Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-044 Council ResolutionCITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 03-44 RESOLUTION MAKING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED EAGLE BROOK CHURCH WHEREAS, the Eagle Brook Church is considering constructing a new church on a site within the City of Lino Lakes, and; WHEREAS, the City received a petition requesting the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the project, under Minnesota Rules 4410.1100, and; WHEREAS, Eagle Brook Church agreed to prepare a voluntary EAW, and; WHEREAS, the Lino Lakes City Council makes the following specific findings of fact: 1. The City of Lino Lakes is the responsible governmental unit for the EAW. 2. An EAW was prepared and the City Council approved its distribution with Resolution 02 -142. The EAW was distributed according to the requirements of MN Rules 4410. 3. The public comment period ended November 27, 2002. 4. The City has reviewed comments on the EAW and has prepared responses to these comments, which are included in a response document. 5. The extent to which environmental effects are subject t� mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority indicates that this project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. 6. In considering the type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects, there will be no significant environmental effects from the project. 7. The project involves no related developments, connected actions, or phased actions as defined by MN Rules 4410. 8. The City Council must make either a negative declaration or a positive declaration on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Lino Lakes City Council makes a negative declaration regarding the need for an EIS, meaning that an EIS is not needed for the Eagle Brook Church project as currently proposed. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if the City determines that a substantial change has been made in the proposed project that may affect the potential for significant adverse environmental effects, a new EAW will be required as stated in MN Rules 4410.1000, Subpart 5. Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this 2gtday of ,4p , 2003. Al °1'EST: • J. B 'rgeson, Mayor AGENDA ITEM 7 B STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser C. C. MEETING DATE: April 28, 2003 TOPIC: PUBLIC HEARING Resolution 03 -44: Negative Declaration On The Need For An Environmental Impact Statement Eagle Brook Church VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 BACKGROUND An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) prepared for the Eagle Brook Church has undergone public review. The City received comments and staff distributed a draft response document on March 19. The next step is for the City Council to make a declaration on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). For reasons discussed in the response document and summarized in this report, staff is recommending a negative declaration: a decision that an EIS is not justified. The responses in the response document should be revised or corrected as necessary before distribution. Several corrections are listed in Attachment A. Additional revisions may be warranted after the public hearing. The decision resolution and the final response document will be sent to all agencies on the EAW distribution list and to everyone who sent in comments on the EAW. The City Council discussed the resolution at the work session on April 9 and decided to hold a public hearing. Resolution 03 -44 was pulled from the April 14 agenda to allow for the public hearing on April 28. ANALYSIS The main issues raised by the EAW or in comments on the EAW relate to the following: heron rookery wetlands traffic and roadways wastewater stormwater management visual issues Minnesota Rule 4410.1700, Subpart 7 lists the criteria to be considered to determine if a project has the potential for significant environmental effects —that is, if an EIS is warranted. Eagle Brook Church April 14, 2003 page 2 4410.1700 DECISION ON NEED FOR EIS. Subpart 1. Standard for decision on need for EIS. An EIS shall be ordered for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects. Subp. 7. Criteria. In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the following factors shall be considered: A. type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; B. cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects; C. the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority; and D. the extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs. Heron Rookery: The heron rookery on the island in Peltier Lake is a wonderful and important natural resource. While unusual activity is believed to affect the rookery by disturbing the birds, it is impossible to say specifically what has caused the abandonment of nests in recent years. The church building site itself is over 2500 feet from the rookery island. The property on which the church is proposed borders the lake, but the western portion of the property will be left largely undisturbed. The closest construction work would be about 2000 feet from the island. This would include a new stormwater pond, grading, and the onsite septic system. The heavily wooded area along the lake and the wetland within the woods will not be disturbed. The church has expressed interest in participating in a cooperative effort to continue providing nesting forage on the church property. The Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources stated in its letter that "Based on the DNR's perspective, this project does not require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)." The DNR is the agency with the greatest expertise on the herons and the rookery. Since the DNR does not believe the project warrants an EIS, there's no reason to require an EIS based on potential impacts on the rookery. Traffic and Roadways: The traffic generated by the proposed church would be greatest on Sundays, with other large events occurring irregularly. The peak generation would be 2240 trips (1120 in, 1120 out). During the week, traffic would be much less. If the site were to develop with single family residential homes, a quick, conservative estimate of traffic generated would be 1300 trips per weekday. The total traffic generation would be higher with residential development. This is not to discount residents' concern over additional traffic. However, additional traffic will occur with or without the church. In fact, the existing transportation infrastructure is inadequate to handle the development planned by the communities of Lino Lakes, Hugo, and Columbus Twp., not to mention possible development in Eagle Brook Church April 14, 2003 page 3 Centerville. Recent discussion of a professional sports stadium and related development in the immediate vicinity represents an extreme case of major infrastructure reconstruction. Clearly, the road capacity issue cannot be resolved by Eagle Brook Church. One of the purposes of an EAW is to identify possible mitigation measures. At a minimum, the City of Lino Lakes, Anoka County, and the Minnesota Dept. of Transportation all must cooperate to address the problem. This also should include Columbus Twp., Hugo, Centerville, and Washington County because they will affect and be affected by the transportation infrastructure in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. All of these jurisdictions are discussing how to address the roadway issues that are known to all of them and highlighted by this EAW. The proposed church project does not create this problem of inadequate infrastructure. The church project is simply the first one to confront the problem. The next development project will face the exact same traffic issues, but on a day -to -day basis during the week. Such impacts likely would be greater than the traffic generated by the proposed church. The church has proposed the temporary mitigative measure of traffic control personnel at the affected locations: Main St. and 20th Ave., the freeway ramps, and the entrance to the site. As part of redesigning the site plans, the City and Anoka County will work with the project proposer to examine access options such as access roads rather than just driveways onto 20th Ave. The solution lies in a cooperative study of the land use in the area and the transportation infrastructure needed to support it. The problem can be corrected through cooperative infrastructure improvements by the numerous regulatory authorities involved in planning the infrastructure. Stormwater Management: Water quality questions are best addressed through the design of stormwater facilities. In the case of the proposed church, the design incorporates numerous elements known as best management practices, or BMPs. These include rain gardens, overland runoff, and swales, as well as native plantings around wetlands and on a large area (40+ acres) of the site intended for prairie grasses. The existing woodlands along the lake will remain undisturbed. The original plan was to leave the existing "ditch" underground. The EAW analysis resulted in a probable redesign to bring the ditch to the surface —to "daylight" it and realign it to improve the ability to maintain flow through the site. This likely will be an improvement over the existing situation, and would be done according to the requirements of the Rice Creek Watershed District. The Watershed states that is has no significant concerns about stormwater management. The grading plan and stormwater management design are subject to review by the Eagle Brook Church April 14, 2003 page 4 Watershed and the City. Thus, the public regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over stormwater management, including the ditch, will address possible impact questions. Wetlands: The several existing wetlands on the site would experience no permanent impacts. The Rice Creek Watershed District, the regulatory agency with jurisdiction over wetlands, states that is has no significant concerns about wetland impacts. The grading plan and stormwater management design will indicate possible wetland impacts. These are subject to review by the Watershed and the City. Thus, the public regulatory agency with jurisdiction over the wetlands will address possible impact questions. Visual: Several comment letters included concerns about the visual impact of lighting and of a tall church spire. The City restricts lighting with provisions in the new zoning ordinance. Lighting must use 90 degree cutoff fixtures (e.g., shoebox type). All applications must include a photometric plan showing the lighting brightness across the property. Lighting can be no greater than 0.4 foot candles at a property line shared with a residential property. The limit is 1.0 foot candles at a road centerline. The other visual issue raised is the proposed 80 ft. spire. As can be -seen in the building elevation attached to the response document, the "spire" is a decorative element rising 20 ft. above the pier, which is the tallest part of the actual building (60 ft.). The spire is not a belfry or tower like many churches have. Though the final design is unfinished, the spire may be a cross or simply a lighted element. As with any site and building plan, the specific architectural elements would be examined as part of the review. It is typical for applicants to work out these details in cooperation with the City prior to final approval. Because a church requires a conditional use permit, there would be a public hearing with final approval by the city council. The new zoning ordinance revisions include a change relative to the issue. Previously, the ordinance granted a blanket exemption from height requirements for church spires. The new ordinance exempts church spires up to 60 feet. The possibility of exceeding this remains in the ordinance, through the granting of a conditional use permit. Therefore, the regulatory authority of the City will be used to address the visual impact questions. SUMMARY The EAW analyses and the public comments do not raise the potential for significant environmental effects. Possible impacts are not extensive or irreversible, and they can be addressed through ongoing public regulatory authority of various jurisdictions including the City of Lino Lakes, the Rice Creek Watershed District, Anoka County, the Minnesota Dept. of Transportation, and others. Therefore, an EIS is not warranted. Eagle Brook Church April 14, 2003 page 5 OPTIONS 1. Approve Resolution 03-44 making a negative declaration on the need for an EIS. 2. Return to staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Open public hearing, take comment, close hearing. If no new substantive information is offered, staff recommends Option 1: approve Resolution 03-44 Eagle Brook Church April 14, 2003 page 6 ATTACHMENT A Corrections to the Draft Response Document Recommended corrections to the draft response document are listed below. Page 14: The response to a comment on Item 7, regarding the spire height, should be corrected to include the revised zoning requirements. The response should be corrected to read as follows: City Response: Section 3, Subdivision 4.C.1. of the Lino Lakes zoning ordinance states that the building height limits established in each zoning district shall not apply to specified uses, including farm structures, church spires up to 60 ft., belfries up to 60 ft., cupolas up to 60 ft., and other listed uses. (third paragraph) Section 3, Subdivision 4.C.2. of the ordinance states that building heights exceeding zoning district maximums may be allowed with a conditional use permit. If the City allows this for the church building (other than a spire), it would be incorporated into the conditional use permit that is required for a church. Page 26: The response to a comment on Item 7, regarding the spire height, should be corrected to include the revised zoning requirements. The response should be corrected to read as follows: City Response: Section 3, Subdivision 4.C.1. of the Lino Lakes zoning ordinance states that the building height limits established in each zoning district shall not apply to specified uses, including farm structures, church spires up to 60 ft., belfries up to 60 ft., cupolas up to 60 ft., and other listed uses. Other building elements that exceed the height limits may be allowed by the City via conditional use permit, which would be incorporated into the conditional use permit needed for a church. Page 28: The response to a comment on Item 13, which was mistakenly omitted, should read as follows: City Response: Water usage estimates typically are similar to wastewater estimates. Water use and wastewater assumptions in the EAW are taken from the preliminary design report. Flow estimates in the report are based on the average daily and peak flows at the current facility. The weekend church service averages 1400 attendees. The average wastewater flow was about 1400 gallons per day, based on metered flows obtained from White Bear Township. This works out to an average of a gallon per day per attendee. The new church, with the possible expansion, would have 2800 seats, which would generate about 2800 gpd. An estimate of peak attendance used a 150% multiplier. This resulted in 4200 gpd peak flow: 2800 x Eagle Brook Church April 14, 2003 page 7 150% = 4200. (This is explained in the attached information on the proposed onsite septic system.) If a church connects to a public sewer system, it is charged one SAC (sewer access charge) unit for every 275 seats. On this project, this would calculate out to 10 SAC units: 2800/275 = 10.18. Each SAC unit represents 274 gpd of wastewater flow, so 10 SAC units represents 2740 gallons per day. This is comparable to the 2800 gpd preliminary design estimate. Page 44: The response to a comment on Item 7 includes three paragraphs. The second paragraph should be amended to read as follows: City Response: Section 3, Subdivision 4.C.1. of the Lino Lakes zoning ordinance states that the building height limits established in each zoning district shall not apply to specified uses, including farm structures, church spires up to 60 ft., belfries up to 60 ft., cupolas up to 60 ft., and other listed uses. Page 52: The second sentence of the response to a comment on Item 25b should be corrected as follows: City Response: The question in Item 25.b. is whether there are prime or unique farmlands or agricultural preserve land on or near the site. The answer, as stated in the EAW, is that one soil classification on the site is considered prime farmland. The site is ...