Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.a. Brockway Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), City Project #381r CITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 6, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Brockway EAW, City Project #381 AGENDA SECTION: Old Business PREPARED BY: Andrew J. Brotzler, P.E., City Engineer . AG D i L . ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum, Draft Memorandum of APPROVED BY: Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, Comment Letters and Resolution RECOMMENDED ACTION: MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION ISSUING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF NEED. ACTION: BACKGROUND The attached documents contain information regarding the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed Brockway Property Residential Development. Following the end of the public comment period on March 17, 2004, the attached draft responses have been prepared for the comments received. SUMMARY Andi Moffatt with WSB & Associates, Inc. will be in attendance at the meeting to review the comments received and proposed responses. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2004 — A RESOLUTION ISSUING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF NEED I WHEREAS, the preparation of the Brockway Residential EAW and comments received on the EAW have generated information adequate to determine whether the proposed project has the potential for significant environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, the EAW has identified areas where the potential for significant environmental effects exist, but appropriate measures have or will be incorporated into the project plan and/or permits to reasonably mitigate these impacts; and WHEREAS, the Brockway Residential Development is expected to comply with all the City of Rosemount and review agency standards, and WHEREAS, based on the criteria established in Minnesota R.4410.1700, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects; and WHEREAS, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental impacts. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City of Rosemount has determined that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. ADOPTED this 6th day of April, 2004. William H. Droste, Mayor ATTEST: Linda Jentink, City Clerk Motion by: Second by: Voted In Favor: Voted Against: f a.. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT In the matter of the Decision on the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Brockway Residential Development in Rosemount, MN FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS Contractor Property Developers Company (CPDC) is proposing a mixed use residential development consisting of 612 total units. Housing types will consist of single and multi - family residential. Several outlots are proposed on the project site. This development includes construction of 86 single - family homes, three 60 -unit apartment buildings of which will be senior housing, and 346 town home units, as well as a 15,000 SF of a Neighborhood Commercial area. The 106 acre area is located south of County Road 38, and east of State Highway 3 (South Robert Trail). One outlot will consist of up to 15.0 acres of dedicated city park, a storm water pond, a ball field, and a trail system. Pursuant to Minnesota R. 4410.4300, subp. 19D, the City of Rosemount has prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for this proposed project. As to the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the project and based on the record in this matter, including the EAW and comments received, the City of Rosemount makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Project The proposed project involves grading the 106 -acre site to construct streets, utilities, and residential units. It is anticipated that 1.8 acres of wooded area will be removed and 26 acres of impervious area will be added as part of this project. Lawn and landscaped area will comprise 36 acres of the site after construction. Four additional acres of storm water ponding areas and a 15 acre public park are also proposed as part of the project. B. Project Site The proposed project is located north of Connemara Trail, south of County Road 38, west of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul Railroad, and east of TH 3. The site currently contains 6 acres of brush/grassland, 77.06 acres of golf turf, 7 acres of wooded area, 0.94 acres of wetland, and 15 acres of an existing warehouse and associated parking lot. Deleted: F. 031032604F( u % C. IDocuments and Settintsll(jlLocal Settings1Tempora!j, Internet FilesIOLK11040604FOFdoc IL PROJECT HISTORY A. The project was subject to the mandatory preparation of an EAW under Minnesota R. 4410.4300 subp. 19D. B. An EAW was prepared for the proposed project and distributed to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parties on February 9, 2004. C. A public notice containing information about the availability of the EAW for public review was published in the Rosemount Town Pages on February 13, 2004. D. The EAW was noticed in the February 16, 2004 EQB Monitor. The public comment period ended March 17, 2004. Comments were received from the Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Dakota County, and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Copies of these letters are hereby incorporated by reference. Responses to the comments are also incorporated by reference. III. CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS. Minnesota R. 4410.1700, subp. 1 states "an EIS shall be ordered for projects that have the potential for significant environmental affects." In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental affects, the City of Rosemount must consider the four factors set out in Minnesota R. 4410.1700, subp. 7; With respect to each of these factors, the City finds as follows: A. TYPE, EXTENT, AND REVERSIBILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The first factor that the City must consider is "type, extent and reversibility of environmental effects ", Minnesota R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.A. The City's findings with respect to each of these issues are set forth below. 1. The type of environmental impacts and mitigation efforts anticipated as part of this project include: a. Land Use: The land use will be converted from industrial and open space /park to residential. To address this concern the development plans contain park and open space to mitigate for the conversion of land use. b. Wastewater and Water Consumption: This development is anticipated to use and generate approximately 167,688 GPD of water and wastewater. The MCES Wastewater Treatment Deleted: F 031032604FC c." C :lDocuments and Settingslli Ugcol SettinislTen:poran- Internet FilesIOGKI1040604FOFdo p? Facility has adequate capacity to handle the sewage volumes from this site. The increase in water use will be mitigated by the expansion of the City's water supply, storage, and distribution systems. c. Storm Water: The project is anticipated to generate additional storm water runoff. This runoff will be treated within on -site and off -site ponding facilities and infiltration areas to NURP guidelines. The design of the on -site stormwater management system is required to be sized to accommodate the 100 -year, 24 -hour critical storm event. d. Traffic: Traffic volume on TH 3, Connemara Trail, and CR 38 will increase. As a result several improvements will be necessary to ensure the safety and operation on these roadways. These improvements are outlined in the 2003 Traffic Impact Study completed for this site and are included with the EAW. e. Dump Sites / Known and Potential Sources of Soil and Groundwater Pollutant Sites: Information from Dakota County and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency indicates that there are several known and potential sources of pollutants within the site. These areas will be investigated and remediated in conformance with federal and state regulations and with Dakota County Ordinance 110, Chapter 14. 2. The extent and reversibility of environmental impacts are consistent with those of residential development. B. CUMULATIVE POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF RELATED OR ANTICIPATED FUTURE PROJECTS The second factor that the City must consider is the "cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects ", Minnesota R. 4410.1700 subp.7.B. The City's findings with respect to this factor are set forth below. 1. The Brockway property is currently zoned B -P2 and PI. The city will need to re -zone and re -guide the area to a combination of urban and high density residential uses to reflect the different housing types proposed in the plan as well as the commercial site. The regional land use conversion from parks, business park, and open space to developed residential space is anticipated to have a cumulative impact on the area. Attempts to mitigate this impact will include providing open space and park in the development, providing adequate storm water management facilities, and addressing traffic impacts. The n-1 t a• F ee 031032604F( v' C: lDocuments and SettinysWhLocal SettingslTemporar), Internet Fi1eA0L h040604F0F.doC 3— City's current ordinances, standards, and policies are anticipated to be adequate to address these issues. C. THE EXTENT TO WHICH ENVIRONMENTAL AFFECTS ARE SUBJECT TO MITIGATION BY ONGOING PUBLIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY 1. The following permits or approvals will be required for the project: State Type of Application MPCA Review / Approval of a Construction Contingency Plan/Response Action Plan MPCA NPDES /SDS Phase H Storm Water Construction Permit MPCA Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit Minnesota DNR Water Appropriation Minnesota Department of Health Water Main Extension Permit City/Local Met Council Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment Met Council Sanitary Sewer Extension Dakota County Review Construction Contingency Plan/Response Action Plan Dakota County Access Permit City of Rosemount/Dakota County Plattin City of Rosemount Building Permits City of Rosemount Site Plan Review City of Rosemount WCA Permit 1. The City finds that the potential environmental impacts of the project are subject to mitigation by ongoing regulatory authorities such that an EIS need not be prepared. D. 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, OR OF EISs PREVIOUSLY PREPARED ON SIMILAR PROJECTS. The fourth factor that the City 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, . Deleted: F. 031031604FG C IDocuments and Settin sl JUILocal SettinrslTemporarn Internet Files tOLKI1040b04FOFdoe r� or of EISs previously prepared on similar projects," Minnesota R. 4700.1700, subp. 7.D. The City's findings with respect to this factor are set forth below: The proposed project is subject to the following plans prepared by the City: 1. City of Rosemount Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan (2003) 2. City of Rosemount Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan (1999) 3. City of Rosemount 2020 Comprehensive Plan The proposed project is subject to the investigation and remediation, if deemed necessary, of the following sites in conformance with the County and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: 1. Dakota County Environmental Management Department Dump Sites 5363, 5358, 5424, 5387, 5366, 5388, and 5004. 2. Any additional areas identified. by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency as potential sources of soil and/or groundwater pollution. The proposed proiect is subject to the Response Action Plan and Construction Contingency Plan that will be prepared by the project proposer to address Aaa known and potential contaminants within the site. These documents will be reviewed and/or approved by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Dakota County. The City finds that the environmental effects of the project can be anticipated and controlled as a result of the environmental review, planning, and permitting processes. CONCLUSIONS The preparation of Brockway Residential Development EAW and comments received on the EAW have generated information adequate to determine whether the proposed facility has the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW has identified areas where the potential for significant environmental effects exist, but appropriate measures have or will be incorporated into the project plan and/or permits to mitigate these effects. The project is anticipated to comply with all City of Rosemount standards and review agency standards. Based on the criteria established in Minnesota R. 4410.1700, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. Deleted: F. 031032604F( c.' C: Documents and Settingsllji Local SettintslTenporary Internet Fi1eA0LK11040604F0Fdoc �` Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental impacts. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required. Deleted: F. 031032604F( c C: II)ocuments and Settin�sllijlLoca/ SetttngslTernporar7-• Internet FileslOLKI i090604FOFdoc W 1'+h 0- f (' eh - o n CITY OF ROSEMOUNT In the matter of the Decision on the Need for an Environmental Impact FINDINGS OF FACT Statement (EIS) for AND CONCLUSIONS Brockway Residential Development in Rosemount, MN Contractor Property Developers Company (CPDC) is proposing a mixed use residential development consisting of 612 total units. Housing types will consist of single and multi- family residential. Several outlots are proposed on the project site. This development includes construction of 86 single - family homes, three 60 -unit apartment buildings of which 1/3 will be senior housing, and 346 town home units, as well as a 15,000 SF of a Neighborhood Commercial area. The 106 acre area is located south of County Road 38, and east of State Highway 3 (South Robert Trail). One outlot will consist of up to 15.0 acres of dedicated citypark, a storm water pond, a ball field, and a trail system. Pursuant to Minnesota R. 4410.4300, subp.l9D, the City of Rosemount has prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for this proposed project. As to the need - for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the project and based on the record in this matter, including the EAW and comments received, the City of Rosemount makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Project The proposed project involves grading the 106 -acre site to construct streets, utilities, and residential units. It is anticipated that 1.8 acres of wooded area will be removed and 26 acres of impervious area will be added as part of this project. Lawn and landscaped area will comprise 36 acres of the site after construction. Four additional acres of storm water ponding areas and a 15 acre public park are also proposed as part of the project. B. Project Site The proposed project is located north of Connemara Trail, south of County Road 38, west of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul Railroad, and east of TH 3. The site currently contains 6 acres brush/grassland, 77.06 acres of golf turf, `7 acres of wooded area, 0.94 acres of wetland, and 15 acres of an existing warehouse and associated parking lot. C: (Documents and Settingsl. I oca1 SettingsMemporary Internet FdesDLK5W40604F0E- reviseddoc II. PROJECT HISTORY A. The project was subject to the mandatory preparation of an EAW under Minnesota R. 4410.4300 subp. 19D. B. An EAW was prepared for the proposed project and distributed to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parties on February 9, 2004. C. 'A public notice containing information about the availability of the EAW for public review was published in the Rosemount Town Pages on February 13, 2004. D. The EAW was noticed in the February 16, 2004 EQB Monitor. The public comment period ended March 17, 2004. Comments were received from the Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Dakota County, and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. - Copies of these letters are hereby incorporated by reference. Responses to the comments are also incorporated by reference. III. CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS. Minnesota R. 4410.1700, subp, 1 states "an EIS shall be ordered for projects that have the potential for significant environmental affects." In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental affects, the City of Rosemount must consider the four factors set out in Minnesota R. 4410.1700, subp. 7. With respect to each of these factors, the City finds as follows: A. TYPE, EXTENT, AND REVERSIBILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The first factor that the City must consider is "type, extent and reversibility of environmental effects ", Minnesota R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.A. The City's findings with respect to each of these issues are set forth below. 1. The type of environmental impacts and mitigation efforts anticipated as part of this project include: a. Land Use: The land use will be converted from industrial and open space /park to residential. To address this concern the development plans contain park and open space to mitigate for the conversion of land use. b. Wastewater and Water Consumption: This development is anticipated to use and generate approximately 167,688 GPD of water and wastewater. The MCES Wastewater Treatment C. (Documents and Settings) (Local SettingslTemporary Internet Files10LK51040604FOF:reviseddoc Facility has adequate capacity to handle the sewage volumes from this site. The increase in water use will be mitigated by the expansion of the City's water supply, storage, and distribution systems. c. Storm Water: The project is anticipated to generate additional storm water runoff. This runoff will be treated within on - and 'offsite ponding facilities and infiltration areas to NURP guidelines. The design of the on -site stormwater management system is required to be sized to accommodate the 100 -year, 24 -hour critical storm event. d. ' Traffic: Traffic volume on TH 3, Connemara Trail, and CR 38 will increase. As a result several improvements will be necessary to ensure the safety and operation on these roadways. These improvements are outlined in the 2003 Traffic Impact Study completed for this site and are included with the EAW. e. Dump Sites / Known and Potential Sources of Soil and Groundwater Pollutant Sites: Information from Dakota County and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency indicates that there are several known and potential sources of pollutants within the site. These areas will be investigated and remediated in conformance with federal and state regulations and with Dakota County Ordinance 1 10, Chapter 14. 2. The extent and reversibility of environmental impacts are consistent with those of residential development. B. CUMULATIVE POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF RELATED OR ANTICIPATED FUTURE PROJECTS The second factor that the City must consider is the "cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects", Minnesota R. 4410.1700 subp.7.B. The City's findings with respect to this factor are set forth below. L The Brockway property is currently zoned B -P2 and PI. The city will need to re -zone and re -guide the area to a combination of urban and high density residential uses to reflect the different housing types proposed in the plan as well as the commercial site. The regional land use conversion from parks, business park, and open space to developed residential space is anticipated to have a cumulative impact on the area. Attempts to mitigate this impact will include providing open space and park in the development, providing adequate storm water management facilities, and addressing traffic impacts. The C: Documents and Settings) ff local Settings4Temporary Internet FilesIOLK51040604FOF- revised doc _ City's current ordinances, 'standards, and policies are anticipated to be adequate to address these issues. C. THE EXTENT TO WHICH ENVIRONMENTAL AFFECTS ARE SUBJECT TO MITIGATION BY ONGOING PUBLIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY 1. The following permits or approvals will be required for the project: State Type of Application MPCA Review / Approval of a Construction Contingency Plan/Response Action Plan MPCA NPDES /SDS Phase H Storm Water Construction Permit MPCA Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit Minnesota DNR Water Appropriation Minnesota Department of Health Water Main Extension Permit City/Local Met Council Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment Met Council _ Sanitary Sewer Extension Dakota County Review Construction Contingency Plan/Response Action Plan Dakota County Access Permit City of Rosemount/Dakota Count ` Plattin City of Rosemount Building Permits City of Rosemount Site Plan Review City of Rosemount WCA Permit 1. The City yfinds that the potential environmental impacts of the project are subject to mitigation by ongoing regulatory authorities such that an - EIS need not be prepared. D. 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, OR OF EISs PREVIOUSLY PREPARED ON SIMILAR PROJECTS. The fourth factor that the City 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, C:1Documents and SettingsVylocal SettingsMemporary Internet Files1OLKJ1040604FOF- revised.doc or of EISs previously prepared on similar projects," Minnesota R. 4700.1700, subp. 7.D. The City's findings with respect to this factor are set forth below: The proposed project is subject to the following plans prepared by the City: 1. City of Rosemount Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan (2003) 2. City of Rosemount Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan (1999) 3. City of Rosemount 2020 Comprehensive Plan The proposed project is subject to the investigation and remediation, if deemed necessary, of the following sites in conformance with the County and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: 1. Dakota County Environmental Management Department Dump Sites. 5363, 5358, 5424, 5387, 5366, 5388, and 5004. 2. Any additional areas identified by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency as potential sources of soil and/or groundwater pollution. The proposed project is subject to the Response Action Plan and Construction Contingency Plan that will be prepared by the project proposer to address known and potential contaminants within the site. These documents will be reviewed and/or approved by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Dakota County. The City finds that the environmental effects of the project can be anticipated and controlled as a result of the environmental review, planning, and permitting processes. CONCLUSIONS The preparation of Brockway Residential Development EAW and comments received on the EAW have generated information adequate to determine whether the proposed facility has the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW has identified areas where the potential for significant environmental effects exist, but appropriate measures have or will be incorporated into the project plan and/or permits to mitigate these effects. The project is anticipated to comply with all City of Rosemount standards and review agency standards. Based on the criteria established in Minnesota R. 4410.1700, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental impacts. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required. C. (Documents and Settings)YILocal Settings1lemporary Internet FilesIOLK5W40604FOF- reviseddoc A Inc. Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Rosemount From: Andi Moffatt, Biologist WSB & Associates ,Date: April 6, 2004 Re: Brockway Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet WSB Project No. 1556 -03 The public comment period for the Brockway Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) ended March 17, 2004. The purpose of the EAW is to identify potential environmental impacts and determine whether or not an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required. An EIS is a more extensive environmental review process. Determining whether or not an EIS is needed does not relate to providing approval or denial for the project. Based on the information in the EAW and review agency comments regarding the EAW, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental impacts that cannot be addressed as part of the permitting process. Therefore, it is our recommendation that an EIS is not required Enclosed, please find the following items for your review relating to this EAW: • Draft memo dated March 25, 2004 to the review agencies responding to comments received on the EAW (hereby referred to as the comment/response memo). This memo restates the agencies' comments and then responds to each issue. • The Findings of Fact on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). • A copy of the agencies' comment letters. • Draft resolution relating to a Negative Declaration of Need. part of the public comment period, comments were received from the Metropolitan .mcil, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Dakota County, and Minnesota :)artment of Natural Resources. Outlined below is a brief summary of the comments Minneapolis • St. Cloud • Equal Opportunity Employer April 6, 2004 Page 2 provided in the review agency letter: 1. Known and Potential Sources of Soil and Groundwater Pollutants: The Dakota County Office of Planning requires conformance with County Ordinances regarding the closure of dump sites and suggests investigating known and potential sources of pollutants within dump sites identified by the County in the Brockway site to determine whether or not remedial action is necessary. A comprehensive work plan must be approved by the County before any field work is initiated. Proposed end usage of the dump sites listed by the County within the Brockway development that are found to contain contaminants must be specified in the development plan and should be addressed in the Response Action Plan to be approved by MPCA and the County before redevelopment activities commence. This was anticipated as part of the EAW. The developer /landowner has agreed to work with the MPCA and County to address the contaminants within the site. 2. Traffic and Traffic Noise: Mn/DOT and Dakota County recommend improvements to the existing roadways to accommodate increased traffic flows in the area. Recommendations for further traffic studies and roadway improvements and upgrades are currently being reviewed by the City. Concerns regarding traffic noise were expressed by Mn/DOT. The City acknowledges that Mn/DOT is not responsible for any noise mitigation that may be required as part of the proposed development adjacent to TH 3. 3. Land Use and Cover Type Conversion: The Met Council recommends creating more parkland around Keegan Lake to mitigate for increased impervious impacts associated with the Brockway Development and encourages the City to work with Dakota County Parks to incorporate regional trail into the development. 4. Storm Water Management: Dakota County has concerns about using the existing ponds for stormwater management since these ponds may contain contaminants and recommends further testing to determine whether or not the ponds contain contaminants. The developer/landowner will be required to work with the County and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to address and remediate known and potential contaminated areas identified within the Brockway site. Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District has requested farther information on stormwater management associated with this site upon completion of final plans. City Council Decision Action The decision before the City Council regarding the EAW is to decide whether or not the project has the potential for significant environmental impacts that cannot be addressed through the permitting processes. If the Council determines that the project does not have F: IWPWIM]556- 031Reconzntendation Neg Need. doc k April 6, 2004 Page 3 the potential for these significant environmental impacts, the Council should issue a Negative Declaration of Need for an EIS. If the Council determines that the project does have the potential for significant environmental impact that cannot be addressed through the permitting and approval process, the Council should require an EIS. Based on our review, it is our recommendation that an EIS is not needed for this project. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (763)287 -7196. C. Andy Brotzler, P.E., City of Rosemount Rick Pearson, City of Rosemount Kim Lindquist, City of Rosemount Dave Hutton, P.E., WSB & Associates, Inc. Bill Weber, Contractor Property Developers Co. Dave Hempel, Contractor Property Developers Co. Fran Hagen, Westwood Professional Services F: I N 1556- 031Recomn:endation Neg Need doc WSB & Associates, Inc. 3 To: Phyllis Hanson, Metropolitan Council Brigid Gombold, Mn/DOT Senior Transportation Planner Mary McNeff, MwDOT Transportation Planner Lynn Moratzka, Dakota County Planning Jay Riggs, Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District Wayne Barstad, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources From: Andi Moffatt, WSB & Associates, Inc. Anna Brenes, WSB & Associates, Inc. Copy: Andy Brotzler, City of Rosemount Rick Pearson, City of Rosemount :Sim Lindquist, City of Rosemount Dave Hutton, WSB & Associates, Inc. Bill Weber, CPDC Memorandum Dave Hempel, CPDC Fran Hagen, Westwood Professional Services Date: March 25, 2004 Re Responses to Comments Brockway Residential Development EAW WSB Project No. 1556-03 The public comment period for the Brockway Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) ended March 17, 2004. Comments were received from the Metropolitan Council, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Dakota County, Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District, and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Outlined below, please find the comments from each agency followed by responses to these comments. The comment letters are also attached for your information. Comments fiwm Metropolitan Council Comment #1: The Brockway Redevelopment project proposes 86 single family homes, three 60 -unit apartment buildings, 346 town home units, neighborhood commercial, and park. The proposed project is 118 acres and is bounded by State Highway 3 to the west, County Road 38 to the north, the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific Railroad to the east, and Connemara Trail to the south. The staff review finds the EAW complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns and raises no major issues of consistency with Council policies. An Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary for regional purposes. Staff provides the following comments for your consideration: Response: No response is necessary Comment #2: Item 10, Cover Types: This proposal will reduce the amount of "Wooded/forest" area and "brush/grasslands "; and will significantly increase impervious surfaces from 15 acres to 41 acres. Various mitigation strategies could be explored to alleviate some of the nripervious surface impacts. Minneapolis St. Cloud . Equal Opportunity Employer March 25, 2004 Page 2 of 12 One strategy could include moving a portion of County Road 38 farther away from Keegan Lake to create the opportunity for some parkland on the shores of Keegan Lake. Response: Moving County Road 38 farther away from Keegan Lake would result in right -of- way acquisition issues and would require significant grade changes to accommodate a shift in the road that would make it impracticable. The plan includes 15 acres of parkland and open space. The majority of the trees located on the Brockway site are located within the park area in the south west corner of the site. Additionally, 36 acres of lawn and landscaping area proposed as part of this project to help mitigate for increases in impervious area. The City will take the suggestion for reducing proposed impervious surface on this site under advisement during the plan review and approval process. Comment #3c Item #25, Nearby Resources: The Dakota County South Urban Regional Trail is proposed to connect Lebanon Hills Regional Park and the Mississippi River. The EAW mentions a potential trail along the Williams pipeline easement and the potential regional trail alternatives appear to pass along the west side of this project. The City is encouraged to work with Dakota County Parks and incorporate the regional trail in to the site design. Response: The City will take this suggestion under advisement during the plan review and approval process. Comment #4: Item # 28, Impact on Infrastructure and Public Services: The document states on page 9 and 16, the City has entered into an agreement with the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) to convey City storm water runoff to the Mississippi River. Construction of this new effluent outfall for the MCES Empire wastewater treatment facility is scheduled to begin in 2005. While MCES and the City have not reached a final agreement, the draft agreement currently proposes that no connection will be allowed upstream of a point along County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 42 near Akron Avenue. Response: The City understands that the final agreement with MCES is still under review. Stormwater runoff from the Brockway Development is proposed to be conveyed to a regional pond located in the vicinity of the Bloomfield 5 Addition and CSAH 42 and is anticipated to be conveyed and discharged to the MCES trunk line system at a point west of the intersection of Akron Avenue and CSAH 42. The City will work with MCES in the near future to determine where an acceptable discharge point may be located. Comment #5: Appendix D, Traffic Impact Study: Page three of the traffic impact study describes Trunk Highway 3 as a "B" minor arterial. Trunk Highway is classified as an "A" minor arterial (expander) on the Council's functional classification system. Response: The City acknowledges that TH 3 was labeled incorrectly in the Traffic Impact Study. This has been corrected. Comments from MAIDOT, March 12, 2004 Comment #1: Additional drainage information will need to be reviewed when detailed design plans have been developed. The proposed development will need to maintain existing drainage rates (i.e. the rate at which stormwater is discharged from the site must not increase) The City or project developer will need to submit before /after hydraulic computations for both 10 and 100 year rainfall F: I fI T JI 'l'N'11.i36- 031031804CRnaerno- draft. doc March 25, 2004 Page 3 of 12 Response: Hydraulic analysis and drainage design are currently under review. The City will require final design to maintain existing drainage rates and to be submitted to Mn/DOT for review and approval upon completion of the final plans. Comment #2: Mn/DOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible for taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of land use would result in violations of established noise standards. Mn/DOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The project proposer should assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise. Response: The City acknowledges that Mn/DOT is not responsible for any noise mitigation that may be required as part of the proposed development adjacent to TH 3. Comments from Mn/DOT, March 22, 2004 Comment #1: Mn/DOT believes that the increase in traffic volumes associated with this proposed development (487 multi - family homes; 127 single family homes) will mean that Trunk Highway (TH) 3 will need to be expanded from two lanes to four lanes. Due to funding constraints, TH 3 is designated as a "preservation" corridor. Expenditures on preservation corridors are limited to repair and replacement of pavement, bridges, and drainage structures. As of this date, no funding has been identified for expansion of TH 3. For questions on these points, please call Nancy Daunbenberger, Area Engineer for Dakota and Scott Counties, Mn/DOT Metro District, at (651) 582 -1379. Response: The City acknowledges that no.funding is currently available for improvements to TH 3 in this corridor. The City, however, will continue to request Municipal Cooperative Agreement funding for safety improvements as deemed necessary along the corridor. Comment #2: The City of Rosemount has received funding for 2005 for a Cooperative Agreement project to improve TH 3 intersections. If the City constructs the improvements on TH 3 as envisioned in the cooperative agreement project, the traffic study included within the EAW indicates that after the Brockway Residential Development is constructed the TH 3 intersections will function at acceptable levels of service, but traffic volumes resulting from this development suggest long -teen need to expand TH 3 to a four -lane road in this vicinity. For questions on these points, please call Lars Impola, Mn/DOT Metro District Traffic Studies Engineer, at (651) 634 -2379. Response: The City has initiated the design of the improvements as outlined in the Municipal Cooperative Agreement Funding Application. These improvements are planned for completion late summer /early fall 2004. The City acknowledges that TH 3, in the future, will require additional improvements (see response to Comment #1, March 22, 2004). F..' TJ P 1J'LA'! 1 5 i6-03 '1031804CRn7el77 o- draft. doe March 25, 2004 Page 4 of 12 Comment #3: Please submit drainage and grading plans, and the hydraulic/hydrologic modeling for this proposed development. The EAW asserts that there will be stringent control of run -off from this proposed development, and proposes that the maximum peak discharge rate for post - development conditions is .05 cubic feet per second/acre for a 100 -year storm. Assuming that those calculations are accurate, it is unlikely that adjacent facilities, such as TH 3, will be flooded as a result of the development. Please submit the drainage and grading plans, and hydraulic/hydrologic modeling to: Scott Carlstrom Mn/DOT Metro District Water Resources Engineering Waters Edge Building 1500 West County Road B -2 Roseville, MN 55113 Response: See response to Comment #1 in the March 12, 2004 Mn/DOT letter from Brigid Gombold. Comment #4: The proposed turn lanes and signalized intersection with County Road 38, the new signal at Connemara Trail, and limiting access to the Brockway development site to County Road 38 and Connemara Trail is acceptable under Mn/DOT design standards. For questions on this point, please call Dick Scarrow, Mn/DOT Metro District Design Coordinator, at (651) 582 -1333. Response: The City agrees that the turn lanes and signalized intersections, as part of this project, will meet Mn/DOT design standards. Comment #5: Mn/DOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 state that municipalities are responsible for taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of the land use would result in violations of established noise standards. Mn/DOT policy regarding land development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The project proposer should assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise. If you have any questions regarding Mn/DOT's noise policy please contact Peter Wasko in our Design section at (651) 582 -1293. Response: Please refer to the response provided to Comment #2 in the March 12, 2004 letter from Brigid Gombold. Comment #6: As a reminder, please address all initial future correspondence for development activity such as plats and site plans to: F: UT' PTTZ �' V5 56- 031031804CRi77emo- d7-aft.doc March 25, 2004 Page 5 of 12 Development Review Coordinator Mn/DOT — Metro Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B -2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2) copies of other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three (3) copies of a plat and/or two (2) copies of other review documents will make a submittal incomplete and delay Mn/DOT's review and response to development proposals. We appreciate your anticipated cooperation in providing the necessary number of copies, as this will prevent us from having to delay and/or return incomplete submittals. If you have questions regarding this review please feel free to contact me at (651) 582 -1462. Response: The City acknowledges Mn/DOT's procedural requirements for plan review. Comments from Dakota County Comment #1: Section 9, Land Use The EAW notes that a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update (dated July 2003) itemized a number of environmental concerns, including a query of Dakota County's waste sites databases. However, the EAW has not addressed all of the known waste sites (see Figure 1. attached): a. 5004 - Brockway Glass Wastewater Disposals West — Addressed in the EAW. The EAW states that one of the ponds had detectable levels of DRO; b. 5358 — Brockway Glass Disposals — Addressed in the EAW. This includes disposals inside the facilities (EAW mentions drains, etc., but not sumps, pits, dry wells, holding tanks and connections to on -site sewage systems), as well as disposals outside near the east side and southeast corner of the building, which are not mentioned; c. 5363 — Brockway Glass Wastewater Disposals North — not addressed in the EAW; d. 5366 — Brockway Glass Dump — the VIC site mentioned in the EAW; e. 5387 — Brockway Glass WWTP (Wastewater Treatment Plant) Disposals — not addressed in the EAW. This includes the closed depression east of the golf course near the railroad tracks, which received runoff from the WWTP and AST sites, as well as WWTP discharge; f. 5388 — Brockway Glass & Golf Course Dump — partially mentioned in the EAW in regard to yard waste disposals, but does not include the longer disposal history; g. 5424 — Brockway Glass LUST — mentioned in the EAW as closed but noted that residual contamination is present. The pollutant location map in Appendix A does not show all of the waste sites listed above and represented in Figure 1. We suggest that the EAW recommend that any waste sites not previously investigated be investigated (whether under the auspices of State and Local government, the MPCA VIC Program, or other). As with any investigation of waste sites, it is expected that the property owner /developer or other responsible party will keep both the MPCA and the Dakota County Environmental Management Department fully informed of all fieldwork conducted, as well as all data generated. Dakota County must approve a comprehensive work plan before any fieldwork is initiated. F: I iFPf17A" 155 6- 03`031804CRrlacirro- dr•gft.doc March 25, 2004 Page 6 of 12 Also, the EAW recommends that a Response Action Plan be prepared and approved by the MPCA before redevelopment activities are initiated in this site. However, not all of the above noted sites have been investigated or investigated in sufficient detail to permit the appropriate drafting of such a document for MPCA and County review and approval_ All of the waste sites should be investigated, assessed, remediated, and closed with approvals by the MPCA and the County. The specific proposed end uses (i.e., the proposed development) must be evaluated with respect to each contaminant's concentration, media concentration, and health -based value (or other standard). Depending upon the results of the detailed investigations, their evaluation and assessment, and appropriate protocols, it may be necessary for the project proposer to significantly alter the development plans. For example, the proposed construction of single - family homes in some areas may be ill advised because of the potential for future exposures. The same is true for the impermeable surfaces, drainage diversions, and stormwater retention basins. Regarding stormwater retention ponds, a number of existing ponds on the site may contain contaminants (e.g., Sites 5004 (DRO) and 5366 (metals, etc.). Refer also to Section 17 for additional comments. Response: A written request for information was sent and several telephone conversations were held with the Dakota County Environmental Management Department during the drafting process of the EAW. The City did not receive a written response to the data request; however, all information gathered through the telephone conversations was included in the EAW. Additionally, the City held a meeting on January 14, 2004 with the Developer/Landowner, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), Dakota County Department of Environmental Management, and Braun Intertec to discuss known and potential sources of pollutants on the Brockway site. The City appreciates the County providing the additional information as part of the comments on the EAW. The City will require an investigation of all known and potential sources of pollutants and their remediation as part of the plan approval for the Brockway Residential site. The Developer/Landowner has agreed to work with the County and MPCA and to enroll in the VIC program with MPCA to address remediation and closure of identified sources of pollutants within the Brockway site. The ponds on the west and north sides of the site, and soil samples near the ponds were tested for DROs, VOCs, and BETX in 1999 as indicated in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update. Only the northern most pond of the western ponds (indicated on Figure 1 of the EAW) was found to have high levels of DROs. No additional investigation of the pond was recommended at the time of detection since it was determined that the activities that caused the release were no longer occurring, and the release appeared to be limited to the shallow sediments of the pond. Discussions with MPCA regarding the DROs detected in the north pond indicated that naturally occurring bioremediation activity has most likely broken down DROs to non toxic levels; however, the City will require any testing mandated by the County and/or MPCA in order to meet County and MPCA closure requirements. The City will require remediation of any contaminated sites to appropriate levels that would be compatible with the proposed residential land use to ensure compliance with Dakota County ordinances. F. PTI, 1' I,A", 1S?6- 031031804C'Rnnen7o- draft.doc March 25, 2004 Page 7 of 12 Comment #2: Section 17, Water Quality — Surface Water Runoff. The EAW states that the stormwater retention pond capacity will be increased by roughly four acres of new ponding area, in addition to the one -acre on existing ponding. As noted above, some of the wastes and their contaminants may have been carried to surface water impoundments, where some of it evaporated and some infiltrated to groundwater (with the residues settling out in the bottom sediments). With the increase in ponding capacity, there are two problems with the EAW regarding this issue. 1. An assumption that there are no existing contaminants in the pond water or sediment and sludge, and that those ponds will not release any contaminants to surface waters or ground waters. In fact, there are known to have been releases from the plant, which may have reached the existing ponds. 2. An assumption that future loadings of storm water to the ponds will be sufficiently pretreated (to NURP or NPDES guidelines) before discharge. The EAW should consider the possibility that future loadings of storm water may help re- dissolve some contaminants and facilitate the contamination of surface water and ground water. If this proves to be true, the EAW should provide recommended methods for prevention. Response: As indicated in the response to Comment 1 to the County, the City will require compliance with the County's requirements to investigate and address the known and potential pollutant sites within the Brockway development. Additionally, stormwater is required to be pretreated to NURP guidelines prior to discharge to the infiltration area. This will reduce the potential for stormwater contamination of the groundwater. If the investigation into the ponds reveals that there are unacceptable levels of contaminants present, appropriate remedial action will be taken to remove contaminated sediments from the stormwater ponds to reduce or eliminate the potential for groundwater contamination. Comment #3 Section 21, Traj k The proposed development will generate 3,657 new trips to the roadway system. The project site fronts the east side of TH 3 from CR 38 to Connemara Trail. Proposed access is along both of these East -West roadways. The EAW adequately addresses impacts to TH 3 and improvements; however, the issues related to access, volumes, and operation of CR 38 are not resolved. Volume Data The trip generation numbers for the proposed development and other area development plans are provided. However, the number for the daily traffic (AADT) on CR 38 as a result of the proposed development is not provided. This number is key to understanding the impacts to this roadway. CR 38 has a current volume of 800 vehicles (based on Dakota County 2003 traffic count) with a projection of 7,300 by 2025. The traffic impact study for this development and other proposed developments in this vicinity indicates a total of nearly 8,000 trips (3,657 new trips from this proposal and 4,294 trips from adjacent development). Response: The Traffic Impact Study found in the appendix of the EAW indicates that a traffic count was conducted by the City on June 9 and 10, 2003. This count is shown in F.• 1 PTT I. N"�.1 ?? 6- Q3'iO31804CRnrenzo -drn ft. doc March 25, 2004 Page 8 of 12 Figure 3 in that traffic study. The existing count was 360 vehicles per day. In addition, the distribution of the site generated traffic was included as Figure 5 in that report. Based on that data, the 2020 average daily traffic on CR 38 would be approximately 2,000 vehicles per day. Comment # 4: CR 38 Improvement Needs CR 38 is currently a two -lane gravel road. The traffic impact study states "Improve CR 38 from the site access to TH 3 to a 44 -foot wide three -lane roadway providing left -turn lanes at the site access and TH 3" (pg. 16). The majority of traffic to /from this site is from the west. Access to the site from the west should have a right turn lane and a way to accommodate traffic turning into the site from the east without impeding through traffic flow. Although the daily volume increase in traffic to this road is not described, the development proposed in this area is significant and the two -lane gravel road will not accommodate the needs. A three -lane section would be useful to accommodate closely spaced access throughout the highway. Response: The City acknowledges that improvements to CR 38 will be required as outlined in the Traffic Study found in the appendix of the EAW. The recommendations for improvements to CR 38 include widening the roadway at the intersection of TH 3 and providing a continuous center -left turn lane through this section and right -turn lane eastbound into the development site. Comment # 5: Operation and Geometric Plans for the TH 31CR 38 Intersection The overall access plan and volumes need to be considered when selecting the roadway cross - section. The timing and responsible parties for the costs of these needs are not fully addressed in the report. To address increased volume, the study proposes the addition of left -turn lanes on TH 3 and the widening of CR 38 to accommodate a left turn lane and a through/right lane. The study evaluates this configuration and the level of service issues in future years with the existing through/stop operation. The study proposes continued monitoring of the intersection, to determine when conditions justify the need for traffic signals. The 2008 Full Development traffic during the PM peak shows very little conflicting volume on the side roads or turning from the mainline road. The only heavy movement is westbound traffic from the development that turns right to travel north on TH 3. Signals are not justified based on level of service issues (the analysis shows delay for movements with 3 to 17 vehicles during the peak hour). The best configuration for CR 38 at TH 3 would be two lanes that allow right - turning vehicles the opportunity to bypass traffic waiting to turn left or go across the intersection (with no specific lane assignments required). Response: The City has applied for and received 2005 Cooperative Funding for improvements to the TH 3 at CR 38 intersection. These anticipated improvements will include the addition of a left turn lane, through lane, and right -turn lane on TH 3. In addition, the City anticipates to initiate a Feasibility Study to evaluate and determine funding responsibilities for CR 38 between TH 3 and the railroad tracks. Comment #6: Proposed Access The traffic study shows access for the development is proposed to be located on CR 38 east of TH F.-TT IT IN "1556 -03 iO31804CRmemo- draft.doe March 25, 2004 Page 9 of 12 3. The location of this access and the distance from TH 3 and other existing or proposed access points are not detailed. Access location and road improvement needs must be evaluated to ensure that ingress /egress functions in a safe and efficient manner. Sight distance issues or problems resulting from a location that would be too close to adjacent intersections including TH 3 are all factors that need to be considered. Response: The proposed access locations were identified as part of the traffic study included in the appendix of the EAW. Section 6 of the Traffic Impact Study indicates approximately where the accesses would be and their configuration. In addition the impact on other intersections and access points was determined and discussed. The conclusion was that the proposed access locations as proposed would be satisfactory. Comments from Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District Comment #1: Item 16, Erosion and Sedimentation: 1. The site has somewhat rolling topography and potentially highly erodible soils. 2. The SWCD offers plan review and inspection assistance to ensure proper erosion and sedimentation control practices are designed, installed, and maintained. We encourage the City to partner with the SWCD to jointly protect receiving waters. 3. Phased grading is a critical Best Management Practice (BMP) on projects of this magnitude. The plan shows the project phases, but does not clarify the grading phases. Mass grading the site is strongly discouraged and will likely result in overwhelming erosion issues and significant risk to surface waters and wetlands. We suggest limiting the area that can be graded to 20-40 acres and requiring each phase to be stabilized before the next proceeds. 4. The buffer requirements in the City ordinance will provide good protection for wetlands on the site. 5. Include the new NPDES guidelines on the grading plan and construction specifications. Response: The City will require phased grading of this site and information from the developer's engineer indicates that phased grading of the site is currently being incorporated into the plan. The number of grading phases will be determined during the final plan review process and will depend on the time of year that construction commences. Special erosion control features will be incorporated into the plan in hilly areas and areas of highly erodible soils to prevent sediment laden runoff from entering waters of the state. The developer is required by law to submit the new NPDES construction permit application to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Additionally, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) meeting storm water discharge design requirements as outlined in MN Rule 100001 will be developed prior to commencing construction and will be kept on file as required by MN Rule 100001. The SWCD suggestions on limiting grade areas, to 20- 40 acres at a time and stabilizing the areas prior to commencing the next phase of construction will be taken into consideration during the final plan review. Comment #2: Item 17, Water Quality and Quantity — Surface Water Runoff The EAW states 4 acres of new ponding will be added to the site and will limit the peak storm water discharge rate to .05 cfs /acre for a 100 -year, 24 -hour storm event by using regional ponds and/or on- F: TTPTf'Lh'`. 1556- 031031804CRmemo- draft: doe March 25, 2004 Page 10 of 12 site ponding. Further, the site is required to provide 1/12 acre- foot/acre /day of infiltration for the entire site's acreage either on -site or in the regional system. Volume control practices are not as effective at the end of the pipe. Volume reduction should occur at the source if at all possible. Accordingly, regional facilities should not generally be used to reach infiltration goals. Further, the 1/12 acre- foot/acre /day standard equates to the infiltration rate of clayey (Hydrologic Soil Group D) soils. Because the site contains primarily HSG B soils, a standard that maintains comparable infiltration rates is necessary to mitigate the stormwater impacts of developments. This is especially important if the increase in total runoff volume with the increased impervious area is calculated. The addition of 26 acres of impervious will increase the annual runoff volumes from the site by 15,000,000- 20,000,000 gallons (assuming typical precipitation). The proposed rate and volume controls will not mitigate the impacts of this additional volume and associated pollutant loads. The EAW does not assess the actual runoff volumes and receiving water impacts of the increased runoff associated with the additional impervious areas. While it states the City's standards will be implemented, additional information is necessary to determine how they will be installed and if the project has the potential for significant environmental effects. The SWCD looks forward to working with the City and developer to identify and incorporate multiple innovative stormwater management practices into the design. The SWCD has cost -share assistance for eligible innovative stormwater management practices and will work diligently to identify and obtain additional grants if necessary. Response: The City is currently in the plan review process and will take the SCWD's suggestions into consideration during this process. The following preliminary drainage study of the Brockway site has been completed and indicates that the potential for significant environmental effects will be minimized using on -site, existing stormwater infrastructure adjacent to the site and existing and proposed regional ponding. The stormwater management plan for the site includes three on -site ponding areas and five infiltration areas. Additionally one off -site treatment pond and infiltration area is located immediately southeast of the development site on the south side of Connemara Trail. Rate control is provided on -site with the exception of approximately 19.5 acres of drainage from the southeast corner of the site. Rate control will be provided by the off -site pond located immediately south east of the site on the south side of Connemara Trail. The preliminary ponding areas are currently designed as follows: Pond and Infiltration Area Located on the West Central Boundary of Site Approximate Drainage area 14.0 acres Dead storage: 1.4 acre -feet .Live storage: 5.1 acre -feet Preliminary review of pond design indicates that City rate control requirements will be provided on -site for this drainage area. Pond and Infiltration Area Located in the Northwest Corner of Site Approximate Drainage area 3 8.0 acres F: I T PT TA" 15.56-03 1031 804CRmC777 o- draft. doe March 25, 2004 Page 11 of 12 Dead storage: 3.5 acre -feet Live storage: 12.6 acre -feet Preliminary review of pond design indicates that City rate control requirements will be provided on -site for this drainage area. Pond and Infiltration Area Located in the Southwest Corner of Site Approximate Drainage area 24.3 acres Dead storage: 1.8 acre -feet Live storage: 6.6 acre -feet Preliminary review of pond design indicates that City rate control requirements will be provided on -site and off -site for this drainage area. Pond and Infiltration Area Located Off Site on the South Side of Connemara Trail Approximate Drainage area (from Brockway site) 19.5 acres Dead storage: 1.7 acre -feet Live storage: 6.1 acre -feet Preliminary review of pond design indicates that City rate control requirements will be provided on -site and off -site for this drainage area. Based on the runoff volume and pond design information, the proposed ponds will provide adequate dead storage required to meet NURP guidelines. More detailed information on ponding and stormwater treatment will be available when final plans have been reviewed and approved by the City. Comment #3: Summary The EAW does not provide adequate information about the potential adverse effects the proposed development will have on downstream receiving waters. More specific information about stormwater runoff volumes and impacts to receiving waters are needed. We look forward to working closely with the City of Rosemount to minimize the short and long -term environmental impacts of this development. Response: Preliminary plan review indicates that stormwater runoff volumes and impacts to receiving waters will be adequately addressed by the proposed stormwater facilities on and adjacent to the site. The downstream receiving water for this site is designated as a regional pond. This pond is currently being designed to provide treatment requirements for runoff and is anticipated to adequately address short and long term stormwater treatment requirements before discharging to the MCES Empire Outfall. Comments from Minnesota Department of Natural Resouces Comment #1: Item no. 14, Water — related Land Use Management The EAW incorrectly states that there are no shoreland zoning districts within the vicinity of the project. Immediately northeast of the project, across from Bonaire Path, is Kegan Lake. Kegan Lake has a shoreland zoning classification of Recreation Development and is listed in Rosemount's shoreland ordinance as such. Land within 1000 feet of Kegan Lake is subject to the provisions of the city's ordinance. F: � TIPffIATl1 556- 031031804CRnzemo- draft. doc March 25, 2004 Page 12 of 12 Response: The city appreciates the correction. As part of the review process, the lots located in the northeast corner of the Brockway Development site will be reviewed for compliance with the City's shoreland development ordinance. This concludes our responses to comments on behalf of the City. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at (763) 541 -4800. F I ITT WIA'11 336 -03' 031804CRnzenmo- draft. doe MAR -19 -2004 15:08 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.02iO3 03/19/2004 03:03 PM City of Rosemount 6514234424 2/3 t . MehvpoHftn Cmmdl BuiWing communities that work March 16, 2004' Rick Pearson City Planner 2875 145` Street W Rosemount, Minnesota 55068 RE: City of Rosemount — Brockway Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Metropolitan Council District 16 (Brian McDaniel, 952 -997 -7731) Reviews File No. 19146 -1 Dear Mr. Pearson: The Brockway Redevelopment project proposes 86 single family homes, three 60 -unit apartment buildings, 346 town home units, neighborhood commercial, and park. The proposed project is 118 acres and is bounded by State Highway 3 to the west, County Road 38 to the north, the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific Railroad to the east, and Connemara Trail to the south. The staff review finds the EAW is complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns and raises no major issues of consistency with Council policies. An Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary for regional purposes. Staff provides the following comments for your consideration: Item #10 Cover Types. This proposal will reduce the amount of "Wooded/forest" area and "brush/grasslands "; and will significantly increase the impervious surfaces from 15 acres to 41 acres. Various mitigation strategies could be explored to alleviate some of the impervious surface impacts. One strategy could include moving a portion of County Road 38 farther away from Keegan Lake to create the opportunity for some parkland on the shores of Keegan Lake. Item #25. Nearby Resources. The Dakota County South Urban Regional Trail is proposed to connect Lebanon Hills Regional Park and the Mississippi River. The EAW mentions a potential trail along the Williams pipeline easement and potential regional trail alternatives appear to pass along the west side of this project. The City is encouraged to work with Dakota County Parks and incorporate the regional trail in to the site design. Item 28 - Impact on Infrastructure and Public Services. The document states on page 9 and 16, the City has entered into an agreement with Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) to convey City storm water runoff to the Mississippi River. Construction of this new effluent outfall for the MCES Empire wastewater treatment facility is scheduled to begin in 2005. While MCES and the City have not reached a final agreement, the draft agreement currently proposes that no connection will be allowed upstream of a point along County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 42 near Akron Avenue. Appendix D: Traffic Impact Study. Page three of the traffic impact study describes Trunk Highway 3 as a `B" minor arterial. Trunk Highway is classified as an "A" minor arterial (expander) on the Council's functional classification system. wu te.metrocnuncit.org Metro Info Line 602 -1888 230 —P ast fifth Street - St_ Paul, Minnesota 55101 -1626 • {651) 602 -1000 - Fax 602.1550 - TTY 291 -0904 - - An Equal - Opportunity Employer MAR -19 -2004 15 :08 WSB & ASSOCIATES 03/19/2004 03:03 PM 7635411700 P.03/03 City of Rosemount 6514234424 3/3 Mr. Pearson Mar 16, 2004 Page 2 This will conclude the Council's review of the EAW. The Council will take no formal action on the EAW. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Christy Mackaman, principal reviewer, at 651- 602 -1750. Sincerely, P y11i son, Manager Planning and Technical Assistance cc: Brian McDaniel, Metropolitan Council District 16 Cheryl Olson, Referrals Coordinator V: tt4tietvs T13TIJI7i11c5 ' Rosernol�nP:i�oticrs Ro amount 2fX)7 EAW Brockway Kecirreloprlx.nt 19146 -1 MAR -16 -2004 1144 WS13 & ASSOCIATES 03/16/2004 11:35 AM Minnesota Department of Tran sportation Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road 132 Roseville, MN 55113 March 12, 2004 Rick Pearson City Planner— Rosemount City Hall, 2875 145` St. W. Rosemount, MN 55068 7635411700 P.01i02 City of Rosemount 6514234424 1/2 Post -its Fax Note 7671 Da" • 16.0 pag -"' 'Z' TO 1m4 owe From CoJDept Co. 1+, W. OF Phone # '��� 5411 700 Phone # ,61 [P � i Fax # Fax # SUBJECT: Rosemount Proposed Comp Plan Amendment Mn/DOT Review #CPA04 -002 SE Quad of TH 3 and CR 38 Rosemount, Dakota Co. Control Section 1921 Dear Mr. Pearson. Thank you for the opportunity to review the Camp Plan Amendment for the above referenced area in Rosemount. As you are aware, the city was successful with Mn/DOT's 2005 Cooperative Agreement program to fund several improvements to TH 3 in this area. The proposed signals and turn lanes will improve the access to and from TH 3 for the proposed development. Currently the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for this development is being reviewed by our agency. Please see the following comments from our fumctional units within our agency. ■ Additional drainage information will need to be reviewed when detailed design plans have been developed. The proposed development will need to maintain existing drainage rates (i.e., the rate at which storm water is discharged from the site must not increase). The City or project developer will need to submit before/after hydraulic computations for both 10 and 100 year rainfall events verifying that all existing drainage patterns and systems affecting Mn/DOT right of way will be perpetuated. Please direct questions concerning these issues to Scott Carlstom at (651) 634 -2416 of Mn/DOT'S Water Resources section. Mn/DOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible for taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCAs Noise Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of the land use would result in violations of established noise standards. MAR -16 -2004 11:45 WSB & ASSOCIATES 03/16/2004 11:40 AM 7635411700 P.02t02 City of Rosemount 6514234424 2/2 Mn/DOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The project proposer should assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise. If you have any questions regarding Mn/DOT's noise policy please contact Peter Wasko in our Design section at (651) 582 -1293. Thank you again for this review opportunity. If you have any questions concerning this review please feel free to contact me at (651) 582 -1378. Sincerely, Brigid Gombold Senior Transportation Planner Copy. Pete Sorenson / Dakota County Engineer Lynn Moratzka / Dakota County Planning Director TOTAL P.02 0 Minnesota D epartme nt of Tra ,- ,� Metropolitan Division QF Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 March 23, 2004 Mr. Rick Pearson Community Development Director City of Rosemount City Hall 2875 —145 Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 - 4997 &A 48n 00� Dear Mr. Pearson: SUBJECT: Brockway Glass, Mn/DOT Review # PO4 -018 Northeast quadrant of TH 3 and Connemara Trail Rosemount, Dakota County Control Section 1921 The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the above referenced plat in compliance with Minnesota Statute 505.03, Subdivision 2. Plats. Before any further development, please address the following comments: ■ Mn/DOT believes that the increase in traffic volumes associated with this proposed development (487 multi - family homes; 127 single family homes) will mean that Trunk Highway (TH) 3 will need to be expanded from two lanes to four lanes. Due to funding contraints, TH 3 is designated as a "preservation" corridor. Expenditures on preservation corridors are limited to repair and replacement of pavement, bridges and drainage structures. As of this date, no funding has been identified for expansion of TH 3. For questions on these points, please call Nancy Daubenberger, Area Engineer for Dakota and Scott Counties, Mn/DOT Metro District, at (651) 582 -1379. ■ The City of Rosemount has received funding for 2005 for a cooperative agreement project to improve TH 3 intersections. If the City constructs the improvements on TH 3 as envisioned in the cooperative agreement project, the traffic study included within the EAW indicates that, after the Brockway Residential Development is constructed, the TH 3 intersections will function at acceptable levels of service, but traffic volumes resulting from this development suggest the long -term need to expand TH 3 to a four -lane road in this vicinity. For questions on these points, please call Lars Impola, Mn/DOT Metro District Traffic Studies Engineer, at (651) 634 -2379. ■ Please submit drainage and grading plans, and the hydraulic/hydrologic modeling for this proposed development. The EAW asserts that there will be stringent control of run -off from this proposed development, and proposes that the maximum peak discharge for post- development conditions is .05 cubic feet per second/acre for a 100 -year storm. Assuming that those calculations are accurate, it is unlikely that adjacent facilities, such as TH 3, will be flooded as the result of the development. Please submit the drainage and grading plans, and hydraulic/hydrologic modeling, to: An equal opportunity employer Mr. Rick Pearson Page 2 March 23, 2004 Scott Carlstrom Mn/DOT Metro District Water Resources Engineering Waters Edge Building 1500 West County Road B -2 Roseville, MN 55113. The proposed turn lanes and signalized intersection with County Road 38, the new signal at Connemara Trail, and limiting the access to the Brockway development site to County Road 38 and Connemara Trail is acceptable under Mn/DOT design standards. For questions on this point, please call Dick Scarrow, Mn/DOT Metro District Design Coordinator, at (651) 582 -1333. Mn/DOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible for taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of the land use would result in violations of established noise standards. Mn/DOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The project proposer should assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise. If you have any questions regarding Mn/DOT's noise policy please contact Peter Wasko in our Design section at (651) 582- 1293. As a reminder, please address all initial future correspondence for development activity such as plats and site plans to: Development Review Coordinator Mn/DOT - Metro Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B -2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2) copies of other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three (3) copies of a plat and/or two (2) copies of other review documents will make a submittal incomplete and delay Mn/DOT's review and response to development proposals. We appreciate your anticipated cooperation in providing the necessary number of copies, as this will prevent us from having to delay and/or return incomplete submittals. Mr. Rick Pearson Page 3 March 23, 2004 If you have any questions regarding this review please feel free to contact me at (65 1) 582 -1462. Sincerely, A � A C Mary McNeff Transportation Planner Copy: Pete Sorenson, Dakota County Engineer Fred Johnson, Dakota County Surveyor L.,. --Anna Brenes, WSB and Associates, Minneapolis, MN Ann Braden / Metropolitan Council MAR -16 -2004 10:27 MAR. 16. 2004 11:14AM Office of Planning Lynn G.Morat"AICP Director Dakota County Western Service Cancer 14955 Galaxle Avenue Apple Valley. MN 55124 952891.7030 Fax 952.891.7031 VV%.,W a.dakota.mn.us WSB & ASSOCIATES DAKOTA COUNTY PHYS DEV ADMIN C O a .. ; , 74; March 15, 2004 Rick Pearson City Planner City of Rosemount 2875 145' Street W. Rosemount, MN 55068 RE: Brockway Residential Development EAW Dear Mr. Pearson 7635411700 P.02/07 NO.9022 P. 2 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed Brockway Residential Development. The Dakota County Office of Planning has coordinated the County's review by the Environmental Management Department, Transportation Department and Office of Planning. Our comments are noted in the attachment to this letter. If you have any questions about the County's review, please call me at (952) 891 -7033. We look forward to continuing to work with you as this project progresses. Since L Moratzka, -Director ice of Planning End C, Willis G. Branning, Dakota County Commissioner — District 7 Brandt Richardson, County Administrator Greg Kbnat, Director, Physical Development Division Phyllis Hanson, Metropolitan Council 4T Rinud an -r.* pipe MAR -16 -2004 10:27 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.03/07 MAR.16.2004 11:14AM DAKOTA COUNTY PHYS DEV ADMIN NO.9022 P. 3 Dakota County Comments: Brockway Residential Development EAW Section 9. Land Use. The EAW notes that a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update (dated July 2003) itemized a number of environmental concerns, including a query of Dakota County's waste sites databases. However, the EAW has not addressed all of the known waste sites (see Figure 1. attached): a. 5004 - Brockway Glass Wastewater Disposals West — Addressed in the EAW. The EAW states that one of the ponds had detectable levels of DRO; b. 5358 — Brockway Glass Disposals — Addressed in the EAW. This includes disposals inside the facilities (EAW mentions drains, etc., but not sumps, pits, dry wells, holding tanks and connections to on -site sewage systems), as well as disposals outside near the east side and southeast comer of the building, which are not mentioned; c. ` 5363 — Brockway Glass Wastewater Disposals North — not addressed in the EAW; d. 5366 — Brockway Glass Dump — the VIC site mentioned in the EAW; e. 5387 — Brockway Glass WWTP (Wastewater Treatment Plent).Disposals — not addressed in the EAW. This includes the closed depression east of the golf course near the railroad tracks, which received runoff from the WWTP and AST sites, as well as WWTP discharge; f. 5388 — Brockway Glass & Golf Course Dump — partially mentioned in the EAW in regard to yard waste disposals, but does not include the longer disposal history; g. 5424 — Brockway Glass LUST - mentioned in the EAW as closed but noted that residual contamination is present. The pollutant location map in Appendix A does not show all of the waste sites listed above and represented in Figure 1. We suggest that the EAW recommend that any waste sites not previously investigated be investigated (whether under the auspices of State and Local govemment, the MPCA VIC Program, or other). As with any investigation of waste sites, it is expected that the property owner /developer or other responsible party will keep both the MPCA and the Dakota County Environmental Management Department fully informed of all fieldwork conducted, as well as all data generated. Dakota County must approve a comprehensive work plan before any fieldwork is initiated. Also, the EAW recommends that a Response Action Plan be prepared and approved by the MPCA before redevelopment activities are initiated in this site. However, not all of the above noted sites have been investigated or investigated in sufficient detail to permit the appropriate drafting of such a document for MPCA and County review and approval. All of the waste sites should be investigated, assessed, remediated, and closed with approvals by the MPCA and the County. The specific proposed end uses (i.e., the proposed development) must be evaluated with respect to each contaminant's concentration, media concentration, and health -based value (or other standard). Depending upon the results of the detailed investigations, their evaluation and assessment and appropriate protocols, it may be necessary for the project proposer to significantly alter the development plans. For example, the proposed construction of single - family homes in some areas may be ill advised because of the potential for future exposures. The same is true for the impermeable surfaces, drainage diversions, and stormwater retention basins. Regarding stormwater retention ponds, a number of existing ponds on the site may contain contaminants (e.g., Sites 5004 (DRO) and 5366 (metals, etc.). Refer also to Section 17 for additional comments. MAR -16 -2004 10:27 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.04/07 MAR,16.2004 11:14AM DAKOTA COUNTY PHYS DEV ADMIN N0,9022 P. 4 Section 17. Water Quality — Surface Water Runoff. The EAW states that the stormwater retention pond capacity will be increased by roughly four acres of new ponding area, in addition to the one -acre on existing ponding. As noted above, some of the wastes and their contaminants may have been carried to surface water impoundments, where some of it evaporated and same infiltrated to groundwater (with the residues settling out in the bottom sediments). With the increase in ponding capacity, there are two problems with the EAW regarding this issue. 1. An assumption that there are no existing contaminants in the pond water or sediment and sludge, and that those ponds will not release any contaminants to surface. waters or ground waters. In fact, there are known to have been releases from the plant, which may have reached the existing ponds. 2. An assumption that future loadings of storm water to the ponds will be sufficiently pretreated (to NURP or NPDESD guidelines) before discharge. The EAW should consider the possibility that future loadings of storm water may help redissolve some contaminants and facilitate the contamination of surface water and ground water. If this proves to be true, the EAW should provide recommended methods for prevention. Section 21. Traffic The proposed development will generate 3,1357 new trips to the roadway system. The project site fronts the east side of TH 3 from CR 38 to Connemara Trait. Proposed access is along both of these East -West roadways. The EAW adequately addresses impacts to TH 3 and improvements; however, the issues related to access, volumes, and operation of GR 38 are not resolved. Volume_ Data The trip generation numbers for the proposed development and other area development plans are provided. However, the number for the daily traffic (AAOT) on OR 38 as a result of the proposed development is not provided. This number is key to understanding the impacts to this roadway. CR 38 has a current volume of 800 vehicles (based on Dakota County 2003 traffic count) with a projection of 7,300 by 2025. The traffic impact study for this development and other proposed developments in this vicinity indicates a total of nearly 8,000 trips (3,657 new trips from this proposal and 4,294 trips from adjacent development). OR 38 Improvement Needs OR 38 is currently a two -lane gravel road. The traffic impact study states "Improve CR 38 from the site access to TH 3 to a 44 -foot wide three4ane roadway providing left -tum lanes at the site access and TH 3" (pg.15). The majority of traffic to /from this site is from the west. Access to the site from the west should have a right turn lane and a way to accommodate traffic turning into the site from the east without impeding through traffic flow. Although the daily volume increase in traffic to this road is not described, the development proposed in this area is significant and the two -lane gravel road will not accommodate the needs. A three -lane section would be useful to accommodate closely spaced access throughout the highway. • Operation and Geometric Plans for the TH 3/CR 38 Intersection The overall access plan and volumes need to be considered when selecting the roadway cross- section. The timing and responsible parties for the costs of these needs are not fully addressed in the report. To address increased volume, the study proposes the addition of left -hum lanes on TH 3 and the widening of CR 38 to accommodate a left turn lane and a MAR -16 -2004 10:27 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.05/07 MAR.16.2004 11:15AM DAKOTA COUNTY PHYS DEV ADMIN NO. 9022 P. 5 through /right lone. The study evaluates this configuration and the level of service issues in future years with the existing through/stop operation. The study proposes continued monitoring of the intersection, to determine when conditions justify the need for traffic signals. The 2008 Full Development traffic during the PM peak shows very little conflicting volume on the side roads or turning from the mainline road. The only heavy movement is westbound traffic from the development that turns right to travel north on TH 3. Signals are not justified based on level of service issues (the analysis shows delay for movements with 3 to 17 vehicles during the peak hour). The best configuration for CR 38 at TH 3 would be two lanes that allow right - turning vehicles the opportunity to bypass traffic waiting to turn left or go across the intersection (with no specific lane assignments required). • Proposed Access The traffic study shows access for the development is proposed to be located on CR 38 east of TH 3. The location of this access and the distance from TH 3 and other existing or proposed access points are not detailed. Access location and road improvement needs must be evaluated to ensure that ingress /egress functions in a safe and efficient manner. Sight distance issues or problems resulting from a location that would be too close to adjacent intersections including TH 3 are all factors that need to be considered. '.- . 6_t ' ,-� 7H! 1 i SA N ei s Y �l £/S tztt£ZtLG9 lunowasoa }o Rlio Wd 00:£0 t001 /Ll /£0 20/20'd 00LTTbS29L S31dISDSSd IS HSM 90:ST b00Z -LT -NNW DAKOTA COUNTY SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Dakota County Extension and Conservation Center 4100 220 Street West, Suite 102 Farmington, MN 55024 Phone: (651) 480 -7777 FAX: (651) 480 -7775 www.dakotacountyswcd.org March 1, 2004 Mr. Rick Pearson, City Planner Ref.: 04 -ROS -012 City of Rosemount 2875 145' St. W. Rosemount, MN 55068 Dear Rick, This letter is in response to the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) completed for the above- referenced project. The proposed development entails 86 single - family homes, three 60 -unit apartment buildings, 346 town home units, 15,000 square feet of commercial area, and associated parking/roads on approximately 106 acres. The project site is located on land within the Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization. On behalf of the Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization and the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), the following comments are submitted for your review and consideration: Item 16: Erosion and Sedimentation 1. The site has somewhat rolling topography and potentially highly erodible soils. 2. The SWCD offers plan review and inspection assistance to ensure proper erosion and sedimentation control practices are designed, installed, and maintained. We encourage the City to partner with the SWCD to jointly protect receiving waters. 3. Phased grading is a critical Best Management Practice (BMP) on projects of this magnitude. The plan shows the project phases, but does not clarify the grading phases. Mass grading the site is strongly discouraged and will likely result in overwhelming erosion issues and significant risk to surface waters and wetlands. We suggest limiting the area that can be graded to 20 -40 acres and requiring each phase to be stabilized before the next proceeds. 4. The buffer requirements in the City ordinance will provide good protection for wetlands on the site. 5. Include the new NPDES guidelines on the grading plan and construction specifications. Item 17: Water Quality and Quantity — Surface Water Runoff The EAW states 4 acres of new ponding will be added to the site and will limit the peak storm water discharge rate to .05 cfs /acre for a 100 -year, 24 -hour storm event by using regional ponds and/or on -site ponding. Further, the site is required to provide 1/12 acre - foot/acre /day of infiltration for the entire site's acreage either on -site or in the regional system. Volume control practices are not as effective at the end of the pipe. Volume reduction should occur at the source if at all possible. Accordingly, regional facilities should not generally be used to reach infiltration goals. Brockway Development 2 04 -ROS -012 Further, the 1/12 acre- foot/acre /day standard equates to the infiltration rate of clayey (Hydrologic Soil Group D) soils. Because the site contains primarily HSG B soils, a standard that maintains comparable infiltration rates is necessary to mitigate the stormwater impacts of developments. This is especially important if the increase in total runoff volume with the increased impervious area is calculated. The addition of 26 acres of impervious will increase the annual runoff volumes from the site by 15,000,000- 20,000,000 gallons (assuming typical precipitation). The proposed rate and volume controls will not mitigate the impacts of this additional volume and associated pollutant loads. The EAW does not assess the actual runoff volumes and receiving water impacts of the increased runoff associated with the additional impervious areas. While it states the City's standards will be implemented, additional information is necessary to determine how they will be installed and if the project has the potential for significant environmental effects. The SWCD looks forward to working with the City and developer to identify and incorporate multiple innovative stormwater management practices into the design. The SWCD has cost -share assistance for eligible innovative stormwater management practices and will work diligently to identify and obtain additional grants if necessary. Summary The EAW does not provide adequate information about the potential adverse effects the proposed development will have on downstream receiving waters. More specific information about stormwater runoff volumes and impacts to receiving waters are needed. We look forward to working closely with the City of Rosemount to minimize the short and long -term environmental impacts of this development. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions you can reach me at (651) 480- 7777. Sincerely, Jay Riggs, CPESC Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District cc: Dave Hempel, CPDC, 3030 Centre Pointe Drive, Suite 800, Roseville, MN 55113 Vermillion River Joint Powers Organization, 14955 Galaxie Avenue, Apple Valley, MN 55124 MAR -17 -2004 15:06 WSB & ASSOCIATES 03/17/2004 03:00 PM 7635411700 P.02/03 City of Rosemount 6514234424 2/3 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 1200 Wamer Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55106 651.772.7900 Rick Pearson City of Rosemount City Hall, 2875 145 ie St. West Rosemount, MN 55068-1997 RE: Brockway Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Dear Mr. Pearson: March 17, 2004 The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the EAW for the proposed Brockway Residential Development in the City of Rosemount We offer the following comment for your consideration. Water - related Land Use Management Districts {Item No. 141 The EAW incorrectly states that there are no shoreland zoning districts within the vicinity of the project. Immediately northeast of the project, across from Bonaire Path, is Kegan Lake. Kegan Lake has a shoreland zoning classification of Recreation Development and is listed in Rosemount's shoreland ordinance as such. Land within 1000 feet of Kegan Lake is subject to the provisions of the city's shoreland ordinance. Thank you for the opportunity to review this project and the EAW. We look forward to receiving your record of decision and responses to comments at the conclusion of environmental review. Minnesota Rules part 4410.1700, subparts 4 and 5, require you to send us your Record of Decision within five days of deciding on this action. If you have any questions about these comments, please call Wayne Barstad, the Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist, at 651- 772 -7940. Sincerely, for Kathleen A. Wallace Regional Director C: Steve Colvin Wayne Barstad Sarah Hoffmann Diana Regenscheid Pat Lynch Dave Zappetillo Diane Anderson Jon Larsen, EQB Nick Rowse, USFWS #20040372 RM04Brockway.doc An Equal Opportunity Employer Nk-'110 Values Diversity DNR Information: 651- 296 -6157 1- 888 -646 -5357 TTY: 651- 296 -5484 1 -800 -657 -3929 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT In the matter of the Decision on the Need for an Environmental Impact FINDINGS OF FACT Statement (EIS) for AND CONCLUSIONS Brockway Residential Development in Rosemount, MN Contractor Property Developers Company (CPDC) is proposing a mixed use residential development consisting of 612 total units. Housing types will consist of single and multi - family residential. Several outlots are proposed on the project site. This development includes construction of 86 single- family homes, three 60 -unit apartment buildings of which l% will be senior housing, and 346 town home units, as well as a 15,000 SF of a Neighborhood Commercial area. The 106 acre area is located south of County Road 38, and east of State Highway 3 (South Robert Trail). One outlot will consist of up to 15.0 acres of dedicated city park, a storm water pond, a ball field, and a trail system. Pursuant to Minnesota R. 4410.4300, subp. 19D, the City of Rosemount has prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for this proposed project. As to the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the project and based on the record in this matter, including the EAW and comments received, the City of Rosemount makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Project The proposed project involves grading the 106 -acre site to construct streets, utilities, and residential units. It is anticipated that 1.8 acres of wooded area will be removed and 26 acres of impervious area will be added as part of this project. Lawn and landscaped area will comprise 36 acres of the site after construction. Four additional acres of storm water ponding areas and a 15 acre public park are also proposed as part of the project. B. Project Site The proposed project is located north of Connemara Trail, south of County Road 38, west of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul Railroad, and east of TH 3. The site currently contains 6 acres of brush/grassland, 77.06 acres of golf turf, 7 acres of wooded area, 0.94 acres of wetland, and 15 acres of an existing warehouse and associated parking lot. F. t11 PId'1A ":1556- 03103-604FOF.doc II. PROJECT HISTORY A. The project was subject to the mandatory preparation of an EAW under Minnesota R. 4410.4300 subp. 19D. B. An EAW was prepared for the proposed project and distributed to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parties on February 9, 2004. C. A public notice containing information about the availability of the EAW for public review was published in the Rosemount Town Pages on February 13, 2004. D. The EAW was noticed in the February 16, 2004 EQB Monitor. The public comment period ended March 17, 2004. Comments were received from the Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Dakota County, and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Copies of these letters are hereby incorporated by reference. Responses to the comments are also incorporated by reference. III. CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS. Minnesota R. 4410.1700, subp. 1 states "an EIS shall be ordered for projects that have the potential for significant environmental affects." In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental affects, the City of Rosemount must consider the four factors set out in Minnesota R. 4410.1700, subp. 7. With respect to each of these factors, the City finds as follows: A. TYPE, EXTENT, AND REVERSIBILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The first factor that the City must consider is "type, extent and reversibility of environmental effects ", Minnesota R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.A. The City's findings with respect to each of these issues are set forth below. 1. The type of environmental impacts and mitigation efforts anticipated as part of this project include: a. Land Use: The land use will be converted from industrial and open space /park to residential. To address this concern the development plans contain park and open space to mitigate for the conversion of land use. b. Wastewater and Water Consumption: This development is anticipated to use and generate approximately 167,688 GPD of water and wastewater. The MCES Wastewater Treatment F:111P Tf I.A ", 1550)- 03103360 -IFOF doc Facility has adequate capacity to handle the sewage volumes from this site. The increase in water use will be mitigated by the expansion of the City's water supply, storage, and distribution systems. c. Storm Water: The project is anticipated to generate additional storm water runoff. This runoff will be treated within on -site and off -site ponding facilities and infiltration areas to NURP guidelines. The design of the on -site stormwater management system is required to be sized to accommodate the 100 -year, 24 -hour critical storm event. d. Traffic: Traffic volume on TH 3, Connemara Trail, and CR 38 will increase. As a result several improvements will be necessary to ensure the safety and operation on these roadways. These improvements are outlined in the 2003 Traffic Impact Study completed for this site and are included with the EAW. e. Dump Sites / Known and Potential Sources of Soil and Groundwater Pollutant Sites: Information from Dakota County and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency indicates that there are several known and potential sources of pollutants within the site. These areas will be investigated and remediated in conformance with federal and state regulations and with Dakota County Ordinance 110, Chapter 14. 2. The extent and reversibility of environmental impacts are consistent with those of residential development. B. CUMULATIVE POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF RELATED OR ANTICIPATED FUTURE PROJECTS The second factor that the City must consider is the "cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects", Minnesota R. 4410.1700 subp.7.B. The City's findings with respect to this factor are set forth below. 1. The Brockway property is currently zoned B -P2 and PI. The city will need to re -zone and re -guide the area to a combination of urban and high density residential uses to reflect the different housing types proposed in the plan as well as the commercial site. The regional land use conversion from parks, business park, and open space to developed residential space is anticipated to have a cumulative impact on the area. Attempts to mitigate this impact will include providing open space and park in the development, providing adequate storm water management facilities, and addressing traffic impacts. The F:1 HT I IA715 i 6 -03 iO32 604FOF doc t City's current ordinances, standards, and policies are anticipated to be adequate to address these issues. C. THE EXTENT TO WHICH ENVIRONMENTAL AFFECTS ARE SUBJECT TO MITIGATION BY ONGOING PUBLIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY 1. The following permits or approvals will be required for the project: State Type of Application MPCA Review / Approval of a Construction Contingency Plan/Response Action Plan MPCA NPDES /SDS Phase II Storm Water Construction Permit MPCA Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit Minnesota DNR Water Appropriation Minnesota Department of Health Water Main Extension Permit City/Local Met Council Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment Met Council Sanitary Sewer Extension Dakota County Review Construction Contingency Plan/Response Action Plan Dakota County Access Permit City of Rosemount/Dakota County Plattin City of Rosemount Building Permits City of Rosemount Site Plan Review City of Rosemount WCA Permit 1. The City finds that the potential environmental impacts of the project are subject to mitigation by ongoing regulatory authorities such that an EIS need not be prepared. D. 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, OR OF EISs PREVIOUSLY PREPARED ON SIMILAR PROJECTS. w The fourth factor that the City 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, F 'I HP HTV ,1556- 031032604FOF doc or of EISs previously prepared on similar projects," Minnesota R. 4700.1700, subp. 7.1). The City's findings with respect to this factor are set forth below: The proposed project is subject to the following plans prepared by the City: 1. City of Rosemount Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan (2003) 2. City of Rosemount Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan (1999) 3. City of Rosemount 2020 Comprehensive Plan The proposed project is subject to the investigation and remediation, if deemed necessary, of the following sites in conformance with the County and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: 1. Dakota County Environmental Management Department Dump Sites 5363, 5358, 5424, 5387, 5366, 5388, and 5004. 2. Any additional areas identified by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency as potential sources of soil and/or groundwater pollution. The City finds that the environmental effects of the project can be anticipated and controlled as a result of the environmental review, planning, and permitting processes. The preparation of Brockway Residential Development EAW and comments received on the EAW have generated information adequate to determine whether the proposed facility has the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW has identified areas where the potential for significant environmental effects exist, but appropriate measures have or will be incorporated into the project plan and/or permits to mitigate these effects. The project is anticipated to comply with all City of Rosemount standards and review agency standards. Based on the criteria established in Minnesota R. 4410.1700, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental impacts. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required. F:',�APYI'L� "rl?56 -OSIO: °(04FOFdoc RESOLUTION 2004 - RESOLUTION ISSUING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF NEED WHEREAS, the preparation of the Brockway Residential Development EAW and comments received on the EAW have generated information adequate to determine whether the proposed project has the potential for significant environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, the EAW has identified areas where the potential for significant environmental effects exist, but appropriate measures have or will be incorporated into the project plan and/or permits to reasonably mitigate these impacts; and WHEREAS, the Brockway Residential Development is expected to comply with all the City of Rosemount and review agency standards; and WHEREAS, based on the criteria established in Minnesota R. 4410.1700, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects; and WHEREAS, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental impacts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City of Rosemount has determined that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. Adopted by the Rosemount City Council this day of , 2004. Mayor ATTEST: City Administrator F. I NjPTd , IM]556- 03lResolution. rtf MAR -16 -2004 11:44 WSB & ASSOCIATES 03/15/2004 11:39 AM O Minnesota Departm o Transportation s V Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 March 12,2004' Rick Pearson City Planner— Rosemount City Hall, 2875 145" St. W. Rosemount, MN 55068 7635411700 P.01i02 City of Rosemount 6514234424 1/2 Post -its Fax Note 7671 Dae I # of To From N CoJDept Cc ct ©F Phone # 71A3 541 17oo Ffiona # &5 7 / 342 ZO�Z Fax #f Fax # SUBJECT: Rosemount Proposed Comp Plan Amendment Mn/DOT Review #CPA04 -002 SE Quad of TH 3 and CR 38 Rosemount, Dakota Co. Control Section 1921 Dear Mr. Pearson: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Comp Plan Amendment for the above referenced area in Rosemount. As you are aware, the city was successful with Mn/DOT's 2005 Cooperative Agreement program to fund several improvements to TH 3 in this area. The proposed signals and turn lanes will improve the access to and from TH 3 for the proposed development. Currently the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for this development is being reviewed by our agency. Please see the following comments from our functional units within our agency. ■ Additional drainage information will need to be reviewed when detailed design plans have been developed. The proposed development will need to maintain existing drainage rates (i.e., the rate at which storm water is discharged from the site must not increase). The City or project developer will need to .submit before /after hydraulic computations for both 10 and 100 year rainfall events verifying that all existing drainage patterns and systems affecting Mn/DOT right of way will be perpetuated. Please direct questions concerning these issues to Scott Carlstom at (651) 634 -2416 of Mn/DOT's Water Resources section. ■ Mn/DOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible for taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of the land use would result in violations of established noise standards. MAR -16 -2004 11:45 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.02i02 03/16/2004 11:40 AM City of Rosemount 6514234424 2/2 Mn/DOT policy regarding development adjacent to, existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The Project proposer should assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimiz the impact of any highway noise. If you have any questions regarding Mn/DOrs noise policy please contact Peter Wasko in our Design section at (651) 582 -1293. Thank you again for this review opportunity. If you have any questions concerning this review please feel free to contact me at (651) 582 -1378. Sincerely, Bri gid Gombold Senior Transportation Planner Copy. Pete Sorenson / Dakota County Engineer Lynn Moratzka / Dakota County Planning Director TOTAL P.02 �aru+ES ° t s� Minnesota Department of Tr ansportation , V Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road 132 Roseville, MN 55113 March 23, 2004 P Mr. Rick Pearson IN Community Development Director 9 City of Rosemount .1100 City Hall 2875 — 145 th Street West &,, Rosemount, MN 55068 - 4997 '/�� Dear Mr. Pearson: SUBJECT: Brockway Glass, Mn/DOT Review # PO4 -018 Northeast quadrant of TH 3 and Connemara Trail Rosemount, Dakota County Control Section 1921 The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the above referenced plat in compliance with Minnesota Statute 505.03, Subdivision 2. Plats. Before any further development, please address the following comments: ■ Mn/DOT believes that the increase in traffic volumes associated with this proposed development (487 multi - family homes; 127 single family homes) will mean that Trunk Highway (TH) 3 will need to be expanded from two lanes to four lanes. Due to funding contraints, TH 3 is designated as a "preservation" corridor. Expenditures on preservation corridors are limited to repair and replacement of pavement, bridges and drainage structures. As of this date, no funding has been identified for expansion of TH 3. For questions on these points, please call Nancy Daubenberger, Area Engineer for Dakota and Scott Counties, Mn/DOT Metro District, at (651) 582 -1379. ■ The City of Rosemount has received funding for 2005 for a cooperative agreement project to improve TH 3 intersections. If the City constructs the improvements on TH 3 as envisioned in the cooperative agreement project, the traffic study included within the EAW indicates that, after the Brockway Residential Development is constructed, the TH 3 intersections will function at acceptable levels of service, but traffic volumes resulting from this development suggest the long -term need to expand TH 3 to 'a four -lane road in this vicinity. For questions on these points, please call Lars Impola, Mn/DOT Metro District Traffic Studies Engineer, at (651) 634 -2379. ■ Please submit drainage and grading plans, and the hydraulic/hydrologic modeling for this proposed development. The EAW asserts that there will be stringent control of run -off from this proposed development, and proposes that the maximum peak discharge for post- development conditions is .05 cubic feet per second/acre for a 100 -year storm. Assuming that those calculations are accurate, it is unlikely that adjacent facilities, such as TH 3, will be flooded as the result of the development. Please submit the drainage and grading plans, and hydraulic/hydrologic modeling, to: An equal opportunity employer Mr. Rick Pearson Page 2 March 23, 2004 Scott Carlstrom Mn/DOT Metro District Water Resources Engineering Waters Edge Building 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113. ■ The proposed turn lanes and signalized intersection with County Road 38, the new signal at Connemara Trail, and limiting the access to the Brockway development site to County Road 38 and Connemara Trail is acceptable under Mn/DOT design standards. For questions on this point, please call Dick Scarrow, Mn/DOT Metro District Design Coordinator,' at (651) 582 -1333. ■ 1VIn/DOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible for taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of the land use would result in violations of- established noise standards. Mn/DOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The project proposer should assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise. If you have any questions regarding Mn/DOT's noise policy please contact Peter Wasko in our Design section at (651) 582- 1293. As a reminder, please address all initial future correspondence for development activity such as plats and site plans to: Development Review Coordinator Mn/DOT - Metro Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B -2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2) copies of other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three (3) copies of a plat and/or two (2) copies of other review documents will make a submittal incomplete and delay Mn/DOT's review and response to development proposals. We appreciate your anticipated cooperation in providing the necessary number of copies, as this will prevent us from having to delay and/or return incomplete submittals. Mr. Rick Pearson Page 3 March 23, 2004 If you have any questions regarding this review please feel free to contact me at (651) 582 -1462. Sincerely, C Mary McNeff Transportation Planner Copy: Pete Sorenson, Dakota County Engineer Fred Johnson, Dakota County Surveyor L,/'Anna Brenes, WSB and Associates, Minneapolis, MN Ann Braden / Metropolitan Council ,z Date: March 25, 2004 " Re: Responses to Comments x r Brockway Residential Development EAW Y v WSB Project No. 1556-03 The public comment period for the Brockway Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) ended March 17, 2004. Comments were received from the Metropolitan Council, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Dakota County, Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District, and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Outlined below, please find the comments from each agency followed by responses to these comments. The comment letters are also attached for your information. Comments from Metropolitan Council Comment #1: The Brockway Redevelopment project proposes 86 single family homes, three 60 -unit apartment buildings, 346 town home units, neighborhood commercial, and park. The proposed project is 118 acres and is bounded by State Highway 3 to the west, County Road 38 to the north, the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific Railroad to the east, and Connemara Trail to the south. The staff review fmds the EAW complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns and raises no major issues of consistency with Council policies. An Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary for regional purposes. Staff provides the following comments for your consideration: Response: No response is necessary. Comment #2: Item 10, Cover Types: This proposal will reduce the amount of "Wooded/forest" area and "brush/grasslands "; and will significantly increase impervious surfaces from 15 acres to 41 acres. Various mitigation strategies could be explored to alleviate some of the impervious surface impacts. h/�inneapolis • St. Cloud Equal Opportunity Employer - WSB & Associates, Inc. Memorandum To: Phyllis Hanson, Metropolitan Council Brigid Gombold, Mn/DOT Senior Transportation Planner Mary McNeff, Mn/DOT Transportation Plattner Lynn Moratzka, Dakota County Planning Jay Riggs, Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District t Wayne Barstad, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources From: An di Moffatt, WSB & Associates, Inc. Anna Brenes, WSB & Associates, Inc. Copy: Andy Brotzler, City of Rosemount p 4 " Rick Pearson, City of Rosemount x Kim Lindquist, City of Rosemount Dave Hutton, WSB & Associates, Inc. Bill Weber CPDC d Dave Hempel, CPDC Fran Hagen, Westwood Professional Services ,z Date: March 25, 2004 " Re: Responses to Comments x r Brockway Residential Development EAW Y v WSB Project No. 1556-03 The public comment period for the Brockway Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) ended March 17, 2004. Comments were received from the Metropolitan Council, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Dakota County, Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District, and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Outlined below, please find the comments from each agency followed by responses to these comments. The comment letters are also attached for your information. Comments from Metropolitan Council Comment #1: The Brockway Redevelopment project proposes 86 single family homes, three 60 -unit apartment buildings, 346 town home units, neighborhood commercial, and park. The proposed project is 118 acres and is bounded by State Highway 3 to the west, County Road 38 to the north, the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific Railroad to the east, and Connemara Trail to the south. The staff review fmds the EAW complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns and raises no major issues of consistency with Council policies. An Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary for regional purposes. Staff provides the following comments for your consideration: Response: No response is necessary. Comment #2: Item 10, Cover Types: This proposal will reduce the amount of "Wooded/forest" area and "brush/grasslands "; and will significantly increase impervious surfaces from 15 acres to 41 acres. Various mitigation strategies could be explored to alleviate some of the impervious surface impacts. h/�inneapolis • St. Cloud Equal Opportunity Employer March 25, 2004 Page 2 of 12 One strategy could include moving 'a portion of County Road 38 farther away from Keegan Lake to create the opportunity for some parkland on the shores of Keegan Lake. Response: Moving County Road 3 8 farther away from Keegan Lake would result in right -of- way acquisition issues and would require significant grade changes to accommodate a shift in the road that would make it impracticable. The plan includes 15 acres of parkland and open space. The majority of the trees located on the Brockway site are located within the park area in the south west corner of the site. Additionally, 36 acres of lawn and landscaping area proposed as part of this project to help mitigate for increases in impervious area The City will take the suggestion for reducing proposed impervious surface on this site under advisement during the plan review and approval process. Comment #3: Item #25, Nearby Resources: The Dakota County South Urban Regional Trail is proposed to connect Lebanon Hills Regional Park and the Mississippi River. The EAW mentions a potential trail along the Williams pipeline easement and the potential regional trail alternatives appear to pass along the west side of this project. The City is encouraged to work with Dakota County Parks and incorporate the regional trail in to the site design. Response: The City will take this suggestion under advisement during the plan review and approval process. Comment #4: Item # 28, Impact on Infrastructure and Public Services: The document states on page 9 and 16, the City has entered into an agreement with the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) to convey City storm water runoff to the Mississippi River. Construction of this new effluent outfall for the MCES Empire wastewater treatment facility is scheduled to begin in 2005_ While MCES and the City have not reached a final agreement, the draft agreement currently proposes that no connection will be allowed upstream of a point along County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 42 near Akron Avenue: Response: The City understands that the final agreement with MCES is still under review. Stormwater runoff from the Brockway Development is proposed to be conveyed to a regional pond located in the vicinity of the Bloomfield 5 ffi Addition and CSAH 42 and is anticipated to be conveyed and discharged to the MCES trunk line system at a point west of the intersection of Akron Avenue and CSAH 42. The City will work with MCES in the near future to determine where an acceptable discharge point may be located. Comment #5: Appendix D, Traffic Impact Study: Page three of the traffic impact study describes Trunk Highway 3 as a "B" minor arterial. Trunk Highway is classified as an "A" minor arterial (expander) on the Council's functional classification system. Response: The City acknowledges that TH 3 was labeled incorrectly in the Traffic Impact Study. This has been corrected. Comments from Mn/DOT, March 12, 2004 Comment #1: Additional drainage information will need to be reviewed when detailed design plans have been developed. The proposed development will need to maintain existing drainage rates (i.e. the rate at which stormwater is discharged from the site must not increase) The City or project developer will need to submit before /after hydraulic computations for both 10 and 100 year rainfall F •U1PTJ7N ",1 i56- 031031804CRnrenro- drafi.doc March 25, 2004 Page 3 of 12 Response: Hydraulic analysis and drainage design are currently under review. The City will require final design to maintain existing drainage rates and to be submitted to Mn/DOT for review and approval upon completion of the final plans. Comment #2: Mn/DOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible for taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of land use would result in violations of established noise standards. Mn/DOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway fi mds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The project proposer should assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise. Response: The City acknowledges that Mn/DOT is not responsible for any noise mitigation that may be required as part of the proposed development adjacent to TH 3. Comments from Mn/D_OT, March 22, 2004 Comment #1: Mn/DOT believes that the increase in traffic volumes associated with this proposed development (487 multi - family homes; 127 single family homes) will mean that Trunk Highway (TH) 3 will need to be expanded from two lanes to four lanes. Due to funding constraints, TH 3 is designated as a "preservation" corridor. Expenditures on preservation corridors are limited to repair and replacement of pavement, bridges, and drainage structures. As of this date, no funding has been identified for expansion of TH 3. For questions on these points, please call Nancy Daunbenberger, Area Engineer for Dakota and Scott Counties, Mn/DOT Metro District, at (651) 582 -1379. Response: The City acknowledges that no funding is currently available for improvements to TH 3 in this corridor. The City, however, will continue to request Municipal Cooperative Agreement funding for safety improvements as deemed necessary along the corridor. Comment #2: The City of Rosemount has received funding for 2005 for a Cooperative Agreement project to improve TH 3 intersections. If the City constructs the improvements on TH 3 as envisioned in the cooperative agreement project, the traffic study included within the EAW indicates that after the Brockway Residential Development is constructed the TH 3 intersections will function at acceptable levels of service, but traffic volumes resulting from this development suggest long -term need to expand TH 3 to a four -lane road in this vicinity. For questions on these points, please call Lars Impola, Mn/DOT Metro District Traffic Studies Engineer, at (651) 634 -2379. Response: The City has initiated the design of the improvements as outlined in the Municipal Cooperative Agreement Funding Application. These improvements are planned for completion late summer /early fall 2004. The City acknowledges that TH 3, in the future, will require additional improvements (see response to Comment #1, March 22, 2004). F' IPFi'I.V1556- 03`031804CRmenro- draft. doe March 25, 2004 Page 4 of 12 Comment #3: Please submit drainage and grading plans, and the hydraulic/hydrologic modeling for this proposed development. The EAW asserts that there will be stringent control of run -off from this proposed development, and proposes that the maximum peak discharge rate for post - development conditions is .05 cubic feet per second/acre for a 100 -year storm. Assuming that those calculations are accurate, it is unlikely that adjacent facilities, such as TH 3, will be flooded as a result of the development. PIease submit the drainage and grading plans, and hydraulic/hydrologic modeling to: Scott Carlstrom Mn/DOT Metro District Water Resources Engineering Waters Edge Building 1500 West County Road B -2 Roseville, MN 55113 Response: See response to Comment #1 in the March 12, 2004 Mn/DOT letter from Brigid Gombold. Comment #4: The proposed turn lanes and signalized intersection with County Road 38, the new signal at Connemara Trail, and limiting access to the Brockway development site to County Road 38 and Connemara Trail is acceptable under Mn/DOT design standards. For questions on this point, please call Dick Scarrow, Mn/DOT Metro District Design Coordinator, at (651) 582 -1333. Response: The City agrees that the turn lanes and signalized intersections, as part of this project, will meet Mn/DOT design standards. Comment #5: Mn/DOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 state that municipalities are responsible for taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of the land use would result in violations of established noise standards. Mn/DOT policy regarding land development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The project proposer should assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise. If you have any questions regarding Mn/DOT's noise policy please contact Peter Wasko in our Design section at (651) 582 -1293. Response: Please refer to the response provided to Comment #2 in the March 12, 2004 letter from Brigid Gombold. Comment #6: As a reminder, please address all initial future correspondence for development activity such as plats and site plans to: F `,11 P 11 ''J \'i 1336 -031031804CRnae,n o -dro{. doc March 25, 2004 Page 5 of 12 Development Review Coordinator Mn/DOT — Metro Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B -2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2) copies of other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three (3) copies of a plat and/or two (2) copies of other review documents will make a submittal incomplete and delay Mn/DOT's review and response to development proposals. We appreciate your anticipated cooperation in providing the necessary number of copies, as this will prevent us from having to delay and/or return incomplete submittals. If you have questions regarding this review please feel free to contact me at (651) 582 - 1462. Response: The City acknowledges Mn/DOT's procedural requirements for plan review. Comments from Dakota County Comment #1: Section 9, Land Use The EAW notes that a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update (dated July 2003) itemized a number of environmental concerns, including a query of Dakota County's waste sites databases. However, the EAW has not addressed all of the known waste sites (see Figure 1. attached): a. 5004 - Brockway Glass Wastewater Disposals West — Addressed in the EAW. The EAW states that one of the ponds had detectable levels of DRO; b. 5358 — Brockway Glass Disposals — Addressed in the EAW. This includes disposals inside the facilities (EAW mentions drains, etc., but not sumps, pits, dry wells, holding tanks and connections to on -site sewage systems), as well as disposals outside near the east side and southeast corner of the building, which are not mentioned; c. 5363 — Brockway Glass Wastewater Disposals North — not addressed in the EAW; d. 5366 — Brockway Glass Dump — the VIC site mentioned in the EAW; e. 5387 — Brockway Glass WWTP (Wastewater Treatment Plant) Disposals — not addressed in the EAW. This includes the closed depression east of the golf course near the railroad tracks, which received runoff from the WWTP and AST sites, as well as WWTP discharge; f. 5388 — Brockway Glass & Golf Course Dump — partially mentioned in the EAW in regard to yard waste disposals, but does not include the longer disposal history; g. 5424 — Brockway Glass LUST - mentioned in the EAW as closed but noted that residual contamination is present. The pollutant location map in Appendix A does not show all of the waste sites listed above and represented in Figure 1. We suggest that the EAW recommend that any waste sites not previously investigated be investigated (whether under the auspices of State and Local government, the MPCA VIC Program, or other). As with any investigation of waste sites, it is expected that the property owner /developer or other responsible party will keep both the MPCA and the Dakota County Environmental Management Department fully informed of all fieldwork conducted, as well as all data generated. Dakota County must approve a comprehensive work plan before any fieldwork is initiated. F: UPilY A". 1 5 ?6- 03''03180- FCRme777o- drnf.doc Mdreh 25, 2004 Page 6 of 12 Also, the EAW recommends that a Response Action Plan be prepared and approved by the MPCA before redevelopment activities are initiated in this site. However, not all of the above noted sites have been investigated or investigated in sufficient detail to permit the appropriate drafting of such a document for MPCA and County review and approval. All of the waste sites should be investigated, assessed, remediated, and closed with approvals by the MPCA and the County. The specific proposed end uses (i.e., the proposed development) must be evaluated with respect to each contaminant's concentration, media concentration, and health-based value (or other standard). Depending upon the results of the detailed investigations, their evaluation and assessment, and appropriate protocols, it may be necessary for the project proposer to significantly alter the development plans. For example, the proposed construction of single- family homes in some areas may be ill advised because of the potential for future exposures. The same is true for the impermeable surfaces, drainage diversions, and stormwater retention basins. Regarding stormwater retention ponds, a number of existing ponds on the site may contain contaminants (e.g., Sites 5004 (DRO) and 5366 (metals, etc.). Refer also to Section 17 for additional comments. Response: A written request for information was sent and several telephone conversations were held with the Dakota County Environmental Management Department during the drafting process of the EAW. The City did not receive a written response to the data request; however, all information gathered through the telephone conversations was included in the EAW. Additionally, the City held a meeting on January 14, 2004 with the Developer/Landowner, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), Dakota County Department of Environmental Management, and Braun Intertec to discuss known and potential sources of pollutants on the Brockway site. The City appreciates the County providing the additional information as part of the comments on the EAW. The City will require an investigation of all known and potential sources of pollutants and their remediation as part of the plan approval for the Brockway Residential site. The Developer/Landowner has agreed to work with the County and MPCA and to enroll in the VIC program with MPCA to address remediation and closure of identified sources of pollutants within the Brockway site. The ponds on the west and north sides of the site, and soil samples near the ponds were tested for DROs, VOCs, and BETX in 1999 as indicated in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update. Only the northern most pond of the western ponds (indicated on Figure 1 of the EAW) was found to have high levels of DROs. No additional investigation of the pond was recommended at the time of detection since it was determined that the activities that caused the release were no longer occurring, and the release appeared to be limited to the shallow sediments of the pond. Discussions with MPCA regarding the DROs detected in the north pond indicated that naturally occurring bioremediation activity has most likely broken down DROs to non toxic levels; however, the City will require any testing mandated by the County and/or MPCA in order to meet County and MPCA closure requirements. The City will require remediation of any contaminated sites to appropriate levels that would be compatible with the proposed residential land use to ensure compliance with Dakota County ordinances. F.•'rldTH*I.V1556 -03 031804CRinemo- draft.doc March 25, 2004 Page 7 of 12 Comment #2: Section 17, Water Quality —Surface Water Runoff. The EAW states that the stormwater retention pond capacity will be increased by roughly four acres of new ponding area, in addition to the one -acre on existing ponding. As noted above, some of the wastes and their contaminants may have been carried to surface water impoundments, where some of it evaporated and some infiltrated to groundwater (with the residues settling out in the bottom sediments). With the increase in ponding capacity, there are two problems with the EAW regarding this issue. 1. An assumption that there are no existing contaminants in the pond water or sediment and sludge, and that those ponds will not release any contaminants to surface waters or ground waters. In fact, there are known to have been releases from the plant, which may have reached the existing ponds. 2. An assumption that future loadings of storm water to the ponds will be sufficiently pretreated (to NURP or NPDES guidelines) before discharge. The EAW should consider the possibility that future loadings of storm water may help re- dissolve some contaminants and facilitate the contamination of surface water and ground water. If this proves to be true, the EAW should provide recommended methods for prevention. Response: As indicated in the response to Comment 1 to the County, the City will require compliance with the County's requirements to investigate and address the known and potential pollutant sites within the Brockway development. Additionally, stormwater is required to be pretreated to NURP guidelines prior to discharge to the infiltration area. This will reduce the potential for stormwater contamination of the groundwater. If the investigation into the ponds reveals that there are unacceptable levels of contaminants present, appropriate remedial action will be taken to remove contaminated sediments from the stonmwater ponds to reduce or eliminate the potential for groundwater contamination. Comment #3: Section 21, Traffic The proposed development will generate 3,657 new trips to the roadway system. The project site fronts the east side of TH 3 from CR 38 to Connemara Trail. Proposed access is along both of these East -West roadways. The EAW adequately addresses impacts to TH 3 and improvements; however, the issues related to access, volumes, and operation of CR 38 are not resolved. Volume Data The trip generation numbers for the proposed development and other area development plans are provided. However, the number for the daily traffic (AADT) on CR 38 as a result of the proposed development is not provided. This number is key to understanding the impacts to this roadway. CR 38 has a current volume of 800 vehicles (based on Dakota County 2003 traffic count) with a projection of 7,300 by 2025. The traffic impact study for this development and other proposed developments in this vicinity indicates a total of nearly 8,000 trips (3,657 new trips from this proposal and 4,294 trips from adjacent development). Response: The Traffic Impact Study found in the appendix of the EAW indicates that a traffic count was conducted by the City on June 9 and 10, 2003. This count is shown in F. FiPTT' T.N" 1 i.56- 03"031804CRmenro- draft.doc March 25, 2004 Page 8 of 12 Figure 3 in that traffic study. The existing count was 360 vehicles per day. In addition, the distribution of the site generated traffic was included as Figure 5 in that report. Based on that data, the 2020 average daily traffic on CR 3 8 would be approximately 2,000 vehicles per day. Comment # 4: CR 38 Improvement Needs CR 38 is currently a two -lane gravel road. The traffic impact study states "Improve CR 38 from the site access to TH 3 to a 44 -foot wide three -lane roadway providing left -turn lanes at the site access and TH 3" (pg. 16). The majority of traffic to /from this site is from the west. Access to the site from the west should have a right turn lane and a way to accommodate traffic turning into the site from the east without impeding through traffic flow. Although the daily volume increase in traffic to this road is not described, the development proposed in this area is significant and the two -lane gravel road will not accommodate the needs. A three -lane section would be useful to accommodate closely spaced access throughout the highway. Response: The City acknowledges that improvements to CR 38 will be required as outlined in the Traffic Study found in the appendix of the EAW. The recommendations for improvements to CR 3 8 include widening the roadway at the intersection of TH 3 and providing a continuous center -left turn lane through this section and right -turn lane eastbound into the development site. Comment # 5: Operation and Geometric Plans for the TH 31CR 38 Intersection The overall access plan and volumes need to be considered when selecting the roadway cross - section. The timing and responsible parties for the costs of these needs are not fully addressed in the report. To address increased volume, the study proposes the addition of left -turn lanes on TH 3 and the widening of CR 38 to accommodate a left turn lane and a through/right lane. The study evaluates this configuration and the level of service issues in future years with the existing through/stop operation. The study proposes continued monitoring of the intersection, to determine when conditions justify the need for traffic signals. The 2008 Full Development traffic during the PM peak shows very little conflicting volume on the side roads or turning from the mainline road. The only heavy movement is westbound traffic from the development that turns right to travel north on TH 3. Signals are not justified based on level of service issues (the analysis shows delay for movements with 3 to 17 vehicles during the peak hour). The best configuration for CR 38 at TH 3 would be two lanes that allow right- turning vehicles the opportunity to bypass traffic waiting to turn left or go across the intersection (with no specific lane assignments required). Response: The City has applied for and received 2005 Cooperative Funding for improvements to the TH 3 at CR 38 intersection. These anticipated improvements will include the addition of a left turn lane, through lane, and right -turn lane on TH 3. In addition, the City anticipates to initiate a Feasibility Study to evaluate and determine funding responsibilities for CR 38 between TH 3 and the railroad tracks. Comment #6: Proposed Access The traffic study shows access for the development is proposed to be located on CR 38 east of TH F: ` fPT•T1V 1 i;6- 03iO318O4CRmemo- draft.doc March 25, 2004 Page 9 of 12 3. The location of this access and the distance from TH 3 and other existing or proposed access points are not detailed. Access location and road improvement needs must be evaluated to ensure that ingress /egress functions in a safe and efficient manner. Sight distance issues or problems resulting from a location that would be too close to adjacent intersections including TH 3 are all factors that need to be considered. Response: The proposed access locations were identified as part of the traffic study included in the appendix of the EAW. Section 6 of the Traffic Impact Study indicates approximately where the accesses would be and their configuration. In addition the impact on other intersections and access points was determined and discussed. The conclusion was that the proposed access locations as proposed would be satisfactory. Comments from Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District Comment #1: Item 16, Erosion and Sedimentation: 1. The site has somewhat rolling topography and potentially highly erodible soils. 2. The SWCD offers plan review and inspection assistance to ensure proper erosion and sedimentation control practices are designed, installed, and maintained. We encourage the City to partner with the SWCD to jointly protect receiving waters. 3. Phased grading is a critical Best Management Practice (BMP) on projects of this magnitude. The plan shows the project phases, but does not clarify the grading phases. Mass grading the site is strongly discouraged and will likely result in overwhelming erosion issues and significant risk to surface waters and wetlands. We suggest limiting the area that can be graded to 20 -40 acres and requiring each phase to be stabilized before the next proceeds. 4. The buffer requirements in the City ordinance will provide good protection for wetlands on the site. 5. Include the new NPDES guidelines on the grading plan and construction specifications. Response: The City will require phased grading of this site and information from the developer's engineer indicates that phased grading of the site is currently being incorporated into the plan. The number of grading phases will be determined during the final plan review process and will depend on the time of year that construction commences. Special erosion control features will be incorporated into the plan in hilly areas and areas of highly erodible soils to prevent sediment laden runoff from entering waters of the state. The developer is required by law to submit the new NPDES construction permit application to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Additionally, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) meeting storm water discharge design requirements as outlined in MN Rule 100001 will be developed prior to commencing construction and will be kept on file as required by MN Rule 100001. The SWCD suggestions on limiting grade areas to 20- 40 acres at a time and stabilizing the areas prior to commencing the next phase of construction will be taken into consideration during the final plan review. Comment #2: Item 17, Water Quality and Quantity — Sui face Water Runoff The EAW states 4 acres of new ponding will be added to the site and will limit the peak storm water discharge rate to .05 efs /acre for a 100 -year, 24 -hour storn event by using regional ponds and /or on- F. ffPITlL r,I i56- 03'iO31801Ct:rrrenro- drafi.doc March 25, 2004 Page 10 of 12 site ponding. Further, the site is required to provide 1/12 acre- foot/acre /day of infiltration for the entire site's acreage either on -site or in the regional system. Volume control practices are not as effective at the end of the pipe. Volume reduction should occur at the source if at all possible. Accordingly, regional facilities should not generally be used to reach infiltration goals. Further, the 1/12 acre- foot/acre /day standard equates to the infiltration rate of clayey (Hydrologic Soil Group D) soils. Because the site contains primarily HSG B soils, a standard that maintains comparable infiltration rates is necessary to mitigate the stormwater impacts of developments. This is especially important if the increase in total runoff volume with the increased impervious area is calculated. The addition of 26 acres of impervious will increase the annual runoff volumes from the site by 15,000,000- 20,000,000 gallons (assuming typical precipitation). The proposed rate and volume controls will not mitigate the impacts of this additional volume and associated pollutant loads. The EAW does not assess the actual runoff volumes and receiving water impacts of the increased runoff associated with the additional impervious areas. While it states the City's standards will be implemented, additional information is necessary to determine how they will be installed and if the project has the potential for significant environmental effects. The SWCD looks forward to working with the City and developer to identify and incorporate multiple innovative stormwater management practices into the design. The SWCD has cost -share assistance for eligible innovative stormwater management practices and will work diligently to identify and obtain additional grants if necessary. Response: The City is currently in the plan review process and will take the SCWD's suggestions into consideration during this process. The following preliminary drainage study of the Brockway site has been completed and indicates that the potential for significant environmental effects will be minimized using on -site, existing stormwater infrastructure adjacent to the site and existing and proposed regional ponding. The stormwater management plan for the site includes three on -site ponding areas and five infiltration areas. Additionally one off -site treatment pond and infiltration area is located immediately southeast of the development site on the south side of Connemara Trail. Rate control is provided on -site with the exception of approximately 19.5 acres of drainage from the southeast corner of the site. Rate control will be provided by the off -site pond located immediately south east of the site on the south side of Connemara Trail. The preliminary ponding areas are currently designed as follows: Pond and Infiltration Area Located on the West Central Boundary of Site Approximate Drainage area 14.0 acres Dead storage: 1.4 acre -feet Live storage: 5.1 acre -feet Preliminary review of pond design indicates that City rate control requirements will be provided on -site for this drainage area Pond and Infiltration Area Located in the Northwest Corner of Site Approximate Drainage area 38.0 acres ]_.•' f UP RIA'l15.56-031031 80 °CRmemo- draft. doc March 25, 2004 Page Il of 12 Dead storage: 3.5 acre -feet Live storage: 12.6 acre -feet Preliminary review of pond design indicates that City rate control requirements will be provided on -site for this drainage area. Pond and Infiltration Area Located in the Southwest Corner of Site Approximate Drainage area 24.3 acres Dead storage: 1.8 acre -feet Live storage: 6.6 acre -feet Preliminary review of pond design indicates that City rate control requirements will be provided on -site and off -site for this drainage area. Pond and Infiltration Area Located Off Site on the South Side of Connemara Trail Approximate Drainage area (from Brockway site) 19.5 acres Dead storage: 1.7 acre -feet Live storage: 6.1 acre -feet Preliminary review of pond design indicates that City rate control requirements_ will be provided on -site and off -site for this drainage area. Based on the runoff volume and pond design information, the proposed ponds will provide adequate dead storage required to meet NURP guidelines. More detailed information on ponding and stormwater treatment will be available when final plans have been reviewed and approved by the City. Comment #3: Summary The EAW does not provide adequate information about the potential adverse effects the proposed development will have on downstream receiving waters. More specific information about stormwater runoff volumes and impacts to receiving waters are needed. We look forward to working closely with the City of Rosemount to minimize the short and long -term environmental impacts of this development. Response: Preliminary plan review indicates that stormwater runoff volumes and impacts to receiving waters will be adequately addressed by the proposed stormwater facilities on and adjacent to the site. The downstream receiving water for this site is designated as a regional pond. This pond is currently being designed to provide treatment requirements for runoff and is anticipated to adequately address short and longterm stonnwatertreatment requirements before discharging to the MCES Empire Outfall. Comments from Minnesota Department of Natural Resouces Comment #I: Item no. 14, Water — related Land Use Management The EAW incorrectly states that there are no shoreland zoning districts within the vicinity of the project. Immediately northeast of the project, across from Bonaire Path, is Kegan Lake. Kegan Lake has a shoreland zoning classification of Recreation Development and is listed in Rosemount's shoreland ordinance as such. Land within 1000 feet of Kegan Lake is subject to the provisions of the city's ordinance. F.• ]-nib- 031031&04CRmemo- draft.doc March 25, 2004 Page 12 of 12 Response: The city appreciates the correction. As part of the review process, the lots located in the northeast corner of the Brockway Development site will be reviewed for compliance with the City's shoreland development ordinance. This concludes our responses to comments on behalf of the City. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at (763) 541- 4800. F: I TAT P ff'IA 11 ?36 -031031804CRniemo- draft. doc MAR -19 -2004 15 oe WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.02f03 03/19/2004 03:03 PM City of Rosemount 6514234424 2/3 Metropolitan Council Building communities that work March 16, 2004 Rick Pearson City Plarmer 2875 145`" Street W Rosemount, Minnesota 55068 RE: City of Rosemount — Brockway Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Metropolitan Council District 16 (Brian McDaniel, 952 -997 -7731 ) Reviews File No. 19146 -1 Dear Mr. Pearson: The Brockway Redevelopment project proposes 86 single family homes, three 60 -unit apartment buildings, 346 town home units, neighborhood commercial, and park. The proposed project is 118 acres and is bounded by State Highway 3 to the west, County Road 38 to the north, the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific Railroad to the east, and Connemara Trail to the south. The staff review finds the EAW is complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns and raises no major issues of consistency with Council policies. An Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary for regional purposes. Staff provides the following comments for your consideration: Item #10 Cover Types. This proposal will reduce the amount of "Wooded /forest" area and "brush /grasslands' and will significantly increase the impervious surfaces from 15 acres to 41 acres. Various mitigation strategies could be explored to alleviate some of the impervious surface impacts. One strategy could include moving a portion of County Road 38 farther away from Keegan Lake to create the opportunity for some parkland on the shores of Keegan Lake. Item #25. Nearby Resources. The Dakota County South Urban Regional Trail is proposed to connect Lebanon Hills Regional Park and the Mississippi River. The EAW mentions a potential trail along the Williams pipeline easement and potential regional trail alternatives appear to pass along the west side of this project. The City is encouraged to work with Dakota County Parks and incorporate the regional trail in to the site design. Item 28 - Impact on Infrastructure and Public Services. The document states on page 9 and 16, the City has entered into an agreement with Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) to convey City storm water runoff to the Mississippi River. Construction of this new effluent outfall for the MCES Empire wastewater treatment facility is scheduled' to begin in 2005. While MCES and the City have not reached a final agreement, the draft agreement currently proposes that no connection will be allowed upstream of a point along County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 42 near Akron Avenue. Appendix D: Traffic Impact Study. Page three of the traffic impact study describes Trunk Highway 3 as a "B" minor arterial. Trunk Highway is classified as an "A" minor arterial (expander) on the Council's functional classification system. ",w.metrocoundl.org Metro info Line 802 -1886 230 East Fifth Street St_ Paul, Minnesota 55101 -1626 • (651) 602 -1000 - Pax 602.1550 TTY 291 -0904 An Equal opportunity Emplo}rr MAR -19 -2004 15:08 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.03/03 03/19/2004 03:03 PM City of Rosemount 6514234424 3/3 Mr. Pearson Mar 16,2004 Page 2 This will conclude the Council's review of the EAW. The Council will take no formal action on the EAW. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Christy Mackaman, principal reviewer, at 651- 602 -1750. Sincerely, Phyll' anson, Manager Planning and Technical Assistance cc: Brian McDaniel, Metropolitan Council District 16 Cheryl Olson, Referrals Coordinator 1':lr�w7etvs',colnmat�itic `,itos:rnolsnt`:Lcticrs F.c1 �lnslunt NN EAW Brockw,ty Rccj%veloprrx:nt 19146- 1 TOTAL P. e- MAR -16 -2004 1027 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.02i07 MAR.16.2004 11:14AM DAKOTA COUNTY PHYS DEV ADMIN NO.9022 P. 2 C O U N T v office of Planning March 15, 2004 Lynn G. Momaka,AICP Direcaor Rick Pearson City Planner Dakota count City of Rosemount Western Swyice Censer 2875 145" Street W. 14955 GalaxleAver Rosemo MN 55068 Apple Valley. MN 55124 952891.7030 RE: Brockway Residential Development EAW Fgx 952.891.7031 www.Ca.dakota.mn.us Dear Mr. Pearson: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed Brockway Residential Development. The Dakota County Office of Planning has coordinated the County's review by the Environmental Management Department, Transportation Department and Office of Manning. Our comments are noted in the attachment to this letter. If you have any questions about the County's review, please call me at (952) 891 -7033_ We look forward to continuing to work with you as this project progresses. Since L Moratzka, •Director ffice of Piarrrling End C! Willis G. Branning, Dakota County Commissioner — District 7 Brandt Richardson, County Administrator Greg Konat, Director, physical Development Division Phyllis Hanson, Metropolitan Council 4? fnrrteC tar e..:yc'ed P■Gr wrRt lP.6 Gon <t�wn.r wyrit5 ■ �M E:+.t L1'r9nn*nn rno�rEr MAR -16 -2004 10:27 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.03f07 MAR.16.2004 11:14AM DAKOTA COUNTY PHYS DEV ADMIN NO.9022 P. 3 Dakota County Comments: Brockway Residential Development EAW Section 9. Land Use. The EAW notes that a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update (dated July 2003) itemized a number of environmental concerns, including a query of Dakota County's waste sites databases. However,, the EAW has not addressed all of the known waste sites (see Figure 1. attached): a. 5004 - Brockway Glass Wastewater Disposals West - Addressed in the EAW. The EAW states that one of the ponds had detectable levels of DRO; b. 5358 - Brockway Glass Disposals - Addressed in the EAW. This includes disposals inside the facilities (EAW mentions drains, etc., but not sumps, pits, dry wells, holding tanks and connections to on -site sewage systems), as well as disposals outside near the east side and southeast comer of the building, which are not mentioned; c. 5363 - Brockway Glass Wastewater Disposals North - not addressed in the EAW; d. 5366 - Brockway Class Dump -the VIC site mentioned in the EAW; e. 5387 - Brockway Glass WWTP (Wastewater Treatment Plant).Disposals - not addressed in the EAW. This includes the closed depression east of the golf course near the railroad tracks, which received runoff from the WWTP and AST sites, as well as WWTP discharge; .: f. 5388 - Brockway Glass & Golf Course Dump - partially mentioned in the EAW in regard to yard waste disposals, but does not include the longer disposal history; g. 5424 Brockway Glass LUST - mentioned in the EAW as closed but noted that residual contamination is present. The pollutant location map in Appendix A does not show all of the waste sites listed above and represented in Figure 1. We suggest that the EAW recommend that any waste sites not previously investigated be investigated (whether under the auspices of State and Local government, the MPCA VIC Program, or other). As with any investigation of waste sites, it is expected that the property ownerldedeloper or other responsible party will keep both the MPCA and the Dakota County Environmental Management Department fully informed of all fieldwork conducted, as well as all data generated. Dakota County must approve a comprehensive work plan before any fieldwork is initiated. Also, the EAW recommends that a Response Action Plan be prepared and approved by the MPCA before redevelopment activities are initiated in this site. However, not all of the above noted sites have been investigated or investigated in sufficient detail to permit the appropriate drafting of such a document for MPCA and County review and approval. All of the waste sites should be investigated, assessed, remediated, and closed with approvals by the MPCA and the County. The specific proposed'end uses (i.e., the proposed development) must be evaluated with respect to each contaminant's concentration, media concentraton, and health -based value (or other standard). Depending upon the results of the detailed investigations, their evaluation and assessment, and appropriate protocols, it maybe necessary for the project proposer to significantly alter the development plans. For example, the proposed construction of single- family homes in some areas may be ill advised because of the potential for future exposures. The same is true for the impermeable surfaces, drainage diversions, and stormwater retention basins. Regarding stormwater retention ponds, a number of exiting ponds on the site may contain contaminants (e.g;, Sites 6004 (DRO) and 5366 (metals, etc.). Refer also to Section 17 for additional comments. a MAR -16 -2004 10 :27 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.04iO4 MAR. 16.2004 11:14AM DAKOTA COUNTY PHYS DEV ADMIN NO.9022 P. 4 Section 17. Water Quality — ;surface Water Runoff. The EAW states that the stormwater retention pond capacity will be increased by roughly four acres of new ponding area, in addition to the one -acre on existing ponding. As noted above, some of the wastes and their contaminants may have been carried to surface water impoundments, where some of it evaporated and some infiltrated to groundwater (with the residues settling out in the bottom sediments). With the increase in ponding capacity, there are two problems with the EAW regarding this issue. 1. An assumption that there are no existing contaminants in the pond water or sediment and sludge, and that those ponds will not release any contaminants to surface - waters or ground waters. In fact, there are known to have been releases from the plant, which may have reached the existing ponds. 2. An assumption that future loadings of storm water to the ponds will be sufficiently pretreated (to NURP or NPDESD guidelines) before discharge. The EAW should consider the possibility that future loadings of storm water may help re- dissolve some contaminants and facilitate the contamination of surface water and ground water. If this proves to be true, the EAW should provide recommended methods for prevention. Section 21. Traffic The proposed development will generate 3,657 new trips to the roadway system. The project site fronts the east side of TH 3 from CR 38 to Connemara Trait. Proposed access is along both of these East -West roadways. The EAW adequately addresses impacts to TH 3 and improvements; however, the issues related to access, volumes, and operation of CR 38 are not resolved. - Volume Data The trip generation numbers for the proposed development and other area development plans are provided. However, the number for the daily traffic (AADT) on CR 38 as a result of the proposed development is not provided. This number is key to understanding the impacts to this roadway. CR 38 has a current volume of 800 vehicles (based on Dakota County 2003 traffic count) with a projection of 7,300 by 2025. The traffic impact study for this development and other proposed developments in this vicinity indicates a total of nearly 8,000 trips (3,657 new trips from this proposal and 4,294 trips from adjacent development). • CR 38 Im_ provement Needs CR 38 is currently a two -lane gravel road. The traffic impact study states "improve CR 38 from the site access to TH 3 to a 44 -foot wide three -lane roadway providing left -tum lanes at the site access and TH 3" (pg.16). The majority of traffic tolfrom this site is from the west. Access to the site from the west should have a right turn lane and a way to accommodate traffic turning into the site from the east without impeding through traffic flow. Although the daily volume increase in traffic to this road is not described, the development proposed in this area is significant and the two -lane gravel road will not accommodate the needs. A three -lane section would be useful to accommodate closely spaced access throughout the highway. • Operation and Geometric Plans for the TH 3 /CR 38 Intersection The overall access plan and volumes need to be considered when selecting the roadway cross- section. The timing and responsible parties for the costs of these needs are not fully addressed in the report. ' To address increased volume, the study proposes the addition of left -turn lanes on TH 3 and the widening of CR 38 to accommodate a left tum lane and a MAR -16 -2004 10:27 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.05i07 MAR.16.2004 11:15AM DAKOTA COUNTY PHYS DEV ADMIN NO.9022 P. 5 through /right lane. The study evaluates this configuration and the level of service issues in future years with the existing through/stop operation. The study proposes continued monitoring of the intersection, to determine when conditions justify the need for traffic signals. The 2008 Full Development traffic during the PM peak shows very little conflicting volume on the side roads or turning from the mainline road. The only heavy movement is westbound traffic from the development that turns right to travel north on TH 3. Signals are not justified based on level of service issues (the analysis shows delay for movements with 3 to 17 vehicles during the peak hour). The hest configuration for OR 38 at TH 3 would be two lanes that allow right - turning vehicles the opportunity to bypass traffic waiting to turn left or go across the intersection (with no specific lane assignments required). Proposed Access The traffic study shows access for the development is proposed to be located on GR 38 east of TH 3. The location of this access and the distance from TH 3 and other existing or proposed access points are not detailed. Access location and road improvement needs must be evaluated to ensure that ingress /egress functions in a safe and efficient manner. Sight distance issues or problems resulting from a location that would be too close to adjacent intersections including TH 3 are all factors that need to be considered. zo ' d lH1O1 A A £/£ 4b41SZt1ss lunowasoa }o Flip Wd 00 £0 i00b /Ll /£0 20/20 ' cf 002, ti I bS29L S31H I 90SSH '8 HSM 90 : S t b00Z -L T -club! i 0 C) N N a G G� v y C) N w � � yti� ono N a� y x 1 o �o A woa fA to Cl) y a fA 1 9 o� co O 4 co cr A � Y � v o .0, a N o C z r , + , v A A £/£ 4b41SZt1ss lunowasoa }o Flip Wd 00 £0 i00b /Ll /£0 20/20 ' cf 002, ti I bS29L S31H I 90SSH '8 HSM 90 : S t b00Z -L T -club! March 1, 2004 Mr. Rick Pearson, City Planner City of Rosemount 2875 145 St. W. Rosemount, MN 55068 Dear Rick, DAKOTA OUNTY SOIL & WATER CONSER ATION DISTRICT Dakota ounty Extension and Conservation Center 410022 th Street West, Suite 102 Farming on, MN 55024 Phone: 651) 480 -7777 FAX: (6,51) 480 -7775 www.dakotacountyswcd.org Ref.: 04 -ROS -012 This letter is in response to the Environmental Assessm t Worksheet (EAW) completed for the above- referenced project. The proposed development entails 86 single - family homes, three 60 -unit apartment buildings, 346 town home units, 15,000 square feet of commercial area, and associated parking/roads on approximately 106 acres. The project site is located on land within the Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization. On behalf of the Vermillion River Watershed Joint Pow rs Organization and the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), the following co ents are submitted for your review and consideration: Item 16: Erosion and Sedimentation 1. The site has somewhat rolling topography and poteni ially highly erodible soils. 2. The SWCD offers plan review and inspection assistance to ensure proper erosion and sedimentation control practices are designed, installed, and maintained. We encourage the City to partner with the SWCD to jointly protect receiving waters. 3. Phased grading is a critical Best Management Practice (BMP) on projects of this magnitude. The plan shows the project phases, but does not clarify the grading phases. Mass grading the site is strongly discouraged and will likely result in overwhelming erosion issues and significant risk to surface waters and wetlands. We suggest limiting the area that can be graded to 20 -40 acres and requiring each phase to be stabilized before the next roceeds. 4. The buffer requirements in the City ordinance will provide good protection for wetlands on the site. 5. Include the new NPDES guidelines on the grading plan and construction specifications. Item 17: Water Quality and Quantity — Surface Water Runoff The EAW states 4 acres of new ponding will be added to the site and will limit the peak storm water discharge rate to .05 cfs /acre for a 100 -year, 24 -hour storm event by using regional ponds and/or on -site ponding. Further, the site is required to provide 1/12 acre - foot/acre /day of infiltration for the entire site's acreage either on -site or in the regional system. Volume control practices are not as effective at the end of the pipe. Volume reduction should occur at the source if at all possible. Accordingly, regional facilities should not generally be used to reach infiltration goals. Brockway Development 2 04 -ROS -012 Further, the 1/12 acre - foot/acre /day standard equates to the infiltration rate of clayey (Hydrologic Soil Group D) soils. Because the site contains primarily HSG B soils, a standard that maintains comparable infiltration rates is necessary to mitigate the stormwater impacts of developments. This is especially important if the increase in total runoff volume with the increased impervious area is calculated. The addition of 26 acres of impervious will increase the annual runoff volumes from the site by 15,000,000 - 20,000,000 gallons (assuming typical precipitation). The proposed rate and volume controls will not mitigate the impacts of this additional volume and associated pollutant loads. The EAW does not assess the actual runoff volumes and receiving water impacts of the increased runoff associated with the additional impervious areas. While it states the City's standards will be implemented, additional information is necessary to determine how they will be installed and if the project has the potential for significant environmental effects. The SWCD looks forward to working with the City and developer to identify and incorporate multiple innovative stormwater management practices into the design. The SWCD has cost -share assistance for eligible innovative stormwater management practices and will work diligently to identify and obtain additional grants if necessary. Summary The EAW does not provide adequate information about the potential adverse effects the proposed development will have on downstream receiving waters. More specific information about stormwater runoff volumes and impacts to receiving waters are needed. We look forward to working closely with the City of Rosemount to minimize the short and long -term environmental impacts of this development. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions you can reach me at (651) 480- 7777. Sincerely, Jay Riggs, CPESC Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District cc: Dave Hempel, CPDC, 3030 Centre Pointe Drive, Suite 800, Roseville, MN 55113 Vermillion River Joint Powers Organization, 14955 Galaxie Avenue, Apple Valley, MN 55124 MAR -17 -2004 15:06 WSB & ASSOCIATES 03/17/2004 03:00 PM 7635411700 P.02iO3 City of Rosemount 6514234424 2/3 Minnesota Department f Natural Resources 1200 Warm Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55105 651.772.7 00 March 17, 2004 Rick Pearson City of Rosemount City Hall, 2875 145 St. West Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997 RE: Brockway Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Dear Mr. Pearson: The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the EAW for the proposed Brockway Residential Development in the City of Rosemount. We offer the following comment for your consideration. Water- related Land Use Management Districts (Item No. 14) The EAW incorrectly states that there are no shoreland zoning districts within the vicinity of the project. Immediately northeast of the project, across from Bonaire Path, is Kegan Lake. Kegan Lake has a shoreland zoning classification of Recreation Development and is listed in Rosemount's shoreland ordinance as such. Land within 1000 feet of Kegan Lake is subject to the provisions of the city's shoreland ordinance. Thank you for the opportunity to review this project and the EAW. We look forward to receiving your record of decision and responses to comments at the conclusion of environmental review. Minnesota Rules part 4410.1700, subparts 4 and 5, require you to send us your Record of Decision within five days of deciding on this action. If you have any questions about these comments, please call Wayne Barstad, the Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist, at 651- 772 -7940. Sincerely, for x.attueen A. W RUace Regional Director C: Steve Colvin Wayne Barstad Sarah Hoffmann Diana Regenscheid Pat Lynch Dave Zappetillo Diane Anderson Jon Larsen, EQB Nick Rowse, USFWS #20040372 RM04Brockway.doc An Equal Opportunity Employer V DNR Infonation: 651- 296 -6157 1- 888-646 -6367 'ho Values Diversity 'TY : 651- 296 -5484 1-800-657-3929 CITY OF In the matter of the Decision on the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Brockway Residential Development in Rosemount, MN UNT FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS Contractor Property Developers Company (CP C) is proposing a mixed use residential development consisting of 612 total units. Housing types will consist of single and°multi- family residential. Several outlots are proposed on the project site. This development includes construction of 86 single- family home. three 60 -unit apartment buildings of which 1% will be senior housing, and 346 town home units, as well as a 15,000 SF of a Neighborhood Commercial area. The 106 acre z rea is located south of County Road 38, and east of State Highway 3 (South Robert Trai ). One outlot will consist of up to 15.0 acres of dedicated city park, a storm water pond a ball field, and a trail system. Pursuant to Minnesota R. 4410.4300, subp. 19D, the City of Rosemount has prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) f or this proposed project. As to the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) o the project and based on the record in this matter, including the EAW and comments received, the City of Rosemount makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Project The proposed project involves grading the 106 -acre site to construct streets, utilities, and residential units. It is anticipated that 1.8 acres of wooded area will be removed and 26 acres of impervious area will be added as part of this project. Lawn and landscaped area mill comprise 36 acres of the site after construction. Four additional acres of storm water ponding areas and a 15 acre public park are also proposed as part of the project. B. Project Site The proposed project is located north of Connemara Trail, south of County Road 38, west of the Chicago, Mil w ee, St. Paul Railroad, and east of TH 3. The site currently contains 6 acres of brush/grassland, 77.06 acres of golf turf, 7 acres of wooded area, 0.94 acres of wetland, and 15 acres of an existing warehouse and associated parking lot F: t 1.1 P id'IN". ] j ; 6- 03103?604FOF doc IL PROJECT HISTORY A. The project was subject to the mandatory preparation of an EAW under Minnesota R. 4410.4300 subp. 19D. B. An EAW was prepared for the proposed project and distributed to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parties on February 9, 2004. C. A public notice containing information about the availability of the EAW for public review was published in the Rosemount Town Pages on February 13, 2004. D. The EAW was noticed in the February 16, 2004 EQB Monitor. The public comment period ended March 17, 2004. Comments were received from the Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Dakota County, and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Copies of these letters are hereby incorporated by reference. Responses to the comments are also incorporated by reference. III. CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS. Minnesota R. 4410.1700, subp. l states "an EIS shall be ordered for projects that have the potential for significant environmental affects." In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental affects, the City of Rosemount must consider the four factors set out in Minnesota R. 4410.1700, subp. 7. With respect to each of these factors, the City finds as follows: A. TYPE, EXTENT, AND REVERSIBILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The first factor that the City must consider is "type, extent and reversibility of environmental effects ", Minnesota R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.A. The City's findings with respect to each of these issues are set forth below. 1. The type of environmental impacts and mitigation efforts anticipated as part of this project include: a. Land Use: The land use will be converted from industrial and open space /park to residential. To address this concern the development plans contain park and open space to mitigate for the conversion of land use. b. Wastewater and Water Consumption: This development is anticipated to use and generate approximately 167,688 GPD of water and wastewater. The MCES Wastewater Treatment F: i11PHTV 1-55 &03W33604F0Fdoc Facility has adequate capacity to handle the sewage volumes from this site. The increase in water use will be mitigated by the expansion of the City's water supply, storage, and distribution systems. c. Storm Water: The project is anticipated to generate additional storm water runoff. This runoff will be treated within on -site and off -site ponding facilities and infiltration areas to NURP guidelines. The design of the on -site stormwater management system is required to be sized to accommodate the 100 -year, 24 -hour critical storm event. d. Traffic: Traffic volume on TH 3, Connemara Trail, and CR 38 will increase. As a result several improvements will be necessary to ensure the safety and operation on these roadways. These improvements are outlined in the 2003 Traffic Impact Study completed for this site and are included with the EAW. e. Dump Sites/ Known and Potential Sources of Soil and Groundwater Pollutant Sites: Information from Dakota County and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency indicates that there are several known and potential sources of pollutants within the site. These areas will be investigated and remediated in conformance with federal and state regulations and with Dakota County Ordinance 110, Chapter 14. 2. The extent and reversibility of environmental impacts are consistent with those of residential development. B. CUMULATIVE POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF RELATED OR ANTICIPATED FUTURE PROJECTS The second factor that the City must consider is the "cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects ", Minnesota R. 4410.1700 subp.7.B. The City's findings with respect to this factor are set forth below. 1. The Brockway property is currently zoned B -P2 and PI. The city will need to re -zone and re -guide the area to a combination of urban and high density residential uses to reflect the different housing types proposed in the plan as well as the commercial site. The regional land use conversion from parks, business park, and open space to developed residential space is anticipated to have a cumulative impact on the area. Attempts to mitigate this impact will include providing open space and park in the development, providing adequate stone water management facilities, and addressing traffic impacts. The F:114'P11IA "1.i i 6 -03" 03'604FOF doc City's current ordinances, standards, and policies are anticipated to be adequate to address these issues. C. THE EXTENT TO WHICH ENVIRONMENTAL AFFECTS ARE SUBJECT TO MITIGATION BY ONGOING PUBLIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY 1. The following permits or approvals will be required for the project: State T of A 1. The City finds that the potential environmental impacts of the project are subject to mitigation by ongoing regulatory authorities such that an EIS need not be prepared. D. 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, OR OF EISs PREVIOUSLY PREPARED ON SIMILAR PROJECTS. The fourth factor that the City 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, F. 1 JIT RTV.,1556- 031033604FOF doc MPCA Review. f Approval of a Construction Contingency Plan/Response Action PIan MPCA NPDES /SDS Phase 11 Storm Water Construction Permit . MPCA Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit Minnesota DNR Water Appropriation Minnesota Department of Health Water Main Extension Permit City/Local Met Council Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment Met Council Sanitary Sewer Extension Dakota County Review Construction Contingency Plan/Response Action Plan Dakota County Access Permit City of Rosemount/Dakota County Platting City of Rosemount Building Permits City of Rosemount Site Plan Review - City of Rosemount WCA Permit 1. The City finds that the potential environmental impacts of the project are subject to mitigation by ongoing regulatory authorities such that an EIS need not be prepared. D. 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, OR OF EISs PREVIOUSLY PREPARED ON SIMILAR PROJECTS. The fourth factor that the City 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, F. 1 JIT RTV.,1556- 031033604FOF doc or of EISs previously prepared on similar projects," Minnesota R. 4700.1700, subp. 7.D. The City's findings with respect to this factor are set forth below: The proposed project is subject to the following plans prepared by the City: 1. City of Rosemount Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan (2003) 2. City of Rosemount Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan (1999) 3. City of Rosemount 2020 Comprehensive Plan The proposed project is subject to the investigation and remediation, if deemed necessary, of the following sites in conformance with the County and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: 1. Dakota County Environmental Management Department Dump Sites 5363, 5358, 5424 5387, 5366, 5388, and 5004. 2. Any additional areas identified by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency as potential sources of soil and/or groundwater pollution. The City finds that the environmental effects of the project can be anticipated and controlled as a result of the environmental review, planning, and permitting processes. CONCLUSIONS The preparation of Brockway Residential Development EAW and comments received on the EAW have generated information adequate to determine whether the proposed facility has the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW has identified areas where the potential for significant environmental effects exist, but appropriate measures have or will be incorporated into the project plan and/or permits to mitigate these effects. The project is anticipated to comply with all City of Rosemount standards and review agency standards. Based on the criteria established in Minnesota R. 4410.1700, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental impacts. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required. F:',i1TITZ\,,1?;6- 030 ?GOFFOFdoc RESOLUTION 2004- RESOLUTION ISSUING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF NEED WHEREAS, the preparation of the Brockway Residential Development EAW and comments received on the EAW have generated information adequate to determine whether the proposed project has the potential for significant environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, the EAW has identified areas where the potential for significant environmental effects exist, but appropriate measures have or will be incorporated into the project plan and/or permits to reasonably mitigate these impacts; and WHEREAS, the Brockway Residential Development is expected to comply with all the City of Rosemount and review agency standards; and WHEREAS, based on the criteria established in Minnesota R. 4410.1700, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects; and WHEREAS, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental impacts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City of Rosemount has determined that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. Adopted by the Rosemount City Council this day of , 2004. Mayor ATTEST: City Administrator F. I IfTWI 11556 -031 Resolution. q(