Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-098 Council Resolution01-98 Council Member Reinert introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption. CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 01-98 RESOLUTION MAKING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE LINO LAKES MARKETPLACE PROJECT BASED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET WHEREAS, the City of Lino Lakes has received a proposal for a commercial development called Lino Lakes Marketplace, and; WHEREAS, Minnesota Rules 4410.4300 Subp. 14.B. requires the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the project, 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 distributed according to the requirements of MN Rules 4410. 3. The public comment period ended July 11, 2001. 4. The City has reviewed comments on the EAW from the Minnesota Historical Society, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the Metropolitan Council, and the Lino Lakes Environmental Board. The City has prepared responses to these comments. 5. The City has considered comments on the EAW and the extent to which environmental effects are subject to 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. Future development near the project site has been considered and is not anticipated to cause significant environmental effects. Responses to Comments On Lino Lakes Marketplace EAW page 1 of 11 9. Impacts on wetlands will be analyzed, minimized, and regulated through the permitting process conducted according to the Wetland Conservation Act, as implemented by the Rice Creek Watershed District, and the Clean Water Act, as implemented by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 10. The City Council must make either a positive or negative 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. Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this 23rd day of July, 2001 i John✓J. Bergeson, Mayor Raj _T 1111 14,..AA iger, Deputy Cle The motion for a. • .tion of the * regoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member • =nnel and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Bergeson, Carlson, Dahl, Reinert and O'Donnell The following voted against same: None. Whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted. Responses to Comments On Lino Lakes Marketplace EAW page 2 of 11 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS ON EAW LINO LAKES MARKETPLACE PROJECT July 18, 2001 This document summarizes comments received by the indicated agencies. Responses to the comments follow each comment. The complete comment letters can be found attached to this summary. Minnesota Historical Society, State Historic Preservation Office • SHPO notes that the response to question 25a of the EAW fails to indicate that the archaeological survey of the parcel identified one site that was determined not to meet National Register criteria. City response: The EAW states that a previously recorded prehistoric archaeological site is located in the project area, and that the site was evaluated to determine whether it meets National Register criteria. The EAW did not specifically state that the site did not meet the criteria. The clarification from SHPO is noted and included in the record. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency • MPCA notes that the project will not exceed state ambient standards for CO and thus no significant air quality impacts are expected. • MPCA notes that the list of approvals and permits in item 8 of the EAW should include a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the MPCA. City response: This addition is noted and added to the record. • MPCA notes that storm water management basins shall not be considered as wetland compensatory mitigation; that existing wetlands altered by excavation or construction to function as storm water basins should be counted as adversely impacted; and that, as stated in the EAW, an evaluation for avoidance of impacts must be conducted. If impact is unavoidable, compensatory mitigation must occur. City response: The Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) is the Local Governmental Unit under the Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Act. The project applicant has submitted a sequencing analysis and mitigation plan to the RCWD. The City of Lino Lakes relies on the RCWD for administration of the requirements of the Wetlands Conservation Act. The City will require that RCWD approval is obtained as a condition of City approval of the project. Responses to Comments On Lino Lakes Marketplace EAW page 3 of 11 • MPCA also notes that the discussion of avoidance alternatives is somewhat confusing, and that "investment -backed expectations" and "visibility from I -35W" are not appropriate criteria for a decision on an EAW. City response: The City agrees that investment -backed expectations of the applicant and visibility from the freeway are not issues to be considered in making a decision on the adequacy of an EAW or on the need for an EIS. • MPCA also recommends that the developer look for every chance possible to infiltrate storm water, and states that the major threat to the adjacent wetland and lakes is the increased volume of storm water from the project. City response: The project applicant has attempted to incorporate infiltration basins into the drainage design of the project. The Rice Creek Watershed District is the local surface water planning authority. The RCWD standards includes using infiltration when possible. The project will require a permit from RCWD. Increased runoff volume from development is a watershed -wide issue. Impacts are not limited to this project. Nor can the impacts of runoff from this project be considered to be significant, given the immense area that makes up the watershed that drains to the chain of lakes in the park reserve. The City does not consider the runoff from this project to be a major threat. The City has intended that the site be developed for extensive retail use and has planned and zoned it for such uses for many years. The site is within a larger City Center planning area intended for the development of a central business district, or "downtown." The project site is the best location in the City for extensive retail development such as the proposed project. The City recognizes that wetlands will be impacted on site, but does not consider this impact to be a threat to the regional park reserve. It is unlikely that the volume of runoff from the site will impact the vast acreage of lakes and wetland systems in the 2600 acre park reserve. especially with the size of the watershed draining into the chain of lakes. Also, site runoff will be collected and treated by stormwater ponding, runoff rates will not increase, and infiltration basins are incorporated into site design. The City also notes that the site is not actually "adjacent" to any lakes. The site is separated from the regional park reserve by the I -35W right of way, which is 260 feet wide. George Watch Lake, within the park reserve, is over 1000 feet from the freeway right of way, with wetlands in between. Responses to Comments On Lino Lakes Marketplace EAW page 4 of 11 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources • DNR expresses concern over the impacts on wetlands, stating that filling wetlands for a parking lot raises questions about the appropriateness of the site for the project as defined. DNR notes that Wetland A, at the edge of the site, is a logical candidate for avoidance, and that there must be an alternative design scenario. DNR also notes that the EAW states that the fill is necessary due to the central location of the wetland in the most visible area of freeway frontage. DNR questions how this meets wetland sequencing requirements under the Wetland Conservation Act. City response: The City has intended that the site be developed for extensive retail use and has planned and zoned it for such uses for many years. The site is within a larger City Center planning area intended for the development of a central business district, or "downtown." The project site is the best location in the City for extensive retail development such as the proposed project. The City recognizes that wetlands will be impacted on the site, and recognizes the need to comply with the Wetlands Conservation Act, including sequencing and mitigation requirements. The Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) is the Local Governmental Unit under the Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Act. The project applicant has submitted a sequencing analysis and mitigation plan to the RCWD. The City of Lino Lakes relies on the RCWD for administration of the requirements of the Wetlands Conservation Act. The City will require that RCWD approval is obtained as a condition of City approval of the project. • DNR also states that even though Wetland B is not directly impacted, changing water levels in the stormwater pond (Wetland A) is likely to influence groundwater levels in Wetland B. City response: The area covered by Wetland B is much greater than that covered by Wetland A—five to seven times greater. It is unlikely that water levels in Wetland A will influence Wetland B. • DNR recommends that trees that are removed should be used for commercial forest products and not just piled and burned. City response: The City will convey this suggestion to the developer. • DNR also states that the tree preservation plan Exhibit K does not provide sufficient readable information to be able to determine the proposed tree preservation plans. DNR notes that if the City does not have tree mitigation/replacement guidelines, then it is difficult for the project proposer to know whether they have met the goals and objectives of the City. Responses to Comments On Lino Lakes Marketplace EAW page 5 of 11 City response: The project proposer has submitted a tree replacement plan. The City `-- finds the submitted plan satisfactory given that the site has for years been planned for intense retail development.. Minnesota Department of Transportation • MnDOT comments that the runoff rate must remain the same, that the developer must submit hydraulic computations for the 10- and 100 -year rainfall events verifying that all existing drainage patterns and systems affecting MnDOT right of way will be perpetuated. A MnDOT drainage permit may be required. City response: The project proposer has submitted these hydraulic calculations to meet City submittal requirements. The project proposer will be responsible for submitting them directly to MnDOT. • MnDOT also comments that the Village ingress is located too close to the I35W northbound entrance ramp. City response: The Village is the area located on the south side of the freeway. The Village is not part of the project. The traffic study referred to in the EAW and attached as an exhibit analyzes traffic along Lake Drive including the Village and up to Main St. Metropolitan Council • Met Council states that a sanitary sewer extension permit is required for this project. City response: It is the City's understanding that the sewer extension permit is issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and that the Met Council must sign off on the permit before MPCA issues it. At any rate, this clarification/addition is noted and added to the record. • Met Council states that the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Regional Park is located directly across I35W and should be noted on page 8 as an adjacent land use. City response: Item 9 (page 8) of the EAW addresses land uses adjacent to the project site. The item includes one sentence describing the Village, "where the City is working to create a city center of mixed uses, including City Hall and other public uses as well as private housing and commercial uses." Since this description of the Village is included in the item, it would be appropriate to list the regional park reserve as well since the park reserve abuts the Village on the south of the freeway. It is not the City's intention to ignore or minimize the existence of the park reserve, a very important resource that the City values highly. The park reserve is described in items 11 and 25. Responses to Comments On Lino Lakes Marketplace EAW page 6 of 11 • Met Council notes that page 10 of the EAW indicates the presence of burr oak trees on the site but that the tree survey (Exhibit J) indicates only white an read oaks on the site. City response: white oak. The City's Environmental Specialist notes that a Burr oak is a type of • Met Council also notes that the City's tree ordinance does not require tree mitigation or replacement and thus is of little use to the community. Met Council goes on to recommend that the City incorporate protection and reforestation components in the ordinance. Met Council staff feels the project applicant could do much more to remediate the loss of trees from the site. City response: Tree replacement on development sites is part of a larger effort to address tree preservation, open space, and landscaping, including the planting and management of native species. The City has recognized the need to address these elements. The project proposer has submitted a tree replacement plan. The City finds the submitted plan satisfactory given that the site has for years been planned for intense retail development. • Met Council states that its concerns about the proposed development impacts on the `-- Regional Park include: 1. The potential to degrade water quality do to a large amount of hard surface proposed in the development that will prevent a significant amount local infiltration. (28.7 acres of hard surface of the 40.15 acres site total) 2. The large amount of hard surface will likely elevate the temperature of the storm water runoff temperatures due to the sun heating the extensive roofs and parking lots of the development. This increase in runoff water temperature could negatively impact the park wetlands and the corresponding bird and wildlife populations. City response: The site currently is undeveloped land which includes wetland, wooded areas, and grassland. Any development that includes impervious surface will, by definition, reduce infiltration. As noted above in the response to the MPCA, the project applicant has attempted to incorporate infiltration basins into the drainage design of the project. The Rice Creek Watershed District is the local surface water planning authority. The RCWD standards includes using infiltration when possible. The project will require a permit from RCWD. Increased runoff volume from development is a watershed -wide issue. Impacts are not limited to this project. It is unlikely that the volume of runoff from the site will impact the vast acreage of lakes and wetland systems in the 2600 acre park reserve. Nor can the impacts of runoff from this project be considered to be significant, given the immense area that makes Responses to Comments On Lino Lakes Marketplace EAW page 7 of 11 up the watershed that drains to the chain of lakes in the park reserve. This applies equally to the statement about the water temperature of the runoff. The City does not consider the runoff from this project to be a major threat. 3. The Wetland Conservation Act requires avoidance as the first step of compliance. This plan is proposing to fill 3.64 acres. Replacement wetlands typically have significantly less diversity than natural wetlands and therefore have significantly less natural resource value. The proposed wetland area to be filled was directly part of the wetland complex in the regional park. It has been severed by the construction of Interstate 35W but it likely still functions in conjunction with the regional park through subsurface waters and well as plant and wildlife interaction on the surface. (4.88 acres of wetland reduced to 1.24 acres) Is there a hardship that merits the filling of 3.64 acres of wetland, cutting down 1.64 acres of forest with a proposed removal of 474 significant trees adjacent to a regional park? Also the removal of 32.3 acres of Brush/grass land and creating 2.82 acres of sterile storm ponds that will have virtually no natural resource value. (Pages 9 and 10). City response: Wetland impacts are governed under the Wetland Conservation Act by the Rice Creek Watershed District. The project will require a permit from the RCWD as well as from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act. 4. The loss of a significant amount of trees adjacent to the park will result in a loss of `.. habitat for birds and wildlife that use this area in addition to the park area. City response: A sense of scale is necessary in considering this comment as well as comments regarding runoff. The site is 40+ acres of land guided and zoned for intense commercial development. The regional park reserve is over 2600 acres. The loss of about two acres of woodland must be compared to the larger picture. • Met Council states that from a parks and open space perspective, the wetland and tree covered property on the east side of the property should be left undisturbed and the development concentrated on the western portion of the property. The remaining natural areas should be restored to a higher quality native vegetation state. The upland forest oaks that are 24" to 30" should be preserved. Why is the city asking for removal of 21 significant cottonwood and aspen? Is this an attempt to manage the forest type? City response: From a larger urban planning perspective, areas of the City are guided for specific land uses. The project site is planned for intense commercial development. Other areas of the City and the regional park reserve are planned for parks and open space. Open space is considered in reviewing all development projects, but open space is not the only consideration. Nor is open space appropriate on every development project. As to parks, the City has a comprehensive park plan that guides park planning. Responses to Comments On Lino Lakes Marketplace EAW page 8 of 11 • Met Council states that a site evaluation should be done by a professional ecologist for rare �-- and endangered species. City response: A natural resource inventory analysis of the site was conducted in 1998-99 by a consultant hired by the City. The study revealed no rare or endangered species. In addition, as described in the EAW, the Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Database includes no record of rare or endangered species on the site. • Met Council states that there is some question of the rationale for proposing to fill a wetland so that there is better visibility from the freeway frontage. The avoidance argument (page 15) is not very compelling as there seems to be significant ability to develop the site to the west. City response: The Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) is the Local Governmental Unit under the Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Act. The project applicant has submitted a sequencing analysis and mitigation plan to the RCWD. The City of Lino Lakes relies on the RCWD for administration of the requirements of the Wetlands Conservation Act. The City will require that RCWD approval is obtained as a condition of City approval of the project. • Met Council states that any wetland mitigation (page 16) within the regional park would have to be a part of the existing master plan or a master plan update that would require approval by the Council. There should be at least an equal amount of public parkland purchased to replace the areas being used for wetland mitigation for this private development. Funding should also be provided for on going maintenance and monitoring of the "created" wetlands. City response: City staff discussed this comment with John VonDeLinde, Director of Anoka County Parks and Recreation. Anoka Parks has anticipated the improvements to the park proposed as part of the wetland mitigation plan for the Lino Lakes Marketplace project. The wetland mitigation provides an opportunity to fulfill the Anoka Parks plans. Implementation of the wetland creation projects is intended to further park master plan goals in several ways. The wetlands to be created near the campgrounds will enhance biodiversity and provide an opportunity for public interpretation on natural resources and wildlife related to wetlands. There is currently no such opportunity at the campgrounds. The wetlands on the golf course will add biodiversity and enhance the recreation goals of the park. Thus, the wetland mitigation plans are consistent with the park master plan goals. Anoka Parks would not have expressed interest in the arrangement if it did not promote park goals. Responses to Comments On Lino Lakes Marketplace EAW page 9 of 11 • Met Council states that the flood plain of George Watch Lake in the Regional Park should be avoided instead of being filled. City response: The EAW states that 90 cubic yards of floodplain fill is proposed on the site. Review and approval by the Rice Creek Watershed District will be required. Floodplain fill will require the creation of compensatory storage. The City will include the RCWD permit as a condition of approval for the project. • Met Council states that Council staff is concerned that the applicant has not determined the effects of projected increased volume of stormwater discharge on the Rice Creek Regional Park Reserve wetlands and George Watch Lake. Increased water levels in the park may significantly alter shoreline plant ecology and habitat. Due to the potential for significant alteration to plant communities in a regional park reserve, it is our opinion that an analysis of water level changes in the park reserve due to increased runoff from the site must be completed before an EIS determination can be made. City response: The watershed that drains into the chain of lakes encompasses a very large area, perhaps as much as 100 square miles. As noted in several comments above, increased runoff volume from development is a watershed -wide issue. Impacts are not limited to this project. It is unlikely that the volume of runoff from the site will impact the vast acreage of lakes and wetland systems in the 2600 acre park reserve. Nor can the impacts of runoff from this project be considered to be significant, given the immense area that makes up the watershed that drains to the chain of lakes in the park reserve. • Met Council is concerned about the potential for plugging of the two small diameter outlet pipes of the large detention basin. City response: The City shares this concern. The City is requiring redesign of the outlet to include a larger diameter pipe. Lino Lakes Environmental Board • At its meeting June 27, 2001, the Board recommended an analysis of impacts on wetlands and lakes from increased runoff volume and the increase of phosphorous runoff loads. City response: As noted in several comments, the size of the project and the amount of runoff from it is insignificant compared to the watershed that drains into the chain of lakes. Any analysis of runoff impacts would need to address the larger watershed. This issue and the larger watershed is beyond the jurisdiction of the City of Lino Lakes. The RCWD is the jurisdictional unit with authority for watershed planning. The City has a surface water management plan that must be consistent with the watershed management plan prepared by the Rice Creek Watershed District. Responses to Comments On Lino Lakes Marketplace EAW page 10 of 11 The City will require that the project proposer incorporate best management practices into the operation and maintenance agreement for the development, such as regular sweeping of parking lots and drives to reduce phosphorous in runoff. Actual comment letters are attached. Responses to Comments On Lino Lakes Marketplace EAW page 11 of 11 AGENDA ITEM 7C (REVISED) STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser Michael Grochala CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 23, 2001 TOPIC: Resolution No. 01-98 Lino Lakes Marketplace Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Review ACTION REQUESTED: 3/5 Vote on Negative Declaration Resolution BACKGROUND The purpose of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) is to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is needed for a project. The EAW is defined by state statute as a "brief document, which is designed to set out the basic facts necessary to determine whether an EIS is required for a proposed action." The purpose of the EAW process is to disclose information about potential environmental impacts of the project; it is not an approval process. The information disclosed in the EAW process has two functions: 1) to determine whether an EIS is needed, and 2) to indicate how the project can be modified to lessen its environmental impacts; such modifications may be imposed as permit conditions by regulatory agencies. The Environmental Quality Board rules assign responsibility for preparing the EAW and determining the need for an EIS to a specific unit of government. The Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) is generally the unit with the greatest responsibility for approving or supervising the project as a whole. The City of Lino Lakes is the RGU for the Marketplace project. The RGU (city council) is required to make a decision on the need for an EIS between three working days and thirty (30) days after the comment period ends. The comment period for the Marketplace project ended on July 11, 2001. The purpose of the EAW, comments and comment responses is to provide the record on which the RGU can base a decision about whether an EIS needs to be prepared for a project. EIS need is described in the rules: "An EIS shall be ordered for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects." In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the RGU "shall compare the impacts that may reasonably be expected to occur from the Lino Lakes Marketplace EAW Page 2 project with the criteria in this rule," considering the following factors (part 4410.1700, subparts 6 and 7)": 1. Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects. This deals with the nature and significance of the environmental effects that will or could result from the project. It relies directly on the EAW information and may be augmented by information from the comments and responses. 2. Cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects. The second criterion is difficult to apply in practice often because little is known about other potential projects unless they are also under review at the same time. Cumulative impacts are discussed in Item 29 of the EAW. 3. The extent to which environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority. This is frequently the main justification for why an EIS is not required. Projects often have impacts that could be significant if not for permit conditions and other aspects of public regulatory authority. 4. 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 Environmental Impact Statements. This criterion enters in only where the same information that would be sought in an EIS already is available through past studies, including other impact statements. The RGU is obligated to examine the facts, consider the criteria and draw its own conclusions about the significance of potential environmental effects based on the EAW, comments received and responses to the comments. The RGU may postpone its decision on the need for an EIS for upto 30 additional calendar days if it determines that "information necessary to a reasoned decision about the potential for, or significance of, one or more possible environmental impacts is lacking, but could be reasonably obtained" (part 4410.1700, subpart 2a). ANALYSIS Staff has reviewed the comments received during the thirty day review period. The comments and responses are included in Attachment 1. They have been revised to incorporate the following Environmental Board Comments. Lino Lakes Marketplace EAW Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD REVIEW The Lino Lakes Environmental Board met on July 18, 2001 to discuss the Marketplace Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), regulatory agency comments and the City's response to those comments. The Environmental Board requested that the following modifications be made to the city responses: 1. Response to the MPCA Stormwater Volume Comment: Indicate that the volume of runoff from "this site" is not significant given the ponding requirements, rate control, and infiltration provisions being incorporated into the project design. This modification should also be incorporated into similar responses to the Metropolitan Council and Environmental Board. 2. Response to Metropolitan Council Adjacent Land Use Comment: Delete the last paragraph ("The City notes...") of this response. 3. Response to Environmental Board Comments: Include additional paragraph stating that the City will require that Best Management Practices are included in the development's Operation and Maintenance Agreement to minimize proposed phosphorous runoff loads. 4. Finding No. 5 of Resolution No. 01-98: Modify language to note that environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing regulatory authorities. The Environmental Board did take specific action regarding the EAW as follows: 1. Recommend tabling the decision until the submission of additional information (i.e., RCWD and U.S. Army Corp of Engineers). 2. Metropolitan Council states analysis of impacts of water runoff from the site must be completed before an EIS determination can be made. 3. Metropolitan Council recommends applicants try to reduce runoff volume to predevelopment conditions. 4. Environmental Board to review and comment following the submission of additional information. OPTIONS 1. Motion making a Negative Declaration on the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement. 2. Motion making a Positive Declaration on the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement. 3. Motion to recommend tabling the decision until the submission of additional information. Lino Lakes Marketplace EAW Page 4 RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending Option No. 1. based on the following: 1. that potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Marketplace Development shall be mitigated in an acceptable manner and therefore an Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary. 2. Mitigation of potential environmental impacts shall be achieved by the following means: a. Conditions of approval of the Preliminary Plat/Planned Development Overlay Site Plan; and b. Permit conditions or other actions of various public regulatory authorities including, but not limited to the City of Lino Lakes, Rice Creek Watershed District, and the MPCA. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 01-98 2. EAW Comments and Responses.