HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.b. Carrollton 2nd Addition EAW Findings of Fact•
Minnesota
Environmental Quality Board
100 Capitol Square Building
550 Cedar Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Phone
November 5, 1987
Michael Wozniak
Assistant Planner
2875 145th Street W.
Rosemount, MN 55068
RE: Close of EAW Review Period for Carrollton 2nd Addition
Dear Mr. Wozniak:
The 30 -day review and comment period for this EAW ended on November
4, 1987 A decision on the need for an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) is to be made within 15 working days of the
expiration of the comment period unless the decision will be made by
a body which meets only periodically, in which case the decision is
to be made at the first meeting 10 or more days after the expiration
date and in no case more than 30 calendar days afterwards.
In making the EIS decision please note the following requirements
(given at Minnesota Rules, part 4410.1700, page 16 of the rules)
1. You must maintain a written record of some sort, including
specific findings of fact, which supports your decision. The
record must reflect the findings about the project with respect
to the criteria of subpart 7 and should consider the information
in the EAW itself and any timely comments reseived.
2. A notice of the decision is to be sent within five working days
to the EQB, all persons on the EAW distribution dist, all persons
who commented, and anyone who makes a request (see B.4.). The
EQB will publish notice of your decision in the EEOB Monitor.
3. If your decision is to prepare an EIS, your notice must also
include your proposed scope of the EIS and the date, time and
place of the scoping meeting. Please call me before scheduling a
scoping meeting to assure that the meeting will fall between 10
working days and 20 calendar days after publication of the notice
in the EQB Monitor., The scoping meeting must also be noticed by
a press release.
Sincerely,
S P\ `'
Gregg. Downing
Environmental Review Coordinator
( 612) 296-8253
Toll-free: 1-800-652-9747; ask for EQB, Environmental Review Program
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
i 0
N lkgj—1 LV
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Vas"'
October 19, 1987
Mr. Michael Wozniak
Assistant Planner
City of Rosemount
2875 145th Street West
Rosemount, Minnesota55068
Dear Mr. Wozniak:
Re: Carrollton 2nd Addition, City of Rosemount
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff has reviewed
the above referenced project and has determined that he project
does not have the potential for significant environmental
effects. The staff does, however, have comments to offer in the
noise area.
The City of Rosemount is evaluating noise mitigation techniques
to ensure that noise levels due to traffic on County Road 42 at
the southern boundary of the project site meet the state noise
standards at the proposed residences. In addition, the staff is
concerned that noise due to traffic on Shannon Parkway and Dodd
Boulevard may exceed state noise standards (a daytime L level
of 65 dBA and a nighttime L level of 55 dBA for land use
category NAC -1) at the proposed single family residences. The
staff recommends that noise impacts be further evaluated to
determine if the state noise standards will be exceeded at the
closest proposed residences due to these two roadways. The total
average daily traffic (ADT) derived from existing traffic and
traffic from the proposed development should be considered in the
evaluation of roadway traffic noise. Also, noise from both car
and truck traffic should be considered. If the state noise
standards are to be exceeded due to traffic on the roadways, the
City should ensure that the proposer implements noise control
measures to come into compliance with the state standards.
Possible noise control measures include 1) requiring the
construction of noise "barriers, e.g., earth berms, wood or
concrete walls, 2) adjusting the distance of the residences from
the roadways and/or 3) the planting of vegetation. This last
option, however, is not a very effective noise control measure
compared to options 1 or 2.
Phone:
520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Regional Offices • Duluth/Brainerd/Detroit LakestMarshall/Rochester
Equal opportunity Employer
Mr. Michael Wozniak
Page Two
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. If you
have any questions regarding these comments, please contact
Marlene Voita of my staff at 296-7275.
Sincerely,
Clifford T. Anderson
Director
Office of Planning and Review
CTA:mf1
MCI, -- 0 •
MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY
FOUNDED 1N 1849 fort Snelling IlistoryCenter, St. Paul, MN55111 e (612)726-1171
October 30, 1987
Mr. Michael Wozniak
City of Rosemount
2875 145th Street West
Rosemount, Minnesota 55068
Dear Mr. Wozniak:
Re: Carrollton 2nd Addition, Rosemount, Dakota County
MHS Referral File Number: 88-0013
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above
project. It has been reviewed pursuant to responsibilities given
the State Historic Preservation Officer by the National I3istoric
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Procedures of the National
Advisory Council of Historic Preservation (35CFR800)
This review reveals the location of no known sites of historic,
architectural, cultural, archaeological, or engineering
significance within the area of the proposed project. There are
no sites in the project area which are on the National Register
or eligible for inclusion on the National Register, and
therefore, none which may be affected by your proposal.
Again, thank you for your participation in this important effort
to preserve Minnesota's heritage.
Sincerely,
Dennis A. Gimmestad
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DAG:dmb
p O Metropolitan Council
300 Metro Square Building
Seventh and Robert Streets
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Telephone (612) 291-6359
R
October 14, 1987
Michael Wozniak
Assistant Planner
City of Rosemount
2875 - 145th St. W.
Rosemount, MN 55068
RE: EAW
City of Rosemount, Carrolton 2nd Addition
Metropolitan Council District 16
Dear Mr. Wozniak:
Council staff has conducted a preliminary review of this environmental
assessment work sheet to determine its adequacy and accuracy in addressing,
regional concerns. The staff review has concluded 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.
This will conclude the Council's review of the EAW. No formal action on the
EAW will be taken by the Council. If you have any questions or need further
information, please contact Pat Pahl, Council staff at 291-6392.
Sincerely,
U� 11
Roger Israel, Director
cc: Pat Scully, Metropolitan Council District 16
John Rutford, Metropolitan Council Staff
An Equal Opportunity Employer