lots of CherryHill Bluffs; the 73 lots in Hillside Estates; the commercial land in Hillside Estates, including the traded off portion and the added one acre. In responding to question 30, development on these adjoining lands should be mentioned and any cumulative impacts addressed in part d. I hope this response adequately addresses your questions. Sincerely, Gregg Downing ~/ Environmental Review Coordinator ('.~ [llvIgOSM[Nlll llgAtlIY go,bo 658 CEDAll SIS[ET. SI. PLOT, MN 55155 612 296-2603 FAX 612 29G-3Dg8 STAFF PillOVID[ll BY E171 PLANNING ,Minnesota Pollution Control Agency January 29, 1996 Mr. Richard C. Foster Riverside Companies 19230 Evans Street, Northwest Elk River, Minnesota 55330 Mr. Stephen Rolf Building & Zoning Administrator City of Elk River P.O. Box 490 Elk River, Minnesota 55330 Dear Messrs. Foster and Rolfi I am writing to clarify the discussions we had during our January 17, 1996, meeting regarding the proposed Hillside Estates project in the city of Elk River. Based on our discussions and the review of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) prepared for the project, the staff of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has concluded that the project as proposed, does not meet the threshold requirements for an Indirect Source Permit (ISP). The staff wishes to note, however, that when the total number of parking spaces for the proposed project reaches 1,000 or more spaces, an ISP will be required. At that time, all previously constructed parking spaces for the commercial property considered in the EAW must be included when estimating the parking threshold for an ISP requirements. The loading stall area for Menards Store should not be used when estimating the parking requirements. The Hillside Crossings which was approved prior to the preparation of the EAW need not be included when calculating the ISP requirements. Please call me at (612) 296-7739, if you have any questions. Senior Air Quality Specialist Air Quality Division IEE:lmg cc: J. David Thornton/Barbara Jackson, Air Quality Division Susanne P:,Spitzer/Mary Hoffman, Air Quality Division 520 Lafayette Rd.; St. Paul, MN 55155-4194; (612) 296-6300; Regional Offices: Duluth · Brainerd · Detroit Lakes · Marshall · Rochester Equal Opportunity Employer · Printed on Recycled Paper