HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.a. Minea EAW, City Project #351:NOIIaV 'II3Nfloa
•QgHN do NOIZVUVIDaa
gALLV HN V 9NIf1SSI NOI.Lfl'IOSg2I V LdOQV OZ NOI.LOW :NOIZ3V QMQNaWWOMH
•sosuodsaj
posodoid puL paniaoW sTuauzuzoa aua, nnatnaz o1 0ui�aauz auj it, omepuanu ut aq 11 aul `sa��ioossV �g gS
gJIM UL'IIOW tpuV paniaoaz sIuauzuzoo oigl ioI paredaad uaaq omit sasuodsaa :Uuzp paitouuu aul `£OOZ `9 jsni?nV
uo pouad luourmoo 3ilgnd agljo pua aril Ouimottod •juomdotana(j jvpuopisaZt Xpadozd vaulw posodozd a
zoi GAV9) laa TuauassassV t'Iuauzuozinua aLP Quip e0w u0!juu -zojut U TLTuoo sluoumoop p0g3unu au,L
£OOZ `61 jsnfnV :E[,LV(I JNI LHHW IIONflOD A LID
NOLL3V HOJ AHVWWCIS aAI.Lf13aXH
.LNf10WHsOH AO A,II3
uot1ntosa-d pue saaUaZ luauzuzo3 `ToB3lo s2uipui,I `sTuauauzoD
�Ag Q2[AOHJJ '
of osuodsa -dIo umpuniouioW UvzQ `umpuvioTuoW :SJLNaWH3V1„LV
5 0 0
:ON VQNaOV
z00ul2ug f4D `•g•d `.zatzlozg I m 3 lPuV :AEI (IaHVJaHd
ssouisng plo
WOI132tS VQNaOV
IS£# Ioafojd f413 `AWH eau'w :W2t11 vc[NHOV
£OOZ `61 jsnfnV :E[,LV(I JNI LHHW IIONflOD A LID
NOLL3V HOJ AHVWWCIS aAI.Lf13aXH
.LNf10WHsOH AO A,II3
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2003 —
A RESOLUTION ISSUING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF NEED
WHEREAS, the preparation of the Minea Property Residential EAW and comments received on the
EAW have generated information adequate to determine whether the proposed mine site 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 Minea Property 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 19' day of August, 2003.
William H. Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
Linda Jentink, City Clerk
Motion by: Second by:
Voted In Favor:
Voted Against:
j
,.
AL
A 1 r F VSB
& associates, Inc.
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Rosemount
From: Andi Moffatt, Biologist
NEI
WSB & Associates
Date: August 12, 2003
Re: Minea Residential Development
u Environmental Assessment Worksheet
WSB Project No. 1005-77
The public comment period for the Minea Residential Development Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW) ended August 6, 2003. 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. Dete 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
f „ project does not have the potential for significant environmental impacts that cannot be
f Y addressed as part of the permitting process. Therefore, it is our recommendation that an EIS
is not required
4 ' Enclosed, please find the following items for your review relating to this EAW:
• Draft memo dated August 12, 2003 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.
415 . x ,Summary ofMaior Comments
.. _
Memr ;gay As part of the public comment period, comments were received from the Metropolitan
Site, Council, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Dakota Soil and Water Conservation
} .- District, and Dakota County. Outlined below is a brief summary of the comments provided
vlinneapab F
?1Minrtesiata
Minneapolis • St Cloud • Equal Opportunity Employer
r
August 12, 2003
Page 2
in the review agency letter:
1. Tree Preservation: The Metropolitan Council encourages the City to take into
consideration tree preservation as part of the park dedication.
2. Traffic: Nh /DOT's concern relates to the increased traffic entering Connemara Trail
at County Road 38. This issue can be addressed by monitoring the intersection to
determine the need for a signal.
3. Erosion Control: The Dakota Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD)
emphasized the importance of erosion and sediment control. The erosion control
plans will be reviewed as part of the plan approval process.
4. Storm Water Management: The SWCD requested additional information regarding
the storm water management of the site. This information is provided in the
Comment/Response memo.
5. MLCCS Information: The SWCD provided information about the Minnesota Land
Cover Classification System (MLCCS) that has been completed for the County. This
information provides detailed information about the current land cover conditions
within the area and is helpful for greenway corridor planning. This information has
been provided to City Staff for information.
6. Dump Site: Dakota County indicated that there is a dump site located on the Minea
site on the south end of the property. This dump site is partially within the right -of-
way of the railroad tracks near the proposed Pond D. This dump was investigated in
1992 -1993 by the County due to a fire that was initiated by a passing train. A
complete investigation has not been completed and the dump site must be formally
closed in conformance with County Ordinance 110, Chapter 14. Any dump
associated with the farmstead also needs to be investigated. It is recommended that
this issue be addressed with the landowner, the railroad, the County, and the City
prior to issuance of any grading permits.
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 t_ hat the project does not have
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.
F. I PPMM1005- 771081203hmccdoc
August 12, 2003
Page 3
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
Bret Weiss, P.E., WSB & Associates, Inc.
Steve Ach, Centex Homes
Dwight Jelle, Westwood Professional Services
F. I WP A'IN11005- 771081203hmcc doc
DRAFT Memorandum
To; Phyllis Hanson, Metropolitan Council
Brigid Gomhold, Mn/DOT Senior Transportation Planner
Brian Watson, Dakota SWCD
Lynn Moratzka, Dakota County Planning
From: ` Andi Moffatt, WSB & Associates, Inc.
Date: August 12, 2003
Re: Responses to Comments
Minea Residential Property Development EAW
WSB Project No. 100547
The public comment period for the Minea Property Residential Development Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW) ended August 6, 2003. Comments were received from the
Metropolitan Council, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Dakota County Soil and
Water Conservation District, and Dakota County.
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 project proposes to develop 160 single- family homes and 232
townhomes on the 156 -acre site. Council staff review finds that the EAW is complete and
accurate with respect to regional concerns and raises no major issues of consistency with
Council policies. An EIS is not necessary for regional purposes. However, staff provides
the following comments for your consideration.
Response: No response is necessary.
Comment #2: Item 8: Sanitary sewer service connection plans for the proposed project will
need to be submitted to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Municipal
Services staff for review, comment, and issuance of a construction permit before connection
revisions can be made to either the municipal or metropolitan wastewater disposal system.
Response: The City will submit sanitary sewer service connection plans to the
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Municipal Services staff for review
and comment and obtain any necessary permits and approvals for this work.
Comment #3: Item 10: The plan proposes to reduce the wooded/forest area from 11 acres
to 5 acres. The area by pond A includes most of the existing tree cover on the site and also
includes steep slopes on a knob of the land southeast of the pond. There is a park proposed
to the southwest of the pond. The park dedication could include wooded areas and the steep
slopes to provide some natural resource amenities in addition to recreation opportunities.
August 12, 2003
Page 2 of 10
Response: The City will take this under advisement during the plan review and
approval process.
Comment #4: Item 11: The preliminary Plat/Site Plan appears to show storm water
draining directly into Pond A. The water quality and corresponding wildlife habitat could be
better preserved if the storm water is pretreated.
Response: The preliminary grading plan shows only the area immediately tributary
Pond A (the existing wetland) draining to the wetland. This area is approximately 24
acres in size with mostly pervious areas including the 75 -foot buffer, a portion of a
proposed park, a potential trail, and the rear yards of approximately 23 houses. No
direct storm water discharge is proposed to this wetland.
The plans do propose a small bridge and dock/overlook to provide passive recreation
opportunities to the wetland. The City is in the planning process to determine if this
proposed path and bridge that leads to the dock is feasible.
Comment #5: Item 25: Consider a dedicated mid -block cross walk to provide a pedestrian
connection to the park from street G.
Response: The City will take this into consideration during the plan review and
approval process.
Comments from Mn/DOT
Comment #1: This development will have traffic impacts to TH 3 with the increase in
volumes entering at County Road 38 and Connemara Street. The forecasted volumes were
low'and may be higher than what the EA has forecasted. Signalizing either of these
intersections would have to meet warrants for all legs of the intersection.
Response: The traffic study took into account adjacent anticipated development as
well as projected future development. The forecasted volumes should be reasonable
for Connemara Trail and CR 38 based on the current information available. A signal
warrant study including a Signal Justification Report will be completed prior to a
request for signalization at either intersection.
Comments from Dakota County Sod and Water Conservation District
Comment #1: Item 1 The EAW does not address how the site fits within a greater
ecological corridor. All of the site is mapped in accordance with Level 415 Minnesota Land
Cover Classification System and has been ranked using a DNR- approved assessment
method. The area is a potential greenway corridor link between ITMore Park property,
Northern Rosemount Area Lakes and Woodlands as identified in the Dakota County
Farmland and Natural Area Plan. Accordingly, restoration and protection of a continuous
north -south corridor should be considered and integrated into the overall grading plan if
F.•I WPWINI1005 -77EAW Data1080803CRmemo.doc
August 12, 2003
Page 3 of 10
possible. Additional information about the significance of the site as part of a larger
greenway corridor is available from our office.
Response: This information has recently been obtained by the City and will be taken
into consideration as part of the plan review process. This information will also be
taken into consideration for future projects within the City.
Comment #2: Item 16: 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.
To adequately protect receiving waters and adjacent properties from sedimentation, we offer
the following:
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 control issues and significant risk to waters of the State. We suggest limiting the
area that can be graded to 20 -40 acres and requiring each phase to be stabilized before
the next proceeds.
Response: Information from the developer's engineer indicates that mass grading
of the site is anticipated. However, the City will take the SWCD's suggestion under
advisement during the plan review process and may limit grading to control erosion,
especially within the wetland's watershed.
Comment #3: We recommend the use of temporary sediment basins on the site. The
proposed infiltration areas should not be used as temporary sediment basins unless
precautions are taken to avoid clogging these areas. When temporary sediment basins have
lost Y2 of their storage volume, the basin should be drained and the sediment removed. It is
important to-remove this and all excess water on the site in a way that does not pollute
nearby wetlands and lakes (e.g. trenches should never be cut into the basins to drain the area
directly to Waters of the State).
Response: During grading, the permanent basins will be used. These basins will be
cleaned out and restored to their originally proposed grades once the construction
grading is complete.
Comment #4: Vegetated buffers provide good protection for wetlands on the site. These
buffers should remain undisturbed. _These areas should not be graded and remain vegetated
and undisturbed.
Response: The City requires a 75 -foot buffer'around the wetland on the Minea site.
The City's ordinance states that this area cannot be graded or disturbed. The site
plans include maintaining the 75 -foot buffer with no disturbance.
F.•IWPWIM1005 -77Z4W Data1080803CRmemo.doc
aop•oulau�g� £080801 n�nQ�T�31LL 1=.�
•uo.4v.4jUm sopinoid Imp mojs,�s
dwg xue jo luauodtuoo leluou -mpurg E oq pinorls `sXtgojoj luoutipas pue sdu4s iollU se dons
`Iuau4VQ -4Qzd •iaTEmuuMs Jo }uatu4P- Q:4oid Olmisso3ouaJopialp pue luounpos uuoj SurS2010
ol anp salez amlrej.tl2itt o algpdaosns axe surseg uoR j inT palou aq osle pinogs 11
`iarlain3 m2lsop alp Ouunp poiopisuoo oq pinogs s oip Xuum pue `suopmB iajemurei `sham
Xxp `iomos uuols jo oovld ur sogouaaq uogv.4T1joiq se tlo saoi�oeid •uou l ui odid -ate
jo-pua 01 uo4rppt ur saoi}oEid uot�onpai jjouni pue uoi�ua�ai � 2up[ool oB mooua osp a�
olgissod lualxo oT of aoloxpAtl 2up.sixo ure�ureuz pue sbjom 2urn raooi loo oid of soorjovt d
uol onpoi oumlon jjouni jo asn atp o moom aAA, •outuoos juauzdolanap -jsod Lt ur soumlon
jjouru luarudolanap -aid urelurem of sjdmopu spoddins (IDAA S Orly :Z j zuall =L# luammOD
•saliu SHQd1N oqj of aiarlpL of poimbw
sr . zsodoid loofoid otp `fnruouippV - ssaooid sill Ruunp uo o ur ua7l
oq TI?m (IDAA S atl kq paiajjo uua�iio u2isop oqj ssaooid lenoiddE pue matnai weld
atljo ind st soollorid c jWg pine lo4uoo uoisom alp mainai IIim fqiD arts :asuodsag
•(motl/sarlour go< alri uolit ue OAVq slios QA - ji Xnssaoau Klleiaua
jou axe sumip iopun) sureip iopun bleiodioour pue slios olgauuad flt2iq osn
•suissq ate
ssedf,.q ol smog nT molln ol auil jjo Palleisur oq pinogs malsKs uouvialgut atll •
m5isop jalui oip olui iapsoids Ianal v al.�eiodmouI
SIAOU anisoia -uou omsuo isnm sloiauoo jollno pue 1altrl
•utals,Ks ITao -om4 u olviodioour `lo4mo pools /allei
apinoid of papaau si aumlon/ga.dap iojvoi3jj •smotl ZL uerll i02uol ou JO uotj.�emp
tpim (saroods jueld oip uo 2uipuadop) looj om4 ol ouo uugl aiour ou oq pino*gs
urseq atp urglya .iajv-m jo q dop umunxeur aria `ail -3uipi000V •surseq uopu4jUm
pasodoid atla jo solloq san pine r4iliqurn uuaj -Suol oTp of Xa3l alp sr u0414020A
luau4eai4aid sup apinozd ol suopdo olqvin an sursuq
uopinuouirpos dam zo `salems `sduas MIT pa��e1a2a� surseg atl} o� a- gngosip
of ioud spgos popuodsns jo juou4to4oid oAvq Isnur stusuq uot�ExjT47ui 11V
•uonviTulsui lour Xioltipourun pue suunp sease
asat{a loaloid ol leo sr 11 .guitlsilquiso Qm Xatla se sdWg osaip uio g Xrme
JJouni Vanrp off. Xxess000u oq.KEuz 11 `ioq m3 • su axe u ojjv.4IUm llejo uouonzasuoo
pue apEZ2 arp 2uu lsitug aio aq paziligEis oq Isnur seaxt �ixe�ng 4 pue juaorfpV
:sauilapm2 u&sap 2uLA&olloj' atp zapisuoo
`surseq u ouelalgui pasodoid oiDjo ssouoApooga uua� - �uol atl� amsua os :g# luau�oa
•ss000.id Ttnoidd put mainaz
uvIds,f4!0 ate. guunp uo- olur uo7l oq HyA IuQmmoo sitl,I, :asuodsag
suot� touioods
uouon.4suoo pue weld 2uTuif arli uo souzIapii Sg(Ij I mau aq4 opuloul :S# juaunuoD
foo. `Z£ ?saiffr y
August 12, 2003
Page 5 of 10
The EAW does not assess the actual runoff volumes and receiving water impacts of the
increased runoff associated with the increased impervious areas. While it is clear the
standards identified in the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan 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.
Response: Based on recent information obtained from the developer, the following
storm water runoff volumes have been estimated for the site before and after the
project:
Existing Conditions
Drainage Area
Location
Drainage Area
(acres)
Runoff volume
for the 2 -year,
24 -hour event
(acre -feet)
Runoff volume
for the 10 -year,
24 -hour event
(acre- feet)
Runoff volume
for the 100 -
year, 24 -hour
event (acre-
feet
To the northeast
corner
5.14
0.2
0.6
1.1
To DNR
wetland
33.7
1.9
4.5
8.4
To South
123.9
15.5
13.7
127
TOTAL:
7.6
1 18.8
136.5
Proposed Conditions
To Pond B
3.8
0.3
0.6
1.0
To Pond C
30.3
2.1
4.6
8.3
To DNR
wetland
24.2
1.7
3.7
6.6
To Pond D
104
9.5
19.1
32.8
TOTAL:
13.6
28 148.7
The on -site stormwater management plan for the site includes three ponding areas.
These ponding areas are currently designed as follows:
Pond B - Drainage area 3.8 acres
Dead storage: 1 acre -foot
Live storage: 1.5 acre -feet
Pond C -Drainage area 30.3 acres
Dead-storage: 2.8 acre - feet
Live storage: 6.1 acre -feet
F.• I WPWIMJ00S- 771EAW Data1080803CRmemadoc
August . 2, 200
Page 6 of IO
Pond D - Drainage area 104 acres
Dead storage: 10.5 acre -feet
Live storage: 100.5 acre -feet
Based on the runoff volume information and the pond design information, the
proposed ponds provide more dead storage than required to meet NURP guidelines.
Ponds designed to NURP guidelines removed between 40 -60% of the phosphorus
and up to 90 -95% of the total suspended solids in the stormwater.
The majority of the site will drain to the south under the railroad tracks to the
Bloomfield development. There is a large wetland complex and mitigation site with
the Bloomfield development that will receive the runoff. A control structure will be
installed at the outlet from the Minea development thereby allowing the City to
manage the discharge from the site. The ponds within the site will be designed to
contain the entire 100 -year, 24 -hour event with no discharge. Therefore, if there is
too much water downstream, the water within the Minea site can be held back until it
can be discharged. If the water is too low downstream, water can be discharged from
the site. The ponds are required to be designed based on the policies in the updated
Stormwater Management Plan for the City.
Comment #4; The SWCD has cost -share funds available to design and install eligible Low
Impact Development practices. Please Contact Jay Riggs at (651) 480 -7779 for more
information and application materials.
Response: The City will keep this in mind for any LID projects.
Comment #5: The EAW does not provide adequate information about the potential adverse
effects of the proposed development due to a lack of specific information on how BMPs
would be installed. In addition, there is not information on how this project site will be
monitored to determine if predicted water quality goals under the City's Comprehensive
Stormwater Management Plan are being meta 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 minimi the short and long -term environmental
impacts on this development.
Response: The BMP and erosion control plans will be reviewed during the plan
review process. Additional information about the storm water management plan for
the site is provided in the response to the SWCD's Comment #3. The water quality
management of the site will include use of NURP ponds which infers a certain
removal efficiency ranging from 40 -60 % phosphorus removal and 90 -95% total
suspended solids removal. It is anticipated that the water quality treatment
capabilities of the ponds will vary but will achieve these typical removal efficiencies.
F.1WPW1MJ005- 771EAW Data1080803CRmemo.doc
1 op•ou 1 aurgD£080801 DxQd1 V31 LL
upgnbu mollugs agi of pogoual aq Plnoo goltim uioz� sasualaz IueuTUxeiuoo due `[(IZ-6)6805
aiiS) dump pauoquaua anoqu agi Jo aouasazd agi pue `(slanuB pue spurs gsumino jelouja
ivaiouaasoZl &gdduo uieol ills ueSa3jnurn 'a•i) siuouilpas alquauuod KIpiduJ jo oouosazd
agi `(daap iaaj 08 inoqu a•I) 3[oozpoq jamollegs alp jo osnuooq sxouzi puosfiuz agi zuau
((I puod pug D puod •a•I) spuod uzaginos omi agi zoj ono SHvloodso si sTgZ •zaiumpunois
aqi of 2uquz4lUm pue soouj -Tns snoinzadun jjo 9uiuuiu Kjpiduz Kq soomosaz z Iumpunoz
pue ooujzns ioudmi SIleguaiod Am uogon4suoo s joofozd posodoid oiR iag put 2uunp
oSrurezp zaiumuuoiS :soomoso -j zajvAA, uo sioudmj juoisxgd — ZI uogsona :£# IuaunuoD
•oouuuipzp s,fiiunoD agi giim aoueuuojuoo ut posolo Xlpuuoj aq iT iugi
azmbaz pue sails dump mnj Xuu put "ails dump snti jo uoquS�sanuT ue oig azlnbaz
Itim , ora •AkVg oqj uo siuom --moo oqi jo Imd su uoquuuojui s?rIi 2ulpiAOZd
fiunoD oqj saiuioazddu A41D a -sails sdump Xue mops sou uogeuuoJUT sly,
•A41VVE oqj jo uoquzudaid aip uT posn sum -dDd N agi uiog uo
quuuo :asuodsa-d
(sagiiloud pue sails 2uP1u0juo3uoN)
t7 zaiduU `0I I 'oN ooueuipzp f unoD uioxu(I gjyA ooueiiduzoo ui posolo �Iluuuoj
uaaq iou suq dump oqj 'paielpouiai oq of paau pue pazm000 oAeq •31a `nIempuno12
`zaiium ooejmt s `Ilos of sosualaz jl ouaa Lmpp o u Iusodsrp atolgan agi ui Pauuojaad
aq pinogs Sugsai uipom Tq.uomuagAuo PaAozddV •sainm pue silos Ienplsaz jo 2ulisal
dn- molloj ou pue `Ienouaaz aisueA, oliuuzalgozd `Sulisai poir all gi? A `ouiq iugi it paiu2gsanm
Xlpil- ed fluo sum dump oU •urezi Sutssud u )(q palm
. 1jul dump agi ua azt) u jo asn
iuouiixedaQ ivaumfuueW IeiuomuozTAug agi Aq paiu2gsanui semi dump OM 'E661 uI
•f,um jo -igSu puox[Tu aqi jo uowod u uo pue t4.i adozd agi jo puo ginos aqi uo [(IZ 6805
aiiS) ails dum(I (ogioud uolun mou) puOgTug (dIUD) oUTOud Put' PUBIsI 3I3o2I `o uoigo
agi jo oouasazd agi uolivaui iou saop rnVg oqj, :asn puul — 6 uogsona :Z# }uaunuoa
•saznion 4s osagi uiuiuTUui of ougadid oqj jo szaueno
agi jo f4 oqj si II - oulTodid zaAl2l poorn aqi of ivaouCpu aq of pauuuld
azu saouaplsaz oN •g xipuaddV ua sazn,3g ueld ails lip uo umogs si it `autTadid
zaAlZl pooh agi jo uoassuosip apnlou! iou pip Ixai AAVE agi alit :asuodsag
-Xgzuau suoquzado SuumoTo odid ,3uunp
saop jjuTOUZi pug siuoATos siuoRialop `iuuio - ms jo Iesodstp olglssod aril put `suoquzado
aoueuaiuirm put Suauualo adid `podid Suioq sionpoid iogio uotivam iou saop is `zanamoH
•isuaginos g2nozgi isamgizou Aizadoid agi ssozou XlleuoSurp sum Iuatl ouiladTd ,KuuduzoD
ref) IuzuN uzagizoN lap jo aouasazd aqi uoquauz saop AAVa ags - sionpozd umaloziad
pue Iio opnm so=o auTladid oq,L '(SL E M T) jjzadoid aql jo zauzoo isolAwou
age iu ivauaasua auiladid zaniJ pooh agi uor MT iou saop A V9 QU : T# Waurmoa
un03 VjOjV j zuo r s uauiuto,'
•azn4n9 agi uT fiaD agi uigilnn 3Uu101iuouT X4 zaium autos
uiaapun opdtoque saop )S41D oip `pojedToque si ails sigi jo 2uuoiiuouz au aInIA1
or o L a.Sva
coor `ZI isnffnv
August 12, 2003
Page 8 of 10
Response: As indicated in the response to Comment 2, the City will require
compliance with the County's ordinance to address the dump site. 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 dump site reveals that site is near the
proposed stormwater ponds, these ponds will be moved and/or redesigned to prevent
the contamination of the groundwater.
Comment #4: Question 13 — Water Use: Page 7 of the EAW states: "Based on the County
Well Index, no wells are located on -site. However, is anticipated that there is at least one
well on the farm site and it must be sealed in accordance with State and County regulations."
Since Centex Homes is proposing the project they should hire a well contractor to seal all
wells on the property prior to beginning demolition and site work.
While the pond north of the farmstead was undoubtedly used for livestock watering at the
time, the drinking was may have been obtained from a windmill- powered, shallow dug well
and cistern. Perched groundwater is represented by the north pond (elevation of 941 feet
amsl), which is located in glacial till sediments. Such shallow wells were abandoned, and
new wells were constructed to deeper, more dependable aquifers. The project proposer
should be aware of the possibility that more than one abandoned well may exist on the
property, as well as one or more cisterns. All abandoned wells must be permanently sealed
(Dakota County Ordinance 114) and not just capped or plugged _as mentioned in the EAW.
Response: The project proposer will be required to comply with all State and
County regulations associated with sealing and abandoning wells. This information
will be passed onto the project proposer.
Comment #5: Question 17b — Water Quality- Surface Water Runoff. The EAW discusses
the future construction of a stormwater trunk system with an outlet to the Mississippi River.
This response suggests that the stormwater plan being referenced by the EAW is the draft
stormwatermanagement plan that has not been adopted by the City and has not been
approved by the Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization. This should be
clarified.
The same EAW response notes the benefit of incorporating the "City's policies for storm
water..." It is unclear whether the City's policies are from the old stormwater plan or the
draft new plan. To our knowledge, the City has not adopted these policies. The reference to
"City policies" should clarify which plan policies are being used.
References to the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan should reflect the
current status of the plan, and whether the old plan or the draft plan is being used to review
this proposed development.. If the City relies on the draft plan to dictate stormwater
management, then how will the City ensure that practices described in the EAW will be
installed?
F: I WPKW I005- 771EAW Data1080803CRmemo.doc
August 12, 2003
Page 9 of 14
Response: The Plan referenced in the EAW is the 2002 /2003 draft Stormwater
Management Plan. The City has a need to continue to plan and manage development
within the City. Toward that end, the policies within the Draft 2002/2003
Stormwater Management were developed and reviewed with the City Council. The
City can ensure these policies are incorporated and installed as part of development
through the plan review process and the Developer's Agreement. The Developer's
Agreement is executed prior to approval of the plans and dictates the requirements
that need to be followed.
Comment #6: Question 19- Geologic Hazards and Soil Conditions: Closed depressions
and blind swales exist on -site and in the immediate area, which are characteristic of glacial
till plains (northern third of the subject property) and pitted glacial outwash plains (southern
two- thirds of the subject property). Such surface phenomena that have developed on
sandstone and dolostone subcrops are also characteristic of soil - covered karst topography.
The closed depressions and blind swales in this area have not been evaluated yet.
Response: As part of the development of this EAW, we contacted Mr. Ron Spong,
Dakota County Geologist, regarding any geological conditions or features such as
karst conditions that may be present on the site. Based on this discussion, these
conditions were not present within the Minea parcel.
Comment #7: Question 20a- Solid Wastes, Hazardous Wastes, Storage Tanks: The EAW
does not disclose the presence of the subject property of waste disposals and releases of
contaminants (leaching, spills, leaks, etc). The Chicago, Rock Island Pacific Dump [Site
5089(Q -21)] located adjacent to the railroad tracks at the southern end of the property and on
the slope of a closed depression (proposed Pond D) was partially addresses in 1992 -1993.
However, it was not remediated to appropriate levels that would be compatible with the
proposed residential land use, and it was not formally closed in compliance with Dakota
County Ordinance No 110, Chapter 14 (Nonconforming Sites and Facilities).
The EAW mentions the presence of abandoned vehicles east of the barn, which may indicate
a farm dump. The age of the farmstead suggests the potential for substantial waste disposals
from residential and agricultural activities before commercial waste hauling became
available in the area. Appropriate investigation, cleanup, and formal closure of the farm
dump are required.
Response: See response to Comment #2.
Comment #8: Question 21— Traffic: Additional traffic on CR 38 will increase
maintenance requirements. The County will need 50 feet or 55 feet for a one -half right of
way for CR 38. TH3 is not configured for traffic signals. How will the TH 3 improvements
be funded?
F.• IWPWIM1005- 771EAW Data1080803CRmemo.doc
August 12, 20 ,03
Page 10 of 10
Response: The Preliminary Plat shows a 50 foot Right of Way on CR 38. When a
traffic signal is warranted at the TH 3 and CR 3 8 intersection the City will work with
Dakota County and Mn/DOT on any improvement necessary and the funding of such
improvements.
Comment #9: Dakota County traffic counts for CR 38 are at 420 average daily trips (ADT).
This segment of road is gravel and is not included in the 2003 -2007 Dakota County Capital
Improvement Program. The roadway cannot handle the proposed development traffic in its
current condition. The EAW should discuss whether CR 38 will be improved as part of the
development and who will pay for this cost.
Response: The proposed project is anticipated to begin construction in 2003 with
final completion in 2008. A very small portion of the development (5% - 10 %) is
anticipated to use CR 38. The City has made a condition of approval that the
developer escrow their portion of any improvement (i.e. paving CR 38). The City
will work with the County on potentially accelerating the paving of CR 38.
Comment #10: The second paragraph on page 13 includes the sentence, "If a traffic signal
were installed at Connemara Trail and CR 38..." There is currently no such intersection at
this location. If the City is suggesting that Connemara Trail be extended to CR 38, Dakota
County suggests that, at a minimum, the extension to Biscayne Avenue be installed with or
prior to the development.
Response: This was a typo it should read "If a signal were installed at Connemara
Trail or CR 38 ....»
Comment #11: Question 27 - Compatibility with plans and land use regulations: Again, it
is unclear whether the adopted 1997 stormwater plan or the draft plan are being used.
Response: See response to Comment #5.
This concludes our responses to comments on behalf of the City. If you have any questions,
please feel free to contact me at (763)297 -7196.
C. Andy Brotzler, P.E., City of Rosemount
Rick Pearson, City of Rosemount
Bret Weiss, P.E., WSB & Associates, Inc.
Steve Ach, Centex Homes
Dwight Jelle, Westwood Professional Services
F. I WPWINI1005- 77IEAW DataW80803CRmemo.doc
AUG -04 -2003 14 =1e WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 0.02/04
AUG-04 -2003 14:31 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT 651 423 5203 P.02/04
Metropolitan Council
Building a mmunities that work
July 28 2003
Rick Pearson, City Planner
City of Rosemount
2875 145' Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997
RE: Rosemount-Minea property residential development
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
Review pile No. 18982 -1
Dear Mr. Pearson:
The project proposes to develop 160 single- family homes and 232 townhouses on the 156 -acre
site. Council staff review finds that the'EAW is complete and accurate with respect to regional
concerns and raises no major issues of consistency with Council policies. An EZS is not
necessary for regional purposm however, staff provides the following comments for your
consideration:
Item 8 - Permits acrd Approvals Required
Sanitary sewer service connection plans for the proposed project will need to be submitted to the
Metropblitan Council Environmental Service Municipal Services staff for review, comment, and
issuance of a construction permit before connection revisions can be made to either the
municipal or metropolitan wastewater disposal system.
Item 10. -Land Craver Types
The plan proposes to reduce the wooded/forest area from 11 acres to 5 acres. The area by pond
A includes most of the existing tree cover on the site and also includes steep slopes on a knob of
laud southeast of the pond. 'There is a park proposed to the southwest of the pond. The park
dedication could include wooded areas and the steep slopes to provide some natural resource
amenities in addition to recreation opportunities.
Item 11. - Fish, WildWe and Ecologically Sensitive Resources.
The preliminary Plat/Site Plan appears to show storm water draining directly into Pond A. The
water quality and corresponding wildlife habitat could be better preserved if the storm water is
prttreated.
mww.meb=0=cll.0rg Metm Into Line 502 -1885
230 k"t Fifth Street SL Paul. Minnesota 55101 -1628 + ( 66])W2-1000 + Fax 602 -1550 • 77Y201-0904
An ZWW Ovmli neu Empojer
AUG -04 -2003 14 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.03/04
AUG -04 -2003 14:31 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT 651 423 5203'. P.03/04
Rick Pearson
July 28, 2003
Page 2
Item 25. - T'r,2fji'c.
Consider a dedicated mid -block cross walk to provide a pedestrian connection to the park from
street G.
Conclusion
This will conclude the Council's review of the RAW. The Council will take no formal action on
the EAW. If you have any questions or need fuxther information, please contact Michael King
Sector Representative / principal Reviewer, at 651 -502 - 1438.
S" cerely,
r
Phyllis anon, Manager
Planning and 'technical Assistance
Cc: Council Member Richard Aguilar T
Michael King; Sector Representative / Principal Reviewer
Cheryl Olson, Referrals Coordinator
V :UtEVMW%Con=mueslRosemountt[.ct =\P.a.Kmnmmt 2003 EAW Minea pipe* residential devciopmcnt doc
AUG -04 -2003 14 =18 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.04/04
AUG-04 =2003 14:31 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT 651.423 5203 P.04 -04
M innewta Department of TrAnsparta
metropolitan Division
Waters Edge
15oo West County Road S
Roseville, MN 56113
Augustl , 2003
Rick Pearson
City Planner - Rosernouint
City Hall, 2875 145"' St. W.
Rosemount, MN 55068
SUBJECT: Minea Property Residential Development
Mn/DOT Review #EAW03 -012
South of CR 38 east of Biscayne Ave
Rosemount, Dakota Co.
Control Section 2410
Dear Mr. Pearson:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the above - reference Environmental Assessment.
This development will have traffic impacts to TH 3 with the increase in volumes entering
at County Road 38 and Connemara Street. The forecasted volumes were low and maybe
higher than what the EA has forecasted. Signalizing either of these intersections would
have to meet warrants for all legs of the intersection.
If you have any questions concerning this review please feel free to contact me at (65 1)
582 -1378_
Sincerely,
Sincerely,
Prod o
Senior Transportation Planner
Copy: Pete Sorenson J Dakota County Engineer
Lynn Moratzka / Dakota County Planning Dirmtor
Anne Braden / Metropolitan Council
Gerry Larson 1 Mn/DOT
Mn/DOT Division File CS 2724
Mn/DOT LGL File - Rosemont
An equal opportunity employer
TOTAL P.04
TOTAL P.04
r DAKOTA COUNTY SOIL AND WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Dakota County Extension and Conservation Center -
4100 220th Street West, Suite 102 -
Farmington, MN 55024
Phone: (651) 480 -7777 FAX: (651) 480 -7775
www.dakotasWcd.org
August 5, 2003
Mr. -Rick Pearson, City Planner Ref.: 03 ROS -048
City of Rosemount
2875 St. W.
Rosemount, MN 55068
Re: Environmental Assessment Worksheet — Minea Residential Development
Dear Rick,
This letter is in response to the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) completed for the above-
referenced project. The proposed development entails 392 units on approximately 156 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 Il: Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources
The EAW does not address how the site fits within a greater ecological corridor. All of the site is mapped
in accordance with Level 415 Minnesota Land Cover Classification System and has been ranked using a
DNR- approved assessment method. The area is a potential greenway corridor link between UMore Park
property, 'Northern Rosemount Area Lakes and Woodlands as identified in the Dakota County Farmland
and Natural Area Plan. Accordingly, restoration and protection of a continuous north -south corridor
should be considered and integrated into the overall. grading plan if possible. Additional information
about the significance of the site as part of a larger greenway corridor is available from our office.
Item 1. 6: Erosion and Sedimentation
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.
To adequately protect receiving waters and adjacent properties from sedimentation, we offer the
following:
1. 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 control issues and significant risk
to waters of the State. We suggest limiting the area that can be graded to 20-40 acres and .requiring
each phase to be stabilized before thenext proceeds.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Closing
The EAW does not provide adequate information about the potential adverse effects of the proposed
development due to a lack of specific information on how BMPs would be installed. In addition, there is
no information on how this project site will be monitored to determine if predicted water quality goals
under the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan are being met. 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 minimiz 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,
Brian Watson, District Manager
Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District
cc: Andrea Moffatt, WSB, 4150 Olson Memorial Hwy, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55422
Vermillion River Joint Powers Organization, 14955 Galaxie Avenue, Apple Valley, MN 55124
Steve Ach, Centex Homes, 12400 Whitewater Drive #120, Minnetonka, MN 55343
q
v V `
AUG -08 -2003 14 =16 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.02/05
'AUG -08 -2003 14 :28 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT 651 423 5203 P.02i05
C U N T Y
office of Planning August 5, 2003
Lynn G. M RiCk Pearson, City Planner
Dimttor City of Rosemount
Dakota County 2875 145 Street W.
western Service Center Rosemount, IRAN 55068
14455 Gaiaxie Averts
Apple Valley, M N 55124 RE: EAW - Minea Property residential Develop
452.891.7030 Dear Mr. Pearson:
Fax 9528'91.7031
Wuvr.cadakdCd.mn,us -
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Minea Property 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.
In the future, I would appreciate directly receiving copies of EAWs, ElSs, AUARs,
and comprehensive plan amendments that you send for County review.
if you have questions about this review, please call me at (952) 691 - 70$3. We
look forward to continuing to work with you as this project progresses.
Sincerely,
t_ Moratzka, Director
Office of Planning
End
c. Willis E. Branning, Dakota County Commissioner - District 7
Brandt Richardson, County Administrator
Greg Konat, Director, Physical Development Division
Phyllis Hanson, Metropolitan Council
0 N. \Review CQmments\MInea Pmperty EAW.
.hm 3=vsx cam— —4.
.wv.�Mt taamntirtrwumn
3:21 PM 8/512003
AUG-08 -2003 14:16 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.03/05
AUG -08 -2003 14:28 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT 651 423 5203 P.03/05
Dakota County Comments on. the EAW for the Mines Progeny Residential Develo mart
Question 9: Lend Use
The EAW does not mention the W ood River Pipeline easement at the northwest comer of the
property (PIN 34-02100,-01()-75). The pipeline carries crude oil and petroleum products. The
EAW does mention the presence of the Northern Natural Gas Company Pipeline that runs
diagonally across the property northwest through southeast. However, it does not mention other
products being piped, pipe cleaning and maintenance operations, and the possible disposal of
suriactants, detergents, solvents, and tracing dyes during pipe cleaning operations nearby.
The FEW does not mention the presence of the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific (GRIP)
Railroad (now Union Pacific) Dump [Site 5039 (L1 -21)] on the south end of the property and on a
portion of the railroad right-of-way- in 1992 -1993, the dump was investigated by the
Environmental Management Department because of a fire in the dump initiated by a passing
train. The dump was only partially investigated at that time, with limited testing, problematic
waste removal, and no fallow -up testing of residual soils and wastes. Approved environmental
media testing should be performed in the vehicle disposal area to determine if releases to. soil,
surface water, groundwater, etc., have occurred and need to be remedlated. The dump has not
been formally closed in compliance with Dakota County Ordinance No. 110, Chapter 14
(Nonconforming Sites and Facilities).
Question 12: Physical Impacts on Water Resources
Stormwater drainage during and after the proposed project's construction may potentially impact
surface and ground water resources by rapidly running off impervious surfaces and infiltrating to
the groundwater_ This is especially true for the two southern ponds (i.e., Pond C and,Pond D)
near the railroad tracks because of the shallower bedrock (i.e., about 80 feet deep), the presence
of rapidly permeable sediments (i.e., Waukegan silt loam capping Rosemount glacial outwash
sands and gravels), and the presence of the above mentioned dump [Site 5089 (0-21)], any
contaminant releases from which could be leached to the shallow aquifer.
Question 13: Water Use
Page 7 of the EAW states_ "Based on the County Well Index, no wells are located on -site.
However, it is anticipated that there is at least one well on the farm site and it must be sealed in
accordance with State and County regulations." Since Centex Homes is proposing the project,
they should hire a well contractor to locate and seal all wells on the property prior to beginning
demolition and site work.
While the pond to the north of the farmstead was undoubtedly used for livestock watering at the
time, the drinking water may have been obtained from a windmill- powered, shallow dug well and
cistern_ Perched groundwater is represented by the north pond (elevation of 9441 feet amsi), new wells
which is located in glacial till sediments. Such shallow wells were abandoned, should be aware of
were constructed to deeper, more dependable aquifers. The project prop
the possibility that more than one abandoned well may exist on the property, as well as one or
more cisterns. All abandoned wells must be permanently sealed (Dakota County Ordinance 114)
and not just capped or plugged as mentioned in the EAW.
Question 17b: Water Quality- Surface Water Runoff
The EAW discusses the future construction of a stormwater trunk system with an outlet to the
Mississippi River. This response suggests that the s t or mwater plan being referenced by the
I=AW is the draft stormwater management plan that has not been adopted by the City and has not
been approved by the Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization_ This should be
clarified.
The same EAW response notes the benefit of incorporating the "City`s policies for storm water..."
It is unclear whether the City's policies are from the old stormwater plan or the draft new plan.
N.\Review comments\Klnea Property 6aw.d0c
3:22 PM 8/512003
eooZl5l8 Wd ZZ'E :)0P'A0S AP@dwd eau'W4uaiuwo' MatnaVN:N
'pasn 6ut aje ueid l}ejp a41 ao ueld jal mwaals L661 Paldopa at4 joLl;0t;nn.,ealaun S1 )I ,Ulo5v
`suollelnSw asn purl pue sueld ta!m Al 1MIadwoo :LZ uopsonp
';ua'w:dalanap at4l of sopd xi qw^ Pafrelsul aq euAeosl9 01 uolsualxa 0tg `wnt~'lulw
e Is ';eLg slsa6Bns A1unot) eloXe(3 'B£ -lO CY4 popualxe eq fle a teweuuo:) aetp OullsaWns st
A1!O gig ;I 'U01t000l step le uopoasjalui 14ons ou Al;ueuno Si ajatll .'" qe Mo PUS IIBJ1 etetuauuoa
le pallelsul atam lau6rs oWe4 a ;f. 'aoualues ayl sapnlou! E4 af3ed uo t4d eaBeied puooas aril
- )Soo s!ul
lol Aed II!m of m pue luawdalanap otll to laed se panoadwl aq 111 ► Re 2aa j9glG#4M ssnnslp WOW
My3 eq
1 •uorl!puoo luauno ell ul oLp-q luautdoleAep posodcud oLp alpuetl l AennPsaa 0141
'Lue 5OJd ivacuaAcudwl le;ide) Alunoo eloXea LoOZ -£QOZ all ul papnloul iou sl pue laneaB s4 peo3
jo luawBas sIt11 '(.L(3'd) sdm AI!ep a6elane OZi' le We 8£ 80 Jo; sl unoo olgail f4unoo slog %3
Lpepur4 aq sluawanoldwi g Hl a41
111m MOH 'sieu5IS 0 14a4 raj Pem6t4uoo lou eI £ H1 -se MO jq AUM to 14BIJ 11eq - au o a Jo ;;aal 9s Jo
ja14 09 poau 111m, A}uno3 ay_i_ 'sluawailnbaa aoueuelulew aseaJoul film 8£ NO uo 09,104 1eUa4!pPb
OL}eJI I 1 Uonsano
•paalnbaj oie dwnp twei aulto sinsolo leLwol pue `dnuealo'uo4EBllsanul a ;eudo ddd 'eats
ayi ur algel!ene owaoaq But1nat4 alsom lelo ewwoo ajo}aq serlu+1�B lem;lr►a>�Be pue lelluaptsai
mat; slesodslR a;sem lelluEg$gns lol jo1lualod at;# slseWns pealsu.=4 i011} 10 a6e aqj •dwnp uue;t
e alea!put Aew gol4m'uaeq 914 10 lsea s8131tlan pouopuege jo aouesaa a ql SUOg nny3 atLL
'(sail!14oed pue sa1IS OuruttoIUMUON) b6 jaldego '0 b L 'ON aoueuipup Alunoo
e#oN:a(3 L!m aouelldwoo u1 pasoto Aileuwo) lou seM 11 pue asn peel lelluapisaj pesodold atg
411m arglledw0o aq pin legl slaAel alelidcudde of palelpawai IOU Senn l! 'JanaMaH '£66 f,-Z66 f.
ul passaappe Aila!ped seen (❑ puod posodold) uoisseadap pasolo a jo adols ayl uo pue A:Wodojd
044 jo pue ujatllnos a41 is SNoe.rl PeosilMj ay} 01 Waoefpe PaWz 6809 ells) dwna
op!oed pue pusisl )poa oBoolgO aql ' (`d1a 'Meal 'sill `Ouit4oaal) slUeulweluoo 10 sasealaj
pue slesodslp alsem 3a Al,ado id loafgns mg uo souesajd atll asolas4P IOU SOOP Mtn aril•
snug,.901u lS '981SUM snoplezt#H 'salseM PROS :uoZ uopsont)
•194 palenlena uaaq IOU ane4 eaje sI1t1 ut solems pu lq pue suoisseidap paso!a 9111 'At;deAodol
JS1" paJanaa-Ilos ;o allsualoeieyo osle ale sdologns auolsolop pue auolspues uo p0d0l0n0p
ane4 lout euawouogd ooapns 4anS .(Apadoid ;~oafgns ay1 to sp tiyl -oni wa4lnos) suleld
gsem ;no Ie!0e15 pallid pue (4jodaad lnafgns eql jo pnyl cust1pou) sureld fill !eloelB 10 oysualaeaeya
ale tptt4m'e8as alt?rpewwl a4l U, pue alts -uo lslxe selems puliq pue su olssasdap pasaio
suOMPuoO 11 pur sPIMH 01So1 .:61, uollsant)
zpallelsul eq 111m, M`d3 et; ut pagtjosap saotlaead;eyl ainsue Allo aL11
IIIM Mott ua41 'luawaEeuew jalemtwo }s alelotp o f ueid heap 8L4 uo sailaJ 40 aLA }l '1U9wdolanap
pasodoad s14l malhaa o f pasn Bulaq sl ueid Help aril jo ueld plo at4 Jat41814m Put? 'ueid eqj 10 snlels
;ua.uno atll loellej pinogs uald luawaBeueW JGj8Muuo4s an!suat4atdwoo s,A110 atll 01 saouaJaja�l
•pasn f5ulaq aie salolrod veld Lp!4v+ Alualo pinot4s
u salo►lod A1!0n of aouaia ;aa 94j- 'sepallod asagl paldope IOU S'eq A410 9L4 a5pajmou%.ino o.L
SO /170 ' d MZS £ZI SS9 1NnOW9SM d0 AID O 6?-:17T £00z -80 -oFlu
SO/trO'd OOLTZ17209L S31HIOOSSU '8 9SM 9S tI £00Z- e0 -9nU
RUG-08 -2003 14:16 WSB & ASSOCIATES
AUG -08 -2003 14 =29 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
7635411700 P.05/05
651 423 5203 P.05/05
�Nasle Disposal 3 . d C-onta Release site synopsis -f=arm Dumps and Disposals
FARM DUMPS AND DISPO
Farm dumps and disposals are very common in rural areas. Dumps and disposals are found
near the farmsteads in surface waste piles, covered excavations, slopes of ravines and dosed
depressions, such as wetlands and sinkholes, abandoned cesspools and cisterns, razed
building foundations, outbuildings, and shelterbelts. The older the farm, the more common it
was to have more than one disposal site. Combustible wastes were often incinerated in
fireplaces, boilers, garbage burners, burn barrels, and waste piles until the 1970s when air
pollution control Saws and burning permits were enforced.
The risks represented by farm dumps and disposals are dependent upon one's exposure to the
hazards of the site, its wastes, and any releases. Some examples are as follows.
Disposals in abandoned wells, cisterns, dry wells, sumps, drains, cesspools, seepage or
leaching pits, ditches, wetlands, sinkholes, and others, which may contribute to the
contamination of groundwater and drinking water supplies.
• Disposals In barnyards and pastures may eicpase livestock to ix�rttaminants.::Carden
and crop plants may'transfer• contaminants from sail into their tissues. consumption by
animals may surreptitiously enter the human food chain because of bloaccumulation and
biomagnification. Humans may also consume the plant tissues directly_
• While some wastes eventually breakdown becoming less of a problem, other waste
byproducts may become potentially more hazardous, such as gases including methane
and car ion_dioxide, and chemicals including degraded pesticides and solvents.
• Other wastes resist biological decomposition and physicochemical degradation and are
said to be persistent, such as polycy aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and PC 8s.
• Wastes deposited in ravines or in excavations may be exposed by erosion and
transported by wind and water creating off site soil and surface water problems.
• Fumace and boiler ash and slag concentrate heavy metals dike lead and mercury, as
well as persistent chemicals, such as PAHs, and may impact soil and water.
• Agrochemicals, such as fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, are potentially hazardous
wherever stored, mixed, used, and disposed. Older, restricted and banned pesticides
like DDT and arsehic are very significant because their residues persist in soils for
decades.
• The dilution and mixing of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides in spray applicator tanks
and terrigators with garden hoses without backflow and backslphonage prevention may
draw some of the concentrated chemicals into the well water supply. Past cternigation
and fertigat'ton by center -pivot and traveling gun irrigators were also unprotected.
• The use and repair of farm equipment and machinery required fuels, coolants, oils,
lubricants, batteries, generattors,:transformer , capacitors, and rather equipment and
materials whose spills acid disposals may cause significant problems.
• Aboveground and underground storage tanks for gasoline, diesel fuel, and heating all '
may have leaked or spilled, and used oil was sprayed on roads for dust control.
Asbestos containing building materials were once common in construction and insulation
materials, electrical circuits, heating plants and piping, some appliances, and other
equipment, supplies fixtures, and furnishings. Lead paint was commonly used.
For all of their potential hazards, many farm dumps are small, fairly benign, and do not
represent a serious threat to public health, safety or the environment because of their relative
isolation and limited waste types and quantities. often, the exposure was limited to the farm
families at the time. But, some farm dumps may present serious or even unique hazards_ Asa
community's population increases in close proximity to a farm dump, the potential for human
exposure increases and may become significant needing reassessment. Abandoned farms
present a challenge bemuse no one may be around who knows about their location or contents.
Dakota county Environmental Management Department- Site Assessment
TOTAL P.05
TOTAL P.05
CITY Or ROSEMO JNT
In the matter of the
Decision on the Need for an
Environmental Impact FINDINGS OF FACT
Statement (EIS) for Minea AND CONCLUSIONS
Property Residential
Development in
Rosemount, MN
Centex Homes is proposing a mixed use residential development consisting of 160
single- family homes and 232 town home units on a 156 -acre site located south of County
Road 38, north of the Union Pacific Railroad, and 1.5 miles east of Trunk Highway 3.
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 156 -acre site to construct streets,
utilities, and residential units. The project is anticipated to remove 6 acres of
wooded area and add 51 acres of impervious area and lawn/landscaping.
Three storm water ponding areas and a public park are also proposed as part
of the project.
B. Project Site
The proposed project is located south of County Road 38, north of the Union
Pacific Railroad, and east of TH 3. The site currently contains 8 acres of
brush/grassland, 129 acres of cropland, 11 acres of wooded area, 7 acres of
wetland, and an existing farmhouse.
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 July 2, 2003.
C. A public notice containing information about the availability of the EAW for
public review was published'in the Rosemount Town Pages on July 14, 2003.
F:1 WPWBV11005- 771EAW Data1072803FOF.doc
D. The EAW was noticed in the July 7, 2003 EQB Monitor. The public
comment period ended August 6, 2003. Comments were received from the
Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Dakota
Soil and Water Conservation District, and Dakota County. 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 agriculture to
residential. To address this concern the development plans
contain park and open space to mitigate the problem.
b. Wastewater and Water Consumption: This development is
anticipated to use and generate approximately 107,408 GPD of
water and wastewater. The MCES Wastewater Treatment
Facility has adequate capacity to handle the sewage volumes
from this site. The increase in water 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 some
additional storm water runoff. This runoff will be treated
within on -site ponding facilities 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.
P -1 WPWTN11025- 771EAW Dafa1072803F0F.doc
d. Traffic: Traffic volume on TH 3, Connemara Trail, and CR 38
will increase. The existing and proposed street sections on
Connemara Trail and CR 38 will be adequate to accommodate
the proposed traffic increases. The City has made a condition
of approval that the developer escrow their portion of any
improvement (i.e. paving CR 38). The City will work with the
County on potentially accelerating the paving of CR 3.8. The
intersections of TH3 at Connemara Trail and at TH3 and CR38
should continue to be monitored to determine when traffic
signals will be justified.
e. Dump Site: Information from Dakota County indicates that
there is a dump site on the south side of the proposed
developed adjacent to the railroad tracks. This site is required
to be remediated in conformance 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 Bloomfield Residential Development is located south of the
Minea property. The land surrounding the Minea site is zoned as R1-
Low Density Residential. The regional land use conversion from
open space and agricultural to developed residential space is
anticipated to have a cumulative impact on the area. Attempts to
mitigate this impact will include providing open space in the
developments, providing adequate storm water management facilities,
and addressing traffic impacts. The 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:
F:1 WPWjM1005- 771E,4 W Data1072803FOFdoc
2. 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,
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
(draft 2003)
2. City of Rosemount Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan
3. City of Rosemount y 2020 Comprehensive Plan
The proposed project is subject to the findings of the following information:
1. Dump Site 5089 (Q -21) information and investigation completed in
1992 -1993 by the Dakota County Environmental Management
Department.
Army Co of Engineers
Wetland Permit
MPCA
NPDES storm water permit
MPCA
Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit
Minnesota DNR
Work in Public Waters
Minnesota DNR
Water Appropriation
Minnesota De artment of Health
Water Main Extension Permit
Dakota County
Access Permit
Dakota County
Dump closure approval
City of Rosemount/Dakota County
Platting
City of Rosemount
Building Permits
City of Rosemount
Site Plan Review
City of Rosemount
WCA Permit
Ci of Rosemount
Grading Permit
City of Rosemount
Rezonin A
F.• 1 WPWlN11005 -771 EAW Data 1071803FOF.doc
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 Minea Property 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. I WPWIV Il00S -77EAW Data I072803FOF. doc
RESOLUTION 2003-
RESOLUTION ISSUING A NEGATIVE (DECLARATION OF NEED
WHEREAS, the preparation of the Minea 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 Minna 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 19 day of August, 2003.
ATTEST:
City Administrator
Mayor
F. I WPWIM 1005 -771 Resolution. rtf
AL
WS B
& Associates, Inc. -
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Rosemount
From: Andi Moffatt, Biologist
WSB & Associates
k ;
Date: August 12, 2003
Re: Minea Residential Development
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
WSB Pro ect No. 1005 - -77
J
Yom`
The public comment period for the Minea Residential Development Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW) ended August 6, 2003. ; The purpose of the EAW is to
4.:
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:
�u•
s
Draft memo dated August 12, 2003 to the review agencies responding to
'<
comments received on the EAW (hereby referred to as the comment/response
k.
memo). This memo restates the agencies' comments and then responds to
each issue.
. A
The Findings of Fact on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS)
• A copy of the agencies' comment letters.
1
Draft resolution relating.to a Negative Declaration of Need.
-415th
Summary ofMaior Comments
Memorr¢rgFtvuay
As part of the public comment period, comments were received from the Metropolitan
� Suite 300 ; ; .
Council, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Dakota Soil and Water Conservation
�vlinneapalTS s
M innesota
District, and Dakota County. Outlined below is a brief summary of the comments provided
Minneapolis • St. Cloud • Equal Opportunity Employer
August 12, 2003
Page 2
in the review agency letter:
1. Tree Preservation: The Metropolitan Council encourages the City to take into
consideration tree preservation as part of the park dedication.
2. Traffic: Mn/DOT's concern relates to the increased traffic entering Connemara Trail
at County Road 38. This issue can be addressed by monitoring the intersection to
determine the need for a signal.
3. Erosion Control: The Dakota Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD)
emphasized the importance of erosion and sediment control. The erosion control
plans will be reviewed as part of the plan approval process.
4. Storm Water Management: The SWCD requested additional information regarding
the storm water management of the site. This information is provided in the
Comment/Response memo.
5. MLCCS Information: The SWCD provided information about the Minnesota Land
Cover Classification System (MLCCS) that has been completed for the County. This
information provides detailed information about the current land cover conditions
within the area and is helpful for greenway corridor planning. This information has
been provided to City Staff for information.
6. Dump Site: Dakota County indicated that there is a dump site located on the Minea
site on the south end of the property. This dump site is partially within the right -of-
way of the railroad tracks near the proposed Pond D. This dump was investigated in
1992 -1993 by the County due to a fire that was initiated by a passing train. A
complete investigation has not been completed and the dump site must be formally
closed in conformance with County Ordinance 110, Chapter 14. Any dump
associated with the farmstead also needs to be investigated. It is recommended that
this issue be addressed with the landowner, the railroad, the County, and the City
prior to issuance of any grading permits.
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
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.
F. I WPWPAJ 005- 771081203hmcc. doc
August 12, 2003
Page 3
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me of (763)287 -7196.
C. Andy Brotzler, P.E., City of Rosemount
Rick Pearson, City of Rosemount
Bret Weiss, P.E., WSB &Associates, Inc.
Steve Ach, Centex Homes
Dwight Jelle,_Westwood Professional Services
F.• I WPWIIV 11005- 771081203hmcc. doc
DRAFT Memorandum
To: Phyllis Hanson, Metropolitan Council
Brigid Gombold, Mn/DOT Senior Transportation Planner
Brian Watson, Dakota SWCD
Lynn Moratzka, Dakota County Planning
From: Andi Moffatt, WSB & Associates, Inc.
Date: August 12, 2003
Re: Responses to Comments ;
Minea Residential Property Development EAW
WSB Project No. 1005 -77
The public comment period for the Minea Property Residential Development Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW) ended August 6,2003. Comments were received from the
Metropolitan Council, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Dakota County Soil and
Water Conservation District, and Dakota County.
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 project proposes to develop 160 single - family homes and 232
townhomes on the 156-acre site. Council staff review finds that the EAW is complete and
accurate with respect to regional concerns and raises no major issues of consistency with
Council policies. An EIS is not necessary for regional purposes. However, staff provides
the following comments for your consideration.
Response: No response is necessary.
Comment #2: Item 8: Sanitary sewer service connection plans for the proposed project will
need to be submitted to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Municipal
Services staff for review, comment, and issuance of a construction permit before connection
revisions can be made to either the municipal or metropolitan wastewater disposal system.'
Response: The City will submit sanitary sewer service connection plans to the
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Municipal Services staff for review
and comment and obtain any necessary permits and approvals for this work.
Comment #3: Item 10: The plan proposes to reduce the wooded/forest area from 11 acres
to 5 acres. The area by pond A includes most of the existing tree cover on the site and also
includes steep slopes on a knob of the land southeast of the pond. There is a park proposed
to the southwest of the pond. The park dedication could include wooded areas and the steep
slopes to provide some natural resource amenities in addition to recreation opportunities.
August 12, 2003
Page 2 of 10
Response: The City will take this under advisement during the plan review and
approval process.
Comment #4: Item 11; The preliminary Plat/Site Plan appears to show storm water
draining directly into Pond A. The water quality and corresponding wildlife habitat could be
better preserved if the storm water is pretreated.
Response: The preliminary grading plan shows only the area immediately tributary
Pond A (the existing wetland) draining to the wetland. This area is approximately 24
acres in size with mostly pervious areas including the 75 -foot buffer, a portion of a
proposed park, a potential trail, and the rear yards of approximately 23 houses. No
direct storm water discharge is proposed to this wetland.
The plans do propose a small bridge and dock/overlook to provide passive recreation
opportunities to the wetland. The City is in the planning process to determine if this
proposed path and bridge that leads to the dock is feasible.
Comment #5: Item 25 Consider a dedicated mid -block cross walk to provide a pedestrian
connection to the park from street G.
Response: The City will take this into consideration during the plan review and
approval process.
Comments from Mn/DOT
Comment #1: This development will have traffic impacts to TH 3 with the increase in
volumes entering at County Road 38 and Connemara Street. The forecasted volumes were
low and may be higher than what the EA has forecasted. Signalizing either of these
intersections would have to meet warrants for all legs of the intersection.
Response: The traffic study took into account adjacent anticipated development as
well as projected future development. The forecasted volumes should be reasonable
for Connemara Trail and CR 38 based on the current information available. A signal
warrant study including a Signal Justification Report will be completed prior to a
request for signalization at either intersection.
Comments from Dakota County SoU and Water Conservation District
Comment #1: Item 11: The EAW does not address how the site fits within a greater
ecological corridor. All of the site is mapped in accordance with Level 4/5 Minnesota Land
Cover Classification System and has been ranked using a DNR- approved assessment
method. The area is a potential greenway corridor link between LTMore Park property,
Northern Rosemount Area Lakes and Woodlands as identified in the Dakota County
Farmland and Natural Area Plan. Accordingly, restoration and protection of a continuous
north -south corridor should be considered and integrated into the overall grading plan if
F.• I WPWM005- 771EAW Data1080803CRmemo.doc
August 12, 2003
Page 3 of 10
possible. Additional information about the significance of the site as part of a larger
greenway corridor is available from our office.
Response: This information has recently been obtained by the City and will be taken
into consideration as part of the plan review process. This information will also be
taken into consideration for future projects within the City.
Comment #2: Item 16: 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.
To adequately protect receiving waters and adjacent properties from sedimentation, we offer
the following:
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 control issues and significant risk to waters of the State. We suggest limiting the
area that can be graded to 20 -40 acres and requiring each phase to be stabilized before
the next proceeds.
Response: Information from the developer's engineer indicates that mass grading
of the site is anticipated. However, the City will take the SWCD's suggestion under
advisement during the plan review process and may limit grading to control erosion,
especially within the wetland's watershed.
Comment #3: We recommend the use of temporary sediment basins on the site. The
proposed infiltration areas should not be used as temporary sediment basins unless
precautions are taken to avoid clogging these areas. When temporary sediment basins have
lost 1 /2 of their storage volume, the basin should be drained and the sediment removed. It is
important to remove this and all excess water on the site in a way that does not pollute
nearby wetlands and lakes (e.g. trenches should never be cut into the basins to drain the area
directly to Waters of the State).
Response: During grading, the permanent basins will be used. These basins will be
cleaned out and restored to their originally proposed grades once the construction
grading is complete.
Comment #4: Vegetated buffers provide good protection for wetlands on the site. These
buffers should remain undisturbed. These areas should not be graded and remain vegetated
and undisturbed.
Response: The City requires a 75 -foot buffer'around the wetland on the Minea site.
The City's ordinance states that this area cannot be graded or disturbed. The site
plans include maintaining the 75 -foot buffer with no disturbance.
F. I WPWIM1005- 771EAW Data1080803CRmemo.doc
August 12, 2003
Page 4 of 10
Comment #5: Include the new NPDES guidelines on the grading plan and construction
specifications.
Response: This comment will be taken into consideration during the City's plan
review and approval process.
Comment #6: To ensure the long -term effectiveness of the proposed infiltration basins,
consider the following design guidelines:
• Adjacent and tributary areas must be stabilized before finishing the grade and
construction of all infiltration areas. Further, it may be necessary to divert runoff
away from these BMPs as they are establishing. It is critical to protect these
areas during and immediately after installation.
• All infiltration basins must have pretreatment of suspended solids prior to
discharge to the basins. Vegetated filter strips, swales, or wet sedimentation
basins are viable options to provide this pretreatment.
• Vegetation is the key to the long -term viability and aesthetics of the proposed
infiltration basins. Accordingly, the maximum depth of water within the basin
should be no more than one to two feet (depending on the plant species) with
duration of no longer than 72 hours. If greater depth/volume is needed to provide
rate /flood control, incorporate a two -cell system.
• Inlet and outlet controls must ensure non- erosive flows (0.5fps).
• Incorporate a level spreader into the inlet design.
• The infiltration system should be installed off -line to allow high flows to bypass
the basins.
• Use highly permeable soils and incorporate under drains (under drains are not
generally necessary if native soils have an infiltration rate >0.5 inches/hour).
Response: The City will review the erosion control and BMP practices as part of the
plan review and approval process. The design criteria offered by the SWCD will be
taken into consideration during this process. Additionally, the project proposer is
required to adhere to the NPDES rules.
Comment #7s Item 17. The SWCD supports attempts to maintain pre- development runoff
volumes in a post - development scenario. We encourage the use of runoff volume reduction
practices to protect receiving waters and maintain existing hydrology to the extent possible.
We also encourage looking at retention and runoff reduction practices in addition to end-of-
the-pipe infiltration. Practices such as biofiltration trenches in place of storm sewer, dry
wells, rainwater gardens, and many others should be considered during the design. Further,
it should also be noted that infiltration basins are susceptible to high failure rates due to
clogging form sediment and therefore necessitate pretreatment of stormwater. Pretreatment,
such as filter strips and sediment forebays, should be a fundamental component of any BMP
system that provides infiltration.
F. I WPWIM1005- 771EAW Data 1080803CRmemo.doc
August 12, 2003
Page 5 of 10
The EAW does not assess the actual runoff volumes and receiving water impacts of the
increased runoff associated with the increased impervious areas. While it is clear the
standards identified in the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan 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.
Response: Based on recent information obtained from the developer, the following
storm water runoff volumes have been estimated for the site before and after the
project:
Existing Conditions
Drainage Area
Location
Drainage Area
(acres)
Runoff volume
for the 2 -year,
24 -hour event
(acre- feet)
Runoff volume
for the 10 -year,
24 -hour event
(acre -feet)
Runoff volume
for the 100 -
year, 24 -hour
event (acre-
feet
To the northeast
corner
5.14
0.2
0.6
1.1
To DNR
wetland
33.7
1.9
4.5
8.4
To South
123.9
5.5
13.7
27
TOTAL:
1 7.6
118.8
1 36.5
Proposed Conditions
To Pond B
3.8
0.3
0.6
1.0
To Pond C
30.3
2.1
4.6
8.3
To DNR
wetland
24.2
1.7
3.7
6.6
To Pond D
104-
9.5
19.1
32.8
TOTAL:
13.6 128
48.7
The on -site stormwater management plan for the site includes three ponding areas.
These ponding areas are currently designed as follows:
Pond B Drainage area 3.8 acres
Dead storage: 1 acre -foot
Live storage: 1.5 acre -feet
Pond C - Drainage area .30.3 acres
Dead storage: 2.8 acre -feet
Live storage: 6.1 acre -feet
F.• I WPWIM]OOS- 771EAW Data1080803CRmemo.doc
August 12, 200
Page 6 of 10
Pond D - Drainage area 104 acres
Dead storage: 10.5 acre -feet
Live storage: 100.5 acre -feet
Based on the runoff volume information and the pond design information, the
proposed ponds provide more dead storage than required to meet NURP guidelines.
Ponds designed to NURP guidelines removed between 40 -60 % of the phosphorus
and up to 90 -95% of the total suspended solids in the stormwater.
The majority of the site will drain to the south under the railroad tracks to the
Bloomfield development. There is a large wetland complex and mitigation site with
the Bloomfield development that will receive the runoff. A control structure will be
installed at the outlet from the Mince, development thereby allowing the City to
manage the discharge from the site. The ponds within the site will be designed to
contain the entire 100 -year, 24 -hour event with no discharge. Therefore, if there is
too much water downstream, the water within the Minea site can be held back until it
can be discharged. If the water is too low downstream, water can be discharged from
the site. The ponds are required to be designed based on the policies in the updated
Stormwater Management Plan for the City.
Comment #4: The SWCD has cost - share funds available to design and install eligible Low
Impact Development practices. Please Contact Jay Riggs at (651) 480 -7779 for more
information and application materials.
Response: The City will keep this in mind for any LID projects.
Comment #5: The EAW does not provide adequate information about the potential adverse
effects of the proposed development due to a lack of specific information on how BMPs
would be installed. In addition, there is not information on how this project site will be
monitored to determine if predicted water quality goals under the City's Comprehensive
Stormwater Management Plan are being met. 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 on this development.
Response: The BMP and erosion control plans will be reviewed during the plan
review process. Additional information about the storm water management plan for
the site is provided in the response to the SWCD's Comment #3. The water quality
management of the site will include use of NURP ponds which infers a certain
removal efficiency ranging from 40 -60% phosphorus removal and 90 -95% total
suspended solids removal. It is anticipated that the water quality treatment
capabilities of the ponds will vary but will achieve these typical removal efficiencies.
F. I WPWIMI005- 771EAW Data1080803CRmemo.doc
August 12, 2003
Page 7 of 10
While no monitoring of this site is anticipated, the City does anticipate undertaking
some water quality monitoring within the City in the future.
Comments from Dakota County
Comment #1: The EAW does not mention the Wood River Pipeline easement at the
northwest comer of the property (PIN 34- 02100 - 010 -75). The pipeline carries crude oil and
petroleum products. The EAW does mention the presence of the Northern Natural Gas
Company Pipeline that runs diagonally across the property northwest through southeast.
However, it does not mention other products being piped, pipe cleaning and maintenance
operations, and the possible disposal of surfactant, detergents, solvents, and tracing dyes
during pipe cleaning operations nearby.
Response: While the EAW text did not include discussion of the Wood River "
Pipeline, it is shown on the site plan figures in Appendix B. No residences are
planned to be adjacent to the Wood River Pipeline. It is the responsibility of the
owners of the pipeline to maintain these structures.
Comment #2: Question 9 - Land Use: The EAW does not mention the presence of the
Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific (CRIP) Railroad (now Union Pacific) Dump Site (Site
5089 (Q -21)] on the south end of the property and on a portion of the railroad right -of- way.
In 1992 -1993, the dump was investigated by the Environmental Management Department
because of afire in the dump initiated by a passing train. The dump was only partially
investigated at that time, with limited testing, problematic waste removal, and no follow -up
testing of residual soils and wastes. Approved environmental media testing should be
performed in the vehicle disposal area to determine if releases to soil, surface water,
groundwater, etc. have occurred and need to be remediated. The dump has not been
formally closed in compliance with Dakota County Ordinance No. 110, Chapter 14
(Nonconforming Sites and Facilities).
Response: Information from the MPCA was used in the preparation of the EAW.
This information did not show any dumps sites. The City appreciates the County
providing this information as part of the comments on the EAW. The City will
require the an investigation of this dump site and any farm dump sites and require
that it be formally closed in conformance with the County's Ordinance.
Comment #3: Question 12 — Physical Impacts on Water Resources: Stormwater drainage
during and after the proposed project's construction may potentially impact surface and
groundwater resources by rapidly running off impervious surfaces and infiltrating to the
groundwater. This is especially true for the two southern ponds (i.e. Pond C and Pond D)
near the railroad tracks because of the shallower bedrock (i.e. about 80 feet deep), the
presence of rapidly permeable sediments (i.e. Waukegan silt loam capping Rosemount
glacial outwash sands and gravels), and the presence of the above mentioned dump (Site
5089(Q -21)], any contaminant releases from which could be leached to the shallow aquifer.
F: I WPWIM1005- 771EAW Data1080803CRmemo.doc
August 12, 2003
Page 8`of 10
Response: As indicated in the response to Comment 2, the City will require
compliance with the County's ordinance to address the dump site. 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 dump site reveals that site is near the
proposed stormwater ponds, these ponds will be moved and/or redesigned to prevent
the contamination of the groundwater.
Comment #4: Question 13 - Water Use: Page 7 of the EAW states: "Based on the County
Well Index, no wells are located on -site. However, it is anticipated that there is at least one
well on the farm site and it must be sealed in accordance with State and County regulations."
Since Centex Homes is proposing the project, they should hire a well contractor to seal all
wells on the property prior to beginning demolition and site work.
While the pond north of the farmstead was undoubtedly used for livestock watering at the
time, the drinking was may have been obtained from a windmill - powered, shallow dug well
and cistern. Perched groundwater is represented by the north pond (elevation of 941 feet
amsl), which is located in glacial till sediments. Such shallow wells were abandoned, and
new wells were constructed to deeper, more dependable aquifers. The project proposer
should be aware of the possibility that more than one abandoned well may exist on the
property, as well as one or more cisterns. All abandoned wells must be permanently sealed
(Dakota County Ordinance 114) and not just capped or plugged as mentioned in the EAW.
Response: The project proposer will be required to comply with all State and
County regulations associated with sealing and abandoning wells. This information
will be passed onto the project proposer.
Comment #5: Question 17b - Water Quality- Surface Water Runoff: The EAW discusses
the future construction of a stormwater trunk system with an outlet to the Mississippi River.
This response suggests that the stormwater plan being referenced by the EAW is the draft
stormwater management plan that has not been adopted by the City and has not been
approved by the Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization. This should be
clarified.
The same EAW response notes the benefit of incorporating the "City's policies for storm
water... It is unclear whether the City's policies are from the old stormwater plan or the
draft new plan. To our knowledge, the City has not adopted these policies. The reference to
"City policies" should clarify which plan policies are being used.
References to the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan should reflect the
current status of the plan, and whether the old plan or the draft plan is being used to review
this proposed development.. If the City relies on the draft plan to dictate stormwater
management, then how will the City ensure that practices described in the EAW will be
installed?
F.• I WPWIM1005- 771EAW Data1080803CRmemadoc
August 12, 2003
Page 9 of 10
Response: The Plan referenced in the EAW is the 2002 /2003 draft Stormwater
Management Plan. The City has a need to continue to plan and manage development
within the City. Toward that end, the policies within the Draft 2002/2003
Stormwater Management were developed and reviewed with the City Council. The
City can ensure these policies are incorporated and installed as part of development
through the plan review process and the Developer's Agreement. The Developer's
Agreement is executed prior to approval of the plans and dictates the requirements
that need to be followed.
Comment #6: Question 19 Geologic Hazards and Soil Conditions: Closed depressions
and blind swales exist on -site and in the immediate area, which are characteristic of glacial
till plains (northern third of the subject property) and pitted glacial outwash plains (southern'
two- thirds of the subject property). Such surface phenomena that have developed on
sandstone and dolostone subcrops are also characteristic of soil- covered karst topography.
The closed depressions and blind swales in this area have not been evaluated yet.
Response: As part of the development of this EAW, we contacted Mr. Ron Spong,
Dakota County Geologist, regarding any geological conditions or features such as
karst conditions that may be present on the site. Based on this discussion, these
conditions were not present within the Minea parcel.
Comment #7: Question 20a- Solid Wastes, Hazardous Wastes, Storage Tanks: The EAW
does not disclose the presence of the subject property of waste disposals and releases of
contaminants (leaching, spills, leaks, etc). The Chicago, Rock Island Pacific Dump [Site
5089(Q -21)] located adjacent to the railroad tracks at the southern end of the property and on
the slope of a closed depression (proposed Pond D) was partially addresses in 1992 -1993.
However, it was not remediated to appropriate levels that would be compatible with the
proposed residential land use, and it was not formally closed in compliance with Dakota
County Ordinance No 110, Chapter 14 (Nonconforming Sites and Facilities).
The EAW mentions the presence of abandoned vehicles east of the barn, which may indicate
a farm dump. The age of the farmstead suggests the potential for substantial waste disposals
from residential and agricultural activities before commercial waste hauling became
available in the area. Appropriate investigation, cleanup, and formal closure of the farm
dump are required.
Response: See response to Comment #2.
Comment #8: Question 21= Traffic: Additional traffic on CR 38 will increase
maintenance requirements. The County will need 50 feet or 55 feet for a one -half right of
way for CR 38. TH3 is not configured for traffic signals. How will the TH3 improvements
be funded?
F." I WPWIMJ005- 771EAW Data1080803CRmemo.doc
August 12, 2003
Page 10 of 10
Response: The Preliminary Plat shows a 50 foot Right of Way on CR 38. When a
traffic signal is warranted at the TH 3 and CR 38 intersection the City will work with
Dakota County and Mn/DOT on any improvement necessary and the funding of such
improvements.
Comment #9: Dakota County traffic counts for CR 38 are at 420 average daily trips (ADT).
This segment of road is gravel and is not included in the 2003 -2007 Dakota County Capital
Improvement Program. The roadway cannot handle the proposed development traffic in its
current condition. The EAW should discuss whether CR 38 will be improved as part of the
development and who will pay for this costa
Response: The proposed project is anticipated to begin construction in 2003 with
final completion in 2008. A very small portion of the development (5% - 10 %) is
anticipated to use CR 38. The City has made a condition of approval that the
developer escrow their portion of any improvement (i.e. paving CR 38). The City
will work with the County on potentially accelerating the paving of CR 38.
Comment #14: The second paragraph on page 13 includes the sentence, "If a traffic signal
were installed at Connemara Trail and CR 38..." There is currently no such intersection at
this location. If the City is suggesting that Connemara Trail be extended to CR 38, Dakota
County suggests that, at a minimum, the extension to Biscayne Avenue be installed with or
prior to the development.
Response: This was a typo it should read "If a signal were installed at Connemara
Trail or CR 38 ...."
Comment #11: Question 27 — Compatibility with plans and land use regulations: Again, it
is unclear whether the adopted 1997 stormwater plan or the draft plan are being used.
Response: See response to Comment #5.
This concludes our responses to comments on behalf of the City. If you have any questions,
please feel free to contact me at (763)297- 7196.
C. Andy Brotzler, P.E., City of Rosemount
Rick Pearson, City of Rosemount
Bret Weiss, P.E., WSB & Associates, Inc. -
Steve Ach, Centex Homes
Dwight Jelle, Westwood Professional Services
F. I WPWIM1005- 771EAW Data1080803CRmemo.doc
AUG -04 -2003 14:18 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.02/04
AUG -04 -2003 14 :31 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT 651 423 5203 P.02/04
Metropolitan Council
B'ui7ding communities that work
July 28, 2003
Rick Pearson, City Planner
City of Rosemount
2875 145 ' Street West
Rosemount, MN 53068 -4997
RE: Rosemount — Minea property residential development
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
Review Pile No. 18982.1
Dear Mr. Pearson:
The project proposes to develop 160 single - family hornes and 232 townhouses on the 156-acre
site. Council staff review finds that the EAW is complete and accurate with respect to regional
concerns and raises no major issues of consistency with Council policies. An E1S is not
necessary for regional purposes. However, staff provides the following comments for your
consideration:
Item S Permits and Approvals Required
Sanitary sewer service connection plans for the proposed project will need to be submitted to the
Metropolitan Council_ Environmental Service Municipal Services staff for review, comment, and
issuance of a construction permit before connection revisions can be made to either the
municipal or metropolitan wastewater disposal system.
Item 1 a -Land Cover Types
The plan proposes to reduce the wooded/forest area from 11 acres to 5 acres. The area by pond
A includes most of the existing tree cover on the site and also includes steep slopes on a knob of
land southeast of the pond. There is a park proposed to the southwest of the pond. The park
dedication could include wooded areas and the steep slopes to provide some natural resource
amenities in addition to recreation opportunities.
Item 11. Fish, VIddlife and Ecologically Sensidve Resources.
The prgliminary Plat/Site Plan appears to show storm water draining directly into Pond A. The
water quality and corresponding wildlife habitat could be better preserved if the storm water is
.pretreated.
www.me&ocmmdLort; Metro into Une W2 -1888
280 0**qt Fifth Street • St. Paxil. MStmesota 55101 -1626 • lr;611 602 -1000 + Fax 602-1550 • TIY 251 -0804
Art Emad OPOWIL ItU Et►iPMW
AUG -04 -2003 14:18 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.03104
AUG -04 -2003 14:31 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT 651 423 5203 P.03/04
Rick Pearson
July 28, 2003
Page 2
Item 25_ Tragic.
Consider a dedicated mid -block cross walk to provide a pedestrian connection to the park from
street G.
Conclusion
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 Michael King
Sector Representative/ principal Reviewer, at 651 -602- 1438.
S cerely,
Phyllis anon, Manager
Planning and Technical Assistance
Cc: Council Member Richard Aguilar
Michael King, Sector Representative 1 Principal Reviewer
Cheryl Olson, Referrals Coordinator
V.\ REVMWSW= nunftteslRommountkLcnwsvtnsmmmt 2003 EAW Mines prperty residential denlopumt.dac
AUG -04 -2003 14:18 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.04iO4
AUG -04 -2003 14 : 31 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT 651 -423 5203 P.04iO4
0 �� 4 Minnesota Department of Transportation
,metropolitan Division
Waters 'Edge
15oo west County Road 82
Roseville, MN 55113
Augu.stl, 2003
Rick Pearson
City Planner- Rosemount
City Hall 2875 145 St. W.
Rosemount, MN 55068
SUBJECT: NEnea Property Residential Development
Mn/DOT Review #EAW03 -012
South of CR 38 east of Biscayne Ave
Rosemount, Dakota Co.
Control Section 2410
Dear Mr. Pearson:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the above reference Environmental Assessment.
This development will have traffic impacts to TH 3 with the increase in volumes entering
at County Road 38 and Connemara Street. The forecasted volumes were low and may be
higher than what the EA has forecasted. Sig aalizing either of these intersections would
have to meet warrants for all legs of the intersection.
if you have any questions concerning this review please feel free to contact me at (65 1)
582 -1378.
Sincerely,
Brigid Crow o
Senior Transportation Planner
Copy: Pete Sorenson / Dakota County Engineer
Lynn Moratzka / Dakota County Planning Director
Anne Braden / Metropolitan Council
Gerry Larson / Mn/DOT
Mn/DOT Division File CS 2724
Mn/DOT LGL File - Rosemont
An equal opportunity employer
TOTAL P.04
TOTAL P.04
DAKOTA COUNTY SOIL AND WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Dakota County Extension and Conservation Center
4100 220th Street West, Suite 102 -
Farmington, MN 55024
Phone: (651) 480 -7777 FAX: (651) 480 -7775
www.dakotaswcd.org
August 5, 2003
Mr. -Rick Pearson, City Planner Ref.: 03 ROS -048
City of Rosemount
2875 145' St. W.
Rosemount, MN 55068
Re: Environmental Assessment Worksheet — Minea Residential Development
" Dear Rick,
This letter is in response to the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) completed for the above-
referenced project. The proposed development entails 392 units on approximately 156 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 11: Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources
The EAW does not address how the site fits within a greater ecological corridor. All of the site is mapped
in accordance with Level 4/5 Minnesota Land Cover Classification System and has been ranked using a
DNR- approved assessment method. The area is a potential greenway corridor link between LMore Park
property, Northern Rosemount Area Lakes and Woodlands as identified in the Dakota County Farmland
and Natural Area Plan. Accordingly, restoration and protection of a continuous north -south corridor
should be considered and integrated into the overall grading plan if possible. Additional information
about the significance of the site as part of a larger greenway corridor is available from our office.
Item 16: Erosion and Sedimentation
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.
To adequately protect receiving waters and adjacent properties from sedimentation, we offer the
following: -
1. 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 overwhehning,erosion control issues and significant risk
to waters of the State. We suggest limiting the area that can be graded to 20-40 acres and requiring
each phase to be stabilized before the next proceeds.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Closing
The EAW does not provide adequate information about the potential adverse effects of the proposed
development due to a lack of speck information on how BMPs would be installed. In addition, there is
no information on how this project site will be monitored to determine if predicted water quality goals
under the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan are being met. 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,
Brian Watson, District Manager
Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District
cc Andrea Moffatt, WSB, 4150 Olson Memorial Hwy, Suite 300, Minneapolis, MN 55422
Vermillion River Joint Powers Organization, 14955 Galaxie Avenue, Apple Valley, MN 35124
Steve Ach, Centex Homes, 12400 Whitewater Drive #120, Minnetonka, MN 55343
r
AUG -08 -2003 14:16 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.02/05
AUG -08 -2003 14 :28 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT 651 423 5203 P.02/05
August 5, 2003
Office of Planning
Lynn G. Moramka.AICP Rick Pearson, City Planner
Dire=r City of Rosemount
Dakota County 2875 14e Street W.
western service Center Rosemount, MN 55063
1 4955 Galaxie Avrnue
Apple v allcy, MN 551 RE: EAW -- Min Property Residential Development
952591.7030 Derr Mr. Pearson:
Fix 952.541,7031
Wwvr.cadakoca.mn.us
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Minea Property 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.
In the future, I would appreciate directly receiving copies of EAWs, EISs, AUARs,
and comprehensive plan amendments that you send for County review.
if you have questions about this review, please call me at (952) 891 - 7033. We
look forward to continuing to work with you as this project progresses.
Sincerely,
t. Moratzka, Director
C?fFiCe of Planning
Encl
c: Willis E. Branning, Dakota County Commissioner— District 7
Brandt Richardson, County Administrator
Greg Konat, Director, Physical Development Division
Phyllis Hanson, Metropolitan Council
N :\Review Cornnm \Mlnea Property EAWAOC 3:21 PM 8/5/2003
PIYdM M I,IgM1IL1l W7tl'
N111130�:}IV.S ;pi19l.K'M
!JV [G�HLl(KATJIRI'W'LC7.W
AUG -08- 2003 14 =16 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.03f05
AUG -08 -2003 14 :28 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT 651 423 5203 P.03/05
Dakota County Comments on the EAW for the Minea Pro ed / Residential Develo went
Question 9: Land Use
The EAW does not mention the Wood River Pipeline easement at the northwest comer of the
property (PIN 34- 42100- 010 -75). The pipeline carries crude oil and petroleum products. The
EAW does mention the presence of the Northern Natural Gas Company Pipeline that runs
diagonally across the property northwest through southeast. However, it does not mention other
products being piped, pipe cleaning and maintenance operations, and the possible disposal of
surfactants, detergents, solvents, and tracing dyes during pipe cleaning operations nearby.
The EAW does not mention the presence of the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific (GRIP)
Railroad (now Union Pacific) Dump [Site 5089 (Q-21)] on the south end of the property and on a
portion of the railroad right -of -way. In 1992 -1993, the dump was investigated by the
Environmental Management Department because of a fire in the dump initiated by a passing
train. The dump was only partially investigated at that time, with limited testing, problematic
waste removal, and no fallow -up testing of residual soils and wastes. Approved environmental
media testing should be performed in the vehicle disposal area to determine if releases to. soil,
surface water, groundwater, etc., have occurred and need to be remediated. The dump has not
been formally closed in compliance with Dakota County Ordinance No. 110, Chapter 14
(Nonconforming Sites and Facilities).
Question 12: physical Impacts on Water Resources
Stormwater drainage during and after the proposed project's construction may potentially impact
surface and ground water resources by rapidly running off impervious surfaces and infiltrating to
the groundwater. This is especially true for the two souther ponds (i.e., Pond C and Pond D)
near the railroad, tracks because of the shallower bedrock (i.e., about 80 feet deep), the presence
of rapidly permeable sediments (i.e., Waukegan silt loam capping Rosemount glacial outwash
sands and gravels), and the presence of the above mentioned dump [Site 5089 (0-21)], any
contaminant releases from which could be leached to the shallow aquifer.
Question 18: Water Use
Page 7 of the EAW states_ "Based on the County Well index, no wells are located on -site.
However, it is anticipated that there is at least one well on the farm site and it must be sealed in
accordance with State and County regulations." Since Centex Humes is proposing the project,
they should hire a well contractor to locate and seal all wells on the property prior to beginning
demolition and site work.
While the pond to the north of the farmstead was undoubtedly used for livestock watering at the
time, the drinking water may have been obtained from a windmill- powered, shallow dug well and
cistern. Perched groundwater is represented by the north pond (elevation of 941 feet amsl),
which is located in glacial tilt sediments. Such shallow wells were abandoned, and new wells
were constructed to deeper, more dependable aquifers. The project proposer should be aware of
the possibility that more than one abandoned well may exist on the property, as well as one or
more cisterns. All abandoned wells must be permanently sealed (Dakota County Ordinance 114)
and not just capped or plugged as mentioned in the EAW.
Question 17b: Water Quality - Surface Water Runoff
The EAW discusses the future construction of a stormwater trunk system with an outlet to the "
Mississippi River. This response suggests that the stormwater plan being referenced by the
EAW is the draft stormwater management plan that has not been adopted by the City and has not
been approved by the Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers organization This should be
clarified.
The same EAW response notes the benefit of incorporating the "City's policies for storm water..."
It is unclear whether the City's policies are from the old stormwater plan or the draft new plan.
NAReview COMMS AKInm FropwW EAw.doc 3:22 PM s/s/2003
AUG -08 -2003 14 :16 WSB & ASSOCIATES ?635411700 P.04/05
` AUG -08 -2003 14:29 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT 651 423 5203 P.04/05
To our knowledge, the City has not adopted these policies. The reference to "City policies"
should clarify which plan policies are being used.
References to the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan should reflect the current
status of the plan, and whether the old plan or the draft plan is being used to review this proposed
development. If the City relies on the draft plan to dictate stormwater management, then how will
the City ensure that practices described in the EAW will be installed?
Question 19: Geologic Hazards and Soil Conditions
Closed depressions and blind swales exist on -site and in the immediate area, which are
characteristic of glacial till plains (northern third of the subject property) and pitted glacial outwash
plains (southern two - thirds of the subject property) Such surface phenomena that have
developed on sandstone and dolostone subcrops are also characteristic of soil- covered karst
topography. The closed depressions and blind swales in this area have not been evaluated yet.
Question 20a: Solid Wastes, Hazardous Wastes, Storage Tanks
The EAW does not disclose the presence on the subject property of waste disposals and
releases of contaminants (leaching, spills, leaks, etc.). The Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific
Dump {Site 5089 (Q -21)] located adjacent to the railroad tracks at the southern end of the
property and on the slope of a .closed depression (proposed Pond D) was partially addressed in
1992 -1993. However, it was not remediated to appropriate levels that would be compatible with
the proposed residential land use, and it was not formally closed in compliance with Dakota
County Ordinance No. 110, Chapter 14 (Nonconforming Sites and f=acilities).
The EAW mentions the presence of abandoned vehicles east of the bam, which may indicate a
farm dump. The age of the farmstead suggests the potential for substantial waste disposals from
residential and agricultural activities before commercial waste hauling became available in the
area. Appropriate investigation, cleanup, and formal closure of the farm dump are required.
Question 21: Traffic
Additional traffic on CR 38 will increase maintenance requirements. The County will need 50 feet
or 55 feet for a one -half right of way for CR 38_ TH 3 is not configured for traffic signals. How will
the TH 3 improvements be funded?
Dakota County traffic counts for CR 38 are at 420 average daily trips (ADT). This segment of
road is gravel and is not included in the 2003 -2007 Dakota County Capital Improvement Program.
The roadway cannot handle the proposed development traffic in its current condition. The EAW
should discuss whether CR 38 will be improved as part of the development and who will pay for
this Cost.
The second paragraph on page 13 includes the sentence, "if a traffic signal were installed at
Connemara Trait and OR 38._. There is currently no such intersection at this location. If the City
is suggesting that Connemara Trail be extended to CR 38, Dakota County suggests that, at a
minimum, the extension to Biscayne Avenue be installed with or prior to the development.
Question 27: Compatibility with plans and land use regulations.
Again, it is unclear whether the adopted 1997 stormwater plan or the draft plan are being used.
N:% iew CommentsjMlinea PnVerty EAW.doc 3:22 PM 8/5/2003
AUG -08 -2003 14 :16 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.05/05
AUG -08 -2003 14:29 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT 651 423 5203 P.05i05
Wrote Disposal and Contaminant Release Site Synopsis - Farm Dumps and Disposals
FARM DUMPS AND DISPOSALS
Farm dumps and disposals are very common in rural areas. Dumps and disposals are found
near the farmsteads in surface waste piles, covered excavations, slopes of ravines and dosed
depressions, such as wetlands and sinkholes, abandoned cesspools and cisterns, razed
building foundations, outbuildings, and shelterbelts. The older the farm, the more common it
was to have more than one disposal site. Combustible wastes were often incinerated in
fireplaces, boilers, garbage burners, bum barrels, and waste piles until the 1970s when air
pollution control laws and burning permits were enforced.
The risks represented by farm dumps and disposals are dependent upon one's exposure to the
hazards of the site, its wastes, and any releases. Some examples are as follows:
Disposals in abandoned welts, cisterns, dry wells, sumps, drains, cesspools, seepage or
leaching pits, ditches, wetlands, sinkholes, and others, which may contribute to the
contamination of groundwater and drinking water supplies.
Disposals in baMyards and 'pastures may eXpdse,livestockto i ntaminants.
and crop plants may'transfer• contaminants from soil into their tissues. Consumption by
animals may surreptitiously enter the human food chain because of bloaccumulation and
biomagnification. Humans may also consume the plant tissues directly-
While some wastes eventually breakdown becoming less of a problem, other waste
byproducts may become potentially more hazardous, such as gases including methane
and carbon dioxide, and chemicals including degraded pesticides and solvents.
other wastes resist biological decomposition and physicochemical degradation and are
said to be persistent, such as polycydic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and PCBs.
Wastes deposited in ravines or in excavations may be exposed by erosion and
transported by wind and water creating off -site soil and surface water problems.
Furnace and boiler ash and slag concentrate heavy metals like lead and mercury, as
well as persistent chemicals, such as PAHs, and may impact soil and water.
Agrochemicals, such as fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, are potentially hazardous
wherever stared, mixed, used, and disposed. Cider, restricted and banned pesticides
like DDT and arsehic are very significant because their residues persist in soils for
decades.
The dilution and mixing of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides in spray applicator tanks
and terrigators with garden hoses without backflow and backsiphonage prevention may
draw some of the concentrated chemicals into the well water supply. Past chemigation
and fertigation by center -pivot and traveling gun irrigators were also unprotected.
. The use and repair of farm equipment and machinery required fuels, .coolants, oils,
lubricants, batteries, generators = .trdnsforrners, capacitors, and other equipment and
materials whose spills and disposals may
cause significant problems.
• Aboveground and underground storage tanks for gasoline, diesel fuel, and heating oil'
may have leaked or spilled, and used oil was sprayed on roads for dust control.
s Asbestos containing building materials were once common in construction and insulation
materials, electrical circuits, heating plants and piping, some appliances, and other
equipment, supplies, fixtures, and furnishings. Lead paint was commonly used.
For all of their potential hazards, many farm dumps are small, fairly benign, and do not
represent a serious threat to public health, safety or the environment because of their relative
isolation and limited waste types and quantities. often, the exposure was limited to the farm
families at the time. But, some farm dumps may present serious or even unique hazards. As a
community's population increases in close proximity to a farm dump, the potential for human
essment. Abandoned farms exposure increases and may become significant needing reass
present a challenge because no one may be around who knows about their location or contents.
Dakota county Environmental Management Depa"ent- Site Assessment
TOTAL P.05
TOTAL P.05
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
In the matter of the
Decision on the Need for an
Environmental Impact FINDINGS OF FACT
Statement (EIS) for Minea AND CONCLUSIONS
Property Residential
Development in
Rosemount, MN
Centex Homes is proposing a mixed use residential development consisting of 160
single- family homes and 232 town home units on a 156-acre site located south of County
Road 38, north of the Union Pacific Railroad, and 1.5 miles east of Trunk Highway 3.
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
L PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Project
The proposed project involves grading the 156 -acre site to construct streets,
utilities, and residential units. The project is anticipated to remove 6 acres of
wooded area and add 51 acres of impervious area and lawn/landscaping.
Three storm water ponding areas and a public park are also proposed as part
of the project.
B. Project Site
The proposed project is located south of County Road 38, north of the Union
Pacific Railroad, and east of TH3. The site currently contains 8 acres of
brush/grassland, 129 acres of cropland, 11 acres of wooded area, 7 acres of
wetland, and an existing farmhouse.
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 July 2, 2003.
C. A public notice containing information about the availability of the EAW for
public review was published in the Rosemount Town Pages on July 14, 2003.
F.•IWPWIM ]005- 771EAW Data1072803FOF.doc
D. The EAW was noticed in the July 7, 2003 EQB Monitor. The public
comment period ended August 6, 2003. Comments were received from the
Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Dakota
Soil and Water Conservation District, and Dakota County. 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
environrental 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 User The land use will be converted from agriculture to
residential. To address this concern the development plans
contain park and open space to mitigate the problem.
b. Wastewater and Water Consumption: This development is
anticipated to use and generate approximately 107,408 GPD of
water and wastewater. The MCES Wastewater Treatment
Facility has adequate capacity to handle the sewage volumes
from this site. The increase in water 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 some
additional storm water runoff. This runoff will be treated
within on -site ponding facilities 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.
F. I WPWIM 1005 -771 F.A W Da to 1072803FOF. doc
g
d. Traffic: Traffic volume on TH 3, Connemara Trail, and CR 38
will increase. The existing and proposed street sections on
Connemara Trail and CR 38 will be adequate to accommodate
the proposed traffic increases. The City has made a condition
of approval that the developer escrow their portion of any
improvement (i.e. paving CR 38). The City will work with the
County on-potentially accelerating the paving of CR 38. The
intersections of TH3 at Connemara Trail and at TH3 and CR38
should continue to be monitored to determine when traffic
signals will be justified.
e.; Dump Site: Information from Dakota County indicates that
there is a dump site on the south side of the proposed
developed adjacent to the railroad tracks. This site is required
to be remediated in conformance 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 Bloomfield Residential Development is located south of the
Minea property. The land surrounding the Minea site is zoned as RI -
Low Density Residential. The regional land use conversion from
open space and agricultural to developed residential space is
anticipated to have a cumulative impact on the area. Attempts to
mitigate this impact will include providing open space in the
developments, providing adequate storm water management facilities,
and addressing traffic impacts. The 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:
F. •I WPWIM1005-771EA W Data1072803FORdoc
Army Corp of Engineers
Wetland Permit
MPCA
NPDES storm water permit
MPCA
Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit
Minnesota DNR
Work in Public Waters
Minnesota DNR
Water Appropriation
Minnesota Department of Health
Water Main Extension Permit
Dakota County
Access Permit
Dakota County
Dump closure approval
City of Rosemount/Dakota County
Platting
City of Rosemount
Building Permits
City of Rosemount
Site Plan Review
City of Rosemount
WCA Permit
City of Rosemount
Grading Permit
City of Rosemount -
Rezoning A roval "
2. 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,
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
(draft 2003)
2. City of Rosemount Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan
3. City of Rosemount 2020 Comprehensive Plan
The proposed project is subject to the findings of the following information;
1. Dump Site 5089 (Q -21) information and investigation completed in
1992 -1993 by the Dakota County Environmental Management
Department.
F: I WPWIM1005-771EA W Data1072803FOF.doc
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 Minea Property Residential Development EAW and continents
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.•IWPWIM ]005- 771EAW Data1072803FOF.doc
a
RESOLUTION 2003 -
RESOLUTION ISSUING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF NEED
WHEREAS, the preparation of the Minea Residential Development EAW and comments received
on the EAW have generated information adequate to detennine 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 Minea 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 19 day of August, 2003.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Administrator
F. I WPW11V 11005 -771 Reso1 ution. rtf