HomeMy WebLinkAbout#10 Royal Golf EAWStaff Report
DATE: 1/17/2017
Regular Item
ITEM #: 10
TO: City Council
AGENDA ITEM: Royal Golf Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Response to
Comments, Findings of Fact and Record of Decision
FROM: Stephen Wensman, Planning Director
REVIEWED BY: Sarah Sonsalla
Jack Griffin
Kristina Handt
BACKGROUND:
According to State Statutes, the proposed Royal Golf Residential Development has triggered a
mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). The purpose of the EAW is to disclose information about potential environmental impacts of the project and to determine
whether more involved Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required. A draft of the EAW
was prepared by the Kjolhaug Environmental and accepted by the City for advertisement with
the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) on October 24, 2016. The advertisement triggered a 30
day comment period which ended on November 23, 2016. The City received 11 written comments: four from state agencies, four from regional and local agencies, one from a
community group, and two from Lake Elmo residents. The City had 30 days in which to respond
to the comments received and to determine whether a more involved Environmental Impact
Statement. Under EQB rules, the City may postpone its decision to gather critical missing
information for up to 30 days or a longer period if agreed to by the developer; and the decision must be documented in written record of decision. The City exercised this option with the
developer’s approval in order to gather information and properly address comments provided by
the Minnesota Department of Health and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
City Staff has reviewed the submitted comments and has prepared the attached Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Record of Decision for the Royal Golf Club Residential
Development EAW.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council make a negative declaration for the need for an EIS with
the following motion:
“Move to adopt Resolution 2017-007 finding no need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Royal Gold Club Residential Development”
City Council Meeting 01/17/2017 Regular Agenda Item #10
Page 2
ATTACHMENTS:
• Resolution 2017-007
• Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Record of Decision for the Royal Golf Club
Residential Development EAW
• EAW - Public and Agency comments.
CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-007 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT, AND
RECORD OF DECISION FOR THE PROPOSED ROYAL GOLF CLUB RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND MAKING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OFA NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
WHEREAS, Royal Golf has proposed 292 single-family residential lots in the City of Lake Elmo
(the “City”) that will be served by municipal utilities on 222 acres of privately-owned land; and
WHEREAS, the residential development is part of the overall Royal Golf Club area, which covers
477 acres and was previously known as Tartan Park, which was a 27-hole golf course, clubhouse, and sports complex with wetlands and open space; and
WHEREAS, the existing 27-hole golf course is proposed to be rehabilitated as an 18-hole golf course and the remainder of the golf course, sports complex and some of the open space will be converted to
residential use; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Rules Part 4410.4300, subpart 19 (C) requires that an Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (“EAW”) be prepared for a residential development of at least 100 unattached units or 150 attached units if the development is not consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan in a city within the seven-county Twin Cities metropolitan area; and
WHEREAS, the City is the Responsible Governmental Unit for preparing the EAW and for
determining the potential for environmental impacts of the project; and
WHEREAS, the City approved the EAW for distribution on October 18, 2016 and the EAW was
submitted to the Environmental Quality Board staff for publication of a notice of the EAW’s availability in
the EQB Monitor; and
WHEREAS, the EAW was also distributed by the City to all offices on the EQB’s official distribution list; and
WHEREAS, a press release and public notice was submitted to the Oakdale-Lake Elmo Review on October 24, 2016, and published on November 2, 2016, describing the project, explaining that an EAW is available for review and comment, and providing details regarding the process for submitting comments on
the EAW; and WHEREAS, on October 24, 2016, the notice of availability of the EAW was published in the EQB Monitor, commencing the 30-day public comment period; and
WHEREAS, the 30-day comment period ended November 23, 2016 at 4:30 p.m.; and
WHEREAS, the City received 11 written comments on the EAW, four from state agencies, four from
regional and local agencies, one from a community group, and two from City residents; and
WHEREAS, because it had determined that it needed additional information necessary to make a
reasoned decision about the potential for, or significance of, one or more possible environmental impacts,
the City postponed its decision on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) for 30 days pursuant to Minnesota Rules Part 4410.1700, subpart 2a; and
WHEREAS, after the additional information was received, the City reviewed the comments, and prepared a specific written response to each in accordance with the Minnesota Rules (see attached Exhibit
A); and
WHEREAS, the preparation of the EAW and the comments received on the EAW have generated
information adequate to determine whether the proposed Royal Golf Club Development has the potential for significant environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public meeting on January 17, 2017 to review the EAW and consider the need for an EIS; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds, based on the findings of fact, that an EIS for the project is not necessary because: (1) the project does not fall within a mandatory EIS category as set forth in Minnesota
Rules 4410.4400; and (2) the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects
according to the criteria and procedures set forth in Minnesota Rules 4410.170; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo as follows:
1. Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Record of Decision. The Lake Elmo City
Council adopts the Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Record of Decision related
to the proposed Royal Golf Club Residential Development incorporated herein as Exhibit A.
2. Negative Declaration. The Lake Elmo City Council finds based on the adopted Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Record of Decision that no Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required for the proposed Royal Golf Club Residential Development.
3. Direction to Publish. The Lake Elmo City Council directs that this Resolution and the attached Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Record of Decision be distributed within five
days in accordance with Minnesota Rules Part 4410.1700, subpart 5. 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effectively immediately upon its passage and
without publication.
Passed and duly adopted this ______ day of ______________, 2017, by the City Council of the City of
Lake Elmo, Minnesota.
______________________________ Mike Pearson, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Record of Decision
For the Royal Golf Club Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet
[to be attached]
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS,
FINDINGS OF FACT,
AND RECORD OF DECISION
FOR
THE ROYAL GOLF CLUB RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
January 2017
RGU PROPOSER
City of Lake Elmo
Stephen Wensman Planning Director
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Phone: (651) 747-3911 swensman@lakeelmo.org
HC Golf Development, LLC
Rick Packer President
11074 Radisson Road NE
Blaine, MN 55449
Phone: (763) 783-9000 rpacker@royalgolfclubmn.com
This page is intentionally blank.
i
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS,
FINDINGS OF FACT, AND
RECORD OF DECISION
FOR
THE ROYAL GOLF CLUB RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
January 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1
EAW Notification, Distribution, and Comment Period .............................................................. 1
COMMENTS RECEIVED ............................................................................................................ 1
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS .................................................................................................... 2
6.0. Project Description .......................................................................................................... 2
7.0. Cover Types .................................................................................................................... 3
8.0. Permits and Approvals..................................................................................................... 3
9.0. Land Use (General) ......................................................................................................... 4
9.1. Land Use (Shorelands) .................................................................................................... 5
9.2. Land Use (Floodplains) .................................................................................................... 7
9.3. Land Use (Compatibility) ................................................................................................. 7
10.0. Geology, Soils, Landforms ............................................................................................. 8
11.0. Water Resources (Water Quality) .................................................................................. 8
11.1. Water Resources (Wetlands) ........................................................................................ 9
11.2. Water Resources (Stormwater) ..................................................................................... 9
11.3. Water Resources (Wastewater) .................................................................................. 10
12.0. Contamination / Hazardous Materials (Perfluorochemicals) ......................................... 10
12.1. Contamination / Hazardous Materials (Contaminated Soils) ........................................ 13
12.2. Contamination / Hazardous Materials (Disposal Area) ................................................. 14
12.3. Contamination / Hazardous Materials (Pipelines) ........................................................ 15
13.0. Fish, Wildlife, Ecological Resources ............................................................................ 15
14.0. Historic Properties ....................................................................................................... 16
15.0. Visual........................................................................................................................... 16
17.0. Noise ........................................................................................................................... 16
18.0. Transportation ............................................................................................................. 16
19.0. Cumulative Potential Effects ........................................................................................ 19
ii
20.0. Other Environmental Effects ........................................................................................ 20
FINDINGS OF FACT ................................................................................................................ 20
Project Description ................................................................................................................ 20
Proposed Project ............................................................................................................... 20
Site Description and Existing Conditions ............................................................................ 20
Decision Regarding the Potential for Significant Environmental Effects ................................ 21
A. Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Environmental Effects .............................................. 21
B. Cumulative Potential Effects ......................................................................................... 23
C. Extent to Which the Environmental Effects are Subject to Mitigation ........................... 23
D. Extent to Which Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and Controlled .................. 25
RECORD OF DECISION .......................................................................................................... 25
TABLES
Table 1. Comments Received on The Royal Golf Club Residential Development EAW .............. 2
Table 2. Perfluorochemical Sampling by MDH near The Royal Golf Development ................... 11
Table 3. Trip Generation Estimates of Residential and Golf Course Project ............................. 17
Table 4. Permits and Approvals ................................................................................................ 24
FIGURES
1. Shorelands, Floodplains, and Steep Slopes
APPENDICES A. Written Comments Submitted to the City of Lake Elmo B. Updated Shoreland PUD Evaluation
C. Comparison of Detected PFC Levels to Health Advisory Limits
Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Record of Decision – The Royal Golf Club Residential Development
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
1
INTRODUCTION
The Royal Golf Club Residential Development is proposed on 222 acres of privately-owned land. The
project includes 292 single-family residential lots that will be served by municipal utilities. The project
will involve installation of public and private infrastructure, grading, stormwater ponding, and open
space preservation. The residential development is part of the overall Royal Golf Club area, which
covers 477 acres and was previously known as Tartan Park. Tartan Park was a 27-hole golf course,
clubhouse, and sports complex with wetlands and open space. The existing 27-hole golf course will be
rehabilitated as an 18-hole golf course. The rest of the golf course, sports complex, and some of the open
space will be converted to residential use.
The residential project has a net density of about 1.5 units per acre and will preserve about 90.8 acres as private open space. The residential area includes 198 acres of useable land and 24 acres of regulated wetlands and public waters. Shoreland overlay districts of five public waters cover about 48 percent of the project area (107 acres). At least 50 percent of this shoreland area will be open space protected by
easement.
Metropolitan Council indicated the proposed project brings City’s overall density down from 3.25
units/acre to 3.05 units/acre, which is still consistent with Metropolitan Council's policy of 3.0 units/acre.
The overall project area includes 198.3 acres of useable land (excluding regulated wetland) and the
project design preserves 90.8 acres (46 percent of the net acreage) as private open space. The shorelands
on the site include at least 50 percent open space outside of lots, which will be covered by easements.
An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was prepared pursuant to Minnesota Rules Part
4410.4300, subpart 19 (C) (Residential Development). The EAW and the respective comments have
been reviewed in accordance with Minnesota Rules Part 4410.1700 to determine if the project has
potential for significant environmental effects. This document includes the City of Lake Elmo (the
“City”)’s responses to comments that it received from persons and agencies on the official Environmental
Quality Board (“EQB”) distribution list, the City’s findings of fact supporting its decision that an
Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary for this project, and its record of decision.
EAW Notification, Distribution, and Comment Period
In accordance with Minnesota Rules Part 4410.1500, the EAW was completed and distributed to persons
and agencies on the official EQB distribution list. The notification was published in the EQB Monitor on
October 24, 2016, initiating the 30-day public comment period. A press release and public notice was
submitted to Oakdale-Lake Elmo Review on October 24, 2016 and was published on November 2, 2016.
The comment period ended on November 23, 2016.
COMMENTS RECEIVED
The City received 11 written comments: four from state agencies, four from regional and local agencies,
one from a community group, and two from City residents (Table 1). Copies of the written comments
are included in Appendix A of this document.
None of the written comments that were submitted recommended preparation of an EIS. The
Metropolitan Council found the EAW to be complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns.
Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Record of Decision – The Royal Golf Club Residential Development
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
2
Washington County supported efforts to allow expansion of urban services and stated that the project
implements the land use goals of the Washington County Comprehensive Plan.
Table 1. Comments Received on The Royal Golf Club Residential Development EAW
Sources Topics
N Type Commenter Abbr. 6. Project Description 7. Cover Types 8. Permits and Approvals 9. Land Use 10. Geology/Soils/Landforms 11. Water Resources 12. Contamination/Hazardous 13. Fish, Wildlife, Ecological 14. Historic Properties 15. Visual 17. Noise 18. Transportation 19. Cumulative Potential Effects 20. Other Environmental Effects 1 Agency Metropolitan Council Met C 2 Agency MN Pollution Control Agency MPCA
3 Agency MN Department of Natural
Resources
MDN
R
4 Agency MN Department of Health MDH
5 Agency MN State Historic Preservation
Office
SHPO
6 Agency Washington County W.Co.
7 Agency Washington Conservation District WCD
8 Agency Valley Branch Watershed District VBWD
9 Group Homestead Homeowners Assn. HHA
10 Resident Ann M. Bucheck AMB 11 Resident Matthew Archibald MA
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
This document responds to comments organized by EAW Item number. It includes summaries of
comments followed by responses. Complete comment letters are included in Appendix A. Responses to comments are generally confined to substantive issues that “address the accuracy and completeness of the material contained in the EAW, potential impacts that may warrant further
investigation before the project is commenced, and the need for an EIS on the proposed project,” as set
forth under Minnesota Rules Part 4410.1600. Some comments included general remarks, provided
recommendations, or referenced permit requirements. Such comments have been noted for the record.
However, this document does not necessarily respond to comments that would not typically be
considered substantive.
6.0. Project Description
Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Record of Decision – The Royal Golf Club Residential Development
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
3
MDNR Comment
Please correct the MNDNR PWI # for the unnamed public water wetland from 82-117W to 82-417W.
The MNDNR ID # for the unnamed public watercourse is M-050-009-001.
Response
Comment noted for the record. The reference to 82-177W in the EAW is hereby corrected to read 82-417W. VBWD Comment
The site is within an existing, somewhat connected, natural greenway corridor, as shown on Figure 20 of
VBWD’s March 2013 Results of Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (MNRAM) or Evaluating
Wetland Function.
Response
Comment noted for the record. The project design includes a northwest-southeast oriented greenway that
includes golf course and open space which will be a focus of the City’s development review, and a
second greenway that is along the western boundary of the site.
7.0. Cover Types
MDNR and MA Comments
Has a tree preservation and replacement plan been prepared for this proposed development that meets
City ordinance? The EAW includes no record of a Tree Preservation Plan or tree inventory. Tree
impacts warrant further investigation. The developer should hire a forester.
Response
The Tree Preservation Plan is required as part of the preliminary plat/PUD application, which will be
sent to the City in the coming weeks or months. The City will review the Tree Preservation Plan as part
of the preliminary plat/PUD approval process. The project proponent is reviewing tree preservation
measures with the assistance of a team that includes ecologists, a forester/arborist, and a registered
landscape architect.
WCD Comment
Use native vegetation in open spaces and buffers, enhance greenways.
Response
Open space planning will be considered and advanced in association with the preliminary plat/PUD.
Native vegetation plantings will be considered for low maintenance open spaces that are not forested.
8.0. Permits and Approvals
Met C Comment
The proposed project brings City’s overall density down from 3.25 units/acre to 3.05 units/acre, which is
still consistent with Metropolitan Council’s policy of 3.0 units/acre. The City will need to update the wastewater and MUSA sections of its Comprehensive Plan, and Metropolitan Council will need to
Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Record of Decision – The Royal Golf Club Residential Development
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
4
approve it. Sanitary sewer plans need to be submitted to Metropolitan Council at the time of submission
to MPCA.
Response
Comment noted for the record. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment that is currently being reviewed by
the City would update the wastewater and MUSA sections of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as provide a new land use designation for the development area. MPCA Comment
The list of permits and approvals in the EAW does not include MPCA 401 Water Quality Certification.
Response
The project does not require any of the following permits:
• Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the MPCA;
• Individual Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE);
• Letter of Permission from the USACE;
• Regional General Permit from the USACE;
• Section 10 Permit from the U.S. Coast Guard; or
• Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Permit.
W.Co. Comment
The County agrees that an access permit will be required at CSAH 10/10th Street and CSAH 17/Lake
Elmo Avenue. The County reserves the right to require additional improvements, as needed, as a
condition of these permits.
Response
Comment noted for the record.
HHA Comment
The Comprehensive Plan Amendment has not been submitted to Metropolitan Council.
Response
Comment noted for the record. The permit list included in the Findings of Fact section of this document
notes that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is to be submitted to Metropolitan Council.
9.0. Land Use (General)
W.Co. Comment
Intensifying land uses within the Municipal Urban Service Areas (MUSA) is appropriate to complement
the existing golf course and clubhouse use. The result will be increased traffic at I-94 interchanges.
Upgrades in interchange infrastructure typically include a city cost share. The development implements
the land use and transportation goals of the Washington County Comprehensive Plan 2030.
Response
Comment noted for the record. Per the trip generation and distribution information provided in the
Traffic Impact Study, 121 a.m. peak hour trips and 191 p.m. peak hour trips are directed toward the south
Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Record of Decision – The Royal Golf Club Residential Development
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
5
and west, which, conceivably, could make use of interchanges on I-94. These increased trips represent a
very small increase to the regional transportation network.
HHA Comment
It is common for RGUs to delay action on Comprehensive Plan Amendments pending EAW process
completion. Response
As set forth under Minnesota Rules Part 4410.3100, the City acknowledges that final government permit or approval decisions concerning the project may not be made until after the environmental review
process is complete. A comprehensive plan amendment is not considered a final project approval and
therefore may run concurrently with the environmental review process.
9.1. Land Use (Shorelands)
MDNR Comment
The proposed Royal Golf Club Residential PUD development is too dense for the natural resources on
the site. In making this evaluation, MDNR considered overall project suitability by looking at how the
design impacts the existing natural environment on the site. MDNR looks for consistency with density
allowances, setbacks, height, and more subjective performance standards dealing with protection of
vegetation and sensitive slopes. A development is not suitable if it is consuming areas of high quality
vegetation and areas with slopes greater than 12 percent (which MDNR considers steep slopes).
Ultimately, however, it is up to the City to evaluate project suitability.
Response
The project design meets the minimum allowable base densities under Minnesota shoreland rules and
PUD shoreland evaluation methods. The initial project concept plan included 360 lots. The current plan
included 68 fewer lots, indicating a 19 percent reduction in overall project density. The project design
places roadways on ridges and higher elevations to avoid impacting some of the sensitive resources and
minimizes environmental effects to the extent practicable with the current design. Addition design
modifications will be considered with the preliminary plat review to further reduce environmental
impacts. The City will work with the project proponent to further reduce woodland impacts where
practicable. Mitigation practices may include minimizing development impact on the woodlands and
buckthorn removal.
MDNR Comment
Rewrite the statement on page 3 so that it does not imply that the City has determined that this project
meets shoreland overlay district requirements.
Response
Comment noted for the record. The City and the project proponent acknowledge that the City has not completed its review of the development as it relates to shoreland overlay district requirements. The project proponent has submitted information intended to show how the project design meets the
minimum requirements for shoreland density and open space. However, further review of the shoreland
requirements will be conducted by the City as part of a future preliminary plat application review.
Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Record of Decision – The Royal Golf Club Residential Development
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
6
MDNR Comment
The EAW states that the City’s ordinance requires only two conditions to be met to allow for PUDs.
PUDs, by their very nature, are a negotiation between the local government and the proposer. The City,
through the PUD process, can require additional conditions in exchange for the increased density that is
allowed under a PUD.
Response
Comment noted for the record. The City will be reviewing the PUD and working with the project proponent to potentially further mitigate environmental effects and potentially provide other public improvements in exchange for deviations from City ordinances and standards.
MDNR Comment
Please update the shoreland PUD suitable area, open space, and density calculations to match those
numbers provided in analyses completed after the submittal of the EAW.
Response
An updated Shoreland PUD Evaluation prepared by the project proponent has been submitted to the City
and the MDNR. A recent revision of this updated Shoreland PUD Evaluation is included in Appendix B
of this document. Further review of shoreland requirements will be conducted by the City as part of a
future preliminary plat application review.
MDNR Comment
Please show the location of steep slopes on Figure 7, to help the reader determine the location of
proposed lots, structures, and roads in relation to steep topographic areas.
Response
Figure 7 from the EAW has been revised to show shorelands and steep slopes. The result is shown in
Figure 1. Slopes of at least 12 percent were identified from County soil survey mapping, as suggested
under Minnesota Rules Part 6120.2500, subpart 15b. As indicated in the EAW, slopes shown on soils
mapping to be at least 12 percent cover about 20 percent of the project area.
AMB Comment
Only that land within shorelands is zoned in a way that requires connection to municipal sewer; the
remainder of the land could use septic systems.
Response
The City’s Shoreland Ordinance requires that the PUD be connected to municipal sewer. The Royal Golf
Development PUD includes the golf course and all of the residential development, and therefore, all of it
is required by the City’s Shoreland Ordinance to be connected to municipal sewer. Furthermore,
designing the project so that part of it is sewered and part of it unsewered is not practicable because it
would conflict with local and regional policies that call for efficient use of public infrastructure such as
municipal sewer and water services.
Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Record of Decision – The Royal Golf Club Residential Development
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
7
9.2. Land Use (Floodplains)
VBWD Comment
The VBWD recent modeling results and statistical analysis found the 1percent-annual-chance (100-year)
flood level of Downs Lake to be 893.8. The VBWD will regulate to this flood level instead of the FEMA
base flood elevation of 893.0. Structures will need to have their minimum floor elevations at least two
feet higher than the adjacent water bodies’ VBWD-adopted 100-year flood level, as required in VBWD
Rule 5, Standard 2.
Response
Comment noted for the record. The project proponent will need to adjust the flood storage replacement
and building elevations to meet VBWD requirements. As stated in the EAW, homes and streets will be
elevated on fill above the floodplain to comply with the City’s Flood Plain Ordinance and VBWD Rules. MDNR and AMB Comment
The statement that the project minimizes effects on floodplains is misleading. The project includes 15.6 acre-feet of fill in the flood fringe to accommodate 15 residential lots and streets. There will be
significant changes to the existing floodplain. What layout design modifications could be made to avoid
the need for floodplain fill? How will floodplain storage outside of the PUD boundary be managed? We
want to make sure proper authorities are committed to supervising this activity as streets and 15 homes
could be flooded if not completed correctly.
Response
As stated in the EAW, new homes and infrastructure will be elevated above base flood elevations and
protected from foreseeable flood impacts. Elevations of homes and streets will comply with the City’s
Flood Plain Management Ordinance, Valley Branch Watershed District Rules, and Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) requirements. Flood storage replacement, including the flood storage on
the golf course, will be provided within the PUD boundary, as the golf course is part of the PUD.
The City’s Flood Plain Management Ordinance allows fill within the flood fringe when flood storage
replacement is provided. As stated in MDNR Floodplain Information Sheet No. 2 (2014): “FEMA and
state regulations permit communities to allow the flood fringe to be obstructed and developed if
standards (i.e., elevating and floodproofing structures) are met.” The proposed project will be subject to
approval by the City and Valley Branch Watershed District, and will require a Letter of Map Revision
based on Fill (LOMR-F) from FEMA for properties constructed on fill and elevated above the floodplain
elevation.
9.3. Land Use (Compatibility)
MDNR Comment
Describe the ways the PUD’s design plan is compatible with surrounding land uses in more detail, as it
relates to preservation of forest buffers and how they provide compatibility with surrounding land uses.
Response
Preservation of forested buffers contributes to the project’s compatibility with surrounding land uses by helping to maintain the wooded character of existing roads and the relatively rural character of this part
Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Record of Decision – The Royal Golf Club Residential Development
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
8
of Lake Elmo, while allowing residential development consistent with regional plans and policies.
Buffers along the western project boundary will provide for a potential greenway and wildlife corridor.
The project design includes forested buffers intended to visually separate the proposed project from
adjoining land uses. These buffers will provide for noise attenuation as well as visual screening.
Proposed forested buffers are over 100 feet in several locations. The maximum width of buffers along
the western property boundary is over 500 feet.
10.0. Geology, Soils, Landforms
MDH Comment
Consideration should be given to potential karst development and the possibility of sinkholes beneath
stormwater ponds and infiltration areas in the northeast part of the site, and whether any mitigation
measures are needed. Response
The stormwater ponds proposed in the northeastern part of the site will be lined with two feet of low permeability clay. Infiltration areas will be positioned to intercept overflow from the stormwater ponds.
The lining of stormwater retention ponds will minimize infiltration of water that could potentially reach
carbonate bedrock. Based on preliminary plans and existing water well stratigraphy information for
nearby off-site wells, the final elevation of the infiltration areas will allow for 28 to 74 feet of overburden
between the base of the infiltration areas and bedrock. Maintaining this separation between infiltration
areas and bedrock is expected to minimize the potential for sinkhole development.
WCD Comment
The WCD recommended compliance with NPDES permit requirements, phasing grading to limit the
scale and duration of exposed soils, preserving soils for infiltration, and deep-ripping compacted soils to
promote infiltration.
Response
Comment noted for the record. The project will need to comply with NPDES permit requirements.
Phased grading, and preservation or decompaction of soils for infiltration will be considered and
implemented where feasible and practicable.
11.0. Water Resources (Water Quality)
MPCA Comment
Specific in-water best management practices such as silt curtain, construction during low flow or winter
conditions, cofferdam, or check-dams, etc. should be included in the EAW.
Response
The project is not expected to require specific in-water BMPs because it will not require work in open
waters that discharge downstream. Other BMPs will prevent or reduce sediment discharge and turbidity during and after construction.
Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Record of Decision – The Royal Golf Club Residential Development
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
9
11.1. Water Resources (Wetlands)
MPCA Comment
Please note that isolated wetlands remain under MPCA jurisdiction as waters of the state and mitigation
may be required.
Response
The project team consulted with MPCA staff to discuss isolated wetlands, incidental wetlands, wetland
impacts, and the regulation of waters of the state. Overall, the proposed project will directly affect five
wetlands. Wetland 21 is proposed to be filled and replaced in compliance with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (“WCA”). Four other wetlands (Wetlands 3, 4, 6 and 16) will be partially filled,
excavated, and used as part of the project stormwater management system. All four of these wetlands
were created incidentally during golf course construction and currently function to catch golf course runoff. These four wetlands are isolated and therefore they are not regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. After reviewing the history of Wetlands 3, 4, 6 and 16, MPCA staff determined that these basins are
constructed features that are isolated and have limited environmental value. The MPCA has determined
that mitigation will not be required to modify these basins and use them as part of the project stormwater
management system.
The MPCA also recognized that the project will not require a Section 404 Letter of Permission, Regional
General Permit, or Individual Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, nor will the project require
Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the MPCA.
11.2. Water Resources (Stormwater)
W.Co. Comment
The County will require drainage calculations and written conclusions that the project will not increase
stormwater volume or runoff rate to any County right-of-way.
Response
Comment noted for the record.
WCD Comment
VBWD infiltration guidelines recommend retaining a 1.1-inch rainfall event onsite. WCD encourages
use of bioretention, distribution of stormwater systems in small drainage areas, and referring to the
MPCA stormwater manual for more information.
Response
The comments are noted for the record. As stated in the EAW, the project will need to comply with
VBWD and City requirements. Implementation of bioretention and distributed stormwater management
systems will be considered where feasible and practicable, and where designed and approved for
stormwater treatment and long-term maintenance purposes. AMB Comment
Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Record of Decision – The Royal Golf Club Residential Development
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
10
The commenter asked for supervision and mitigation oversight for stormwater systems.
Response
The City, VBWD, and the MPCA have oversight responsibility for stormwater management practices.
MPCA regulations will require submission of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to address erosion
control and discharge of runoff to surface waters. Stormwater systems will be contained within drainage and utility easements that allow access by City staff for inspection and maintenance purposes.
11.3. Water Resources (Wastewater)
AMB Comment
Wastewater from the clubhouse and other commercial aspects was not included and no estimates were
given as to the amounts. Response
City water use and wastewater generation associated with the golf course, clubhouse, and related facilities was discussed under Item 19 (Cumulative Potential Effects) of the EAW. The 18-hole golf
course with a clubhouse, dining room, and bar and grill is expected to generate a maximum of 1,370
gallons of wastewater per day. The golf course and proposed residential development, combined, do not
have potential for significant environmental effects on the regional wastewater management system.
12.0. Contamination / Hazardous Materials (Perfluorochemicals)
MPCA and MDH Comments
Lake Elmo, Horseshoe Lake, several small drainage ponds, and ditches within the golf course area and
further downstream have been shown to be contaminated with perfluorochemicals (PFCs) at levels above
EPA health advisory levels.
The EPA recently lowered health advisory levels for PFCs. It should be noted that MDH now uses the
new EPA health advisory levels of 70 ng/L for PFOS and PFOA when evaluating health risks. The
development overlies a PFC groundwater plume that has impacted groundwater quality in the primary
drinking water aquifers. Recent MDH sampling has detected PFCs at concentrations above the new EPA
Lifetime Health Advisory levels of 70 parts per trillion for PFOS and PFOA in the surface water in Lake
Elmo, the unnamed creek that discharges from Lake Elmo onto the project property, Horseshoe Lake, and
the series of ditches and stormwater ponds further downstream.
It is not possible to accurately predict whether a well will remain clear of PFC contamination in the
future. The section of the EAW on PFCs should be revised to reflect that PFCs above levels of health
concern are present in the groundwater in this part of Lake Elmo. MDH recommends work with MDH,
MPCA, and DNR to evaluate water quality in the existing wells and surface waters on the project
property and determine appropriate use of these to mitigate for these potential impacts.
Response
The City recognizes that Perfluorochemicals (PFCs) are a family of manmade chemicals that have been
used for decades as an ingredient in products that resist heat, oil, stains, grease and water. PFCs were
disposed of at the 3M Oakdale Disposal Site in Oakdale and the former Washington County Landfill in Lake Elmo between early 1950 and 1974. PFCs found in groundwater and surface waters on and near the
Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Record of Decision – The Royal Golf Club Residential Development
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
11
site include Perflurooctane-sulfonic acid (PFOS), Perfluroocatanoic acid (PFOA), and Perfluorobutryate
(PFBA).
The City understands that the MDH sampled surface water to assess PFC concentrations in the creek in
the northwest part of the site and in Horseshoe Lake during September 2016. Some samples included
PFC concentrations above EPA Health Advisory Limits (HAL), which are commonly referred to as
“drinking water standards” (Table 2). The HALs include a margin of safety and identify the
concentrations of PFOA and PFOS in drinking water at which adverse health effects are not anticipated
to occur over a lifetime.
Table 2. Perfluorochemical Sampling by MDH near The Royal Golf Development1
Perfluorochemical Abbr.
2016 EPA
HAL2
(ng/l)
Sample Location and Concentration (ng/l)
Creek (NW
part of Site)
Horseshoe
Lake (NW)
Horseshoe
Lake (S)
Horseshoe
Lake (E) Conclusion3
Perfluorobutryate PFBA 7,000 440 250 260 240 Below drinking
water standard.
Perfluroocatanoic
acid PFOA 70 57 68 59 75
Below and above
drinking water
standard.
Perflurooctane-sulfonic acid PFOS 70 53 370 210 290
Above drinking
water standard except in creek.
PFOA + PFOS Total 70 110 438 269 365 Above drinking water standard.
1This table compares perfluorochemical samples to EPA standards for drinking water. The MDH (Minnesota Department of Health) MDH sampled the creek and Horseshoe Lake from public right-of-ways and a kayak during September, 2016.
2These Health Advisory Limits (HAL) are commonly referred to as drinking water standards. They identify the concentration of PFOA and PFOS in drinking water at which adverse health effects are not anticipated to occur over a lifetime. The HALs for PFOA and PFOS are
based on estimated exposure from drinking water ingestion, not from skin contact or breathing. These HALs only apply to exposure
scenarios involving drinking water and cannot be used in identifying risk levels for ingestion of food sources, including: fish, meat produced from livestock that consumes contaminated water, or crops irrigated with contaminated water.
3Conclusions compare PFC concentrations in surface water samples to PFC Health Advisory Level (HALs; i.e., drinking water standards).
EPA advisories indicate HALs for PFOA and PFOS are based on the estimated exposure from drinking
water ingestion, not from skin contact or breathing. These HALs only apply to exposure scenarios
involving drinking water and cannot be used in identifying risk levels for ingestion of food sources such
as fish, meat produced from livestock that consumes contaminated water, or crops irrigated with
contaminated water.
The surface waters that contain PFC concentrations above drinking water standards will be used
primarily as visual and natural amenities and will not be used for drinking water. These surface waters
do not have PFC concentrations above levels considered safe for non-consumptive uses. The presence of
PFCs in the groundwater of Lake Elmo and other nearby suburbs is a pre-existing condition and the
project does not have potential for significant environmental effects in relation to PFC-contaminated
groundwater and surface water.
The recently revised EPA HALs have been noted and are specific to drinking water. Lake Elmo, Horseshoe Lake and the small drainage ponds and ditches within and downstream of the golf course are not intended to be used as drinking water. The MDH has stated that exposure to PFCs through
Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Record of Decision – The Royal Golf Club Residential Development
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
12
swimming and bathing is not a concern (MDH PFCs and Health, May 20, 2016). PFCs are poorly
absorbed through skin and incidental ingestion of surface water while swimming will not result in a
significant exposure.
The MDH determined through a September 2014 study that the health benefits provided by growing and
eating produce greatly outweigh any potential risk from low levels of PFBA or other PFCs in produce. Based on this information and the proposal to obtain drinking water for the project through connection to the City of Lake Elmo municipal water supply, substantial adverse environmental effects are not anticipated.
PFCs above EPA HALs have been identified in the primary drinking water aquifers in the east metro
area, including the area surrounding the EAW property. To date, sampling of three onsite water wells
completed in the Prairie du Chien aquifer has not identified concentrations of contaminants above
drinking water standards. However, PFC concentrations in Horseshoe Lake and the watercourse leading
onto the site have been found to exceed EPA HALs and will not be used for drinking water. A summary
of data collected from the onsite water wells and surface waters, compared to MDH and EPA drinking
water standards, is provided in Appendix C. MDH provided data from surface water samples collected
from Horseshoe Lake and a creek discharging from Lake Elmo. The PFOS concentrations in all four
samples exceed the surface water criteria for fish consumption and combined fish consumption and
drinking water.
Surface water is not intended to be used for drinking and access to Horseshoe Lake for fishing purposes
will be limited. There are no current or proposed public access points on the Royal Golf Club property,
none of the proposed residential lots extend to the lake, and the golf course provides a buffer between
proposed residential lots and the lake. These factors will help limit the potential use of Horseshoe Lake
for recreational fishing.
The MDH website states that bathing, swimming and using this water for irrigation of crops is not a
health concern. The City and the project proponent recognize that the EPA Health Advisory Level for
PFOS and PFOA apply to concentrations of these two chemicals combined in drinking water rather than
irrigation or stormwater. As discussed in the EAW, the residential development will connect to the City
water supply and will not be served by private wells. Proposed residential lots will not extend to the
shore of Horseshoe Lake and the golf course will provide a buffer between proposed residential uses and
the lakeshore, reducing the potential for the lake to be accessed for fishing. In addition, a conservation
easement and natural vegetation buffer proposed along the shore of Horseshoe Lake will limit the
potential for direct contact with lake water.
The project proponent invites the MDH to visit the golf course clubhouse and sample the drinking water. If necessary, appropriate precautions will be implemented to remove PFCs from golf course drinking water or provide an alternative drinking water supply until the City water connection is completed. MPCA and MDH Comments
MPCA
It appears that the golf course will continue to use groundwater for potable, irrigation, fire protection, and
maintenance use. It is important to note that the location of this development lies within known areas of
aquifer contamination. Care should be exercised when using groundwater in this region for potable and
irrigation purposes. Care should be exercised when using surface water from these areas for irrigation
purposes so as to minimize the potential for human and environmental exposure to these contaminants.
Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Record of Decision – The Royal Golf Club Residential Development
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
13
MDH
Use of surface water or groundwater at the project site should be carefully managed to avoid human
exposure and prevent further spreading of the contamination. MDH further recommends landscaping
options be implemented to create significant buffers in order to restrict public access to Horseshoe Lake.
Response
The former 27-hole golf course required 20 million gallons of water for irrigation in 2015, of which 1.5 million (or 7.5 percent) was obtained from groundwater. The new golf course owners have worked with the University of Minnesota Extension Office to identify suitable drought-resistant grasses that require
one-third less water for irrigation and have installed a state-of-the-art irrigation and weather system to
measure moisture and forecast precipitation, which will further reduce the amount of water required for
irrigation.
These management practices, together with the re-designed and smaller golf course, have resulted in
future irrigation water projection needs that will be 35 percent to 66 percent less than in 2015. Using
these projections, and assuming precipitation rates are similar to 2015, it may not be necessary to use any
groundwater for irrigation. Thus, the use of groundwater for irrigation is expected to have a minimal
impact on groundwater flow direction or PFC plume migration. Furthermore, the concentration of PFCs
identified in groundwater are significantly less than those observed in surface water discharging from
Lake Elmo onto the site and do not exceed current drinking water standards.
Water that exceeds drinking water criteria for PFC discharges from Lake Elmo and enters the site
through a drainageway and surface water ponds. Water is occasionally diverted from this drainageway to
an onsite pond that has been used in the past and will continue to be used for golf course irrigation
purposes. While this process has and will continue to result in the application of PFC-contaminated
water onto irrigated portions of the golf course, the volume of water used will be substantially reduced
relative to existing conditions as previously indicated.
Furthermore, the irrigation water is not intended for use as a drinking water source; there will be no
public access to spigots to allow for such use; the actual irrigated portion of the course is limited and confined to the areas of and surrounding greens, fairways and tee boxes, which results in a small area, relative to the entire property, that would be impacted; and, irrigation will take place at night when the golf course is closed, which prevents exposure through dermal contact.
Best management practices, including drought resistant plants and an upgraded irrigation system, will
result in a significant reduction in the amount of water required for irrigation and there will be little to no
potential for runoff of excess irrigation water. In the event that runoff does occur, it will flow to the same
surface water chain from which it was obtained at concentrations that would be the same or similar to the
source water.
Lastly, the application of this contaminated water on the golf course will have a positive effect for the
watershed, as it will result in reduced volume of PFC-impacted water ultimately discharging to the St.
Croix River.
12.1. Contamination / Hazardous Materials (Contaminated Soils)
Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Record of Decision – The Royal Golf Club Residential Development
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
14
MPCA Comment
The EAW does not discuss the handling of soil contaminated with materials other than agricultural
chemicals. The MPCA recommends entering the site into the MPCA Brownfield Program to provide
regulatory oversight for non-agricultural contamination.
Response
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment completed for the project did not identify Recognized Environmental Conditions in the proposed development area, with the exception of agricultural chemical use. In addition, a Phase II Investigation of the property did not identify the presence of non-agricultural chemicals at concentrations above regulatory screening limits. Because the application of agricultural
chemicals in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations does not constitute a release, assurance
letters for such agricultural chemicals are not available through the MPCA’s Brownfield Program.
The EAW property was enrolled in the Minnesota Department of Agriculture’s Voluntary Investigation
and Cleanup program and remediation of contaminated areas was completed in accordance with an
approved Response Action Plan and Construction Contingency Plan. According to the Construction
Contingency Plan, the Minnesota Duty Officer will be notified immediately if other environmental issues
are identified during construction.
Follow-up coordination with the MPCA has indicated it is not appropriate to enroll the site in the
MPCA’s voluntary Brownfield Program. MPCA staff have indicated that they would not issue a No
Association Determination for PFC contamination to the project proponent. Although an Offsite Source
Determination could be obtained, such a determination would provide little benefit because a responsible
party has been identified and source areas are known to be located offsite.
MDH and MA Comment
MDH assumes MPCA will be consulted in the design and construction of the Regulated Soil
Management Area to ensure it provides long-term encapsulation of these soils to prevent exposures.
What is the potential impact to local residential groundwater of managing excavated hazardous soils
onsite? What is the impervious barrier and how has it minimized impacts of these hazards?
Response
Because the Regulated Soil Management Area was constructed to contain agricultural chemicals that were used on the golf course, its design was reviewed and approved by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture with guidance from MPCA. The design included a sloped surface covered with a low-permeability soil to promote drainage away from and reduce infiltration and leaching through the
contaminated soil. A deed restriction will be placed on the Regulated Soil Management Area as part of
the approval process for the area. The deed restriction will specify an inspection schedule and
maintenance/repair requirements that will be approved by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture. The
Regulated Soil Management Area has been designed to minimize risks to groundwater and the public.
12.2. Contamination / Hazardous Materials (Disposal Area)
MPCA and MDH Comment
The Investigation History refers to a “Possible on-site disposal area that was later confirmed to be located
on the adjoining property to the southeast...” Please clarify if the disposal area has been reported to the
MPCA or State Duty Officer. Please provide the location of the disposal area. The location is not shown
Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Record of Decision – The Royal Golf Club Residential Development
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
15
on any figures and no information is provided regarding this disposal area and its proximity to the project
property.
Response
The disposal area is located offsite, about 900 feet east of the project boundary. The lat/long coordinates
of the disposal pile are approximately 44.964611, -92.863041. The included a small pile of roof shingles, approximately 15 aerosol cans and some plastic drainage tubing that presented no apparent contamination concerns except for potential asbestos in the roofing materials. The disposal area was not reported to the MPCA or the State Duty Officer because it did not constitute an emergency, serious accident, hazardous material incident, or petroleum spill, and it was not under the control of the project
proponent. The owner of the property that includes the disposal area will be notified of the concern
related to the potential for asbestos in the roofing materials.
12.3. Contamination / Hazardous Materials (Pipelines)
MPCA Comment
Contact the Office of Pipeline Safety to determine appropriate setbacks from the natural gas pipeline that
crosses the site.
Response
As stated in the EAW, the project proponent has proposed a 150-foot-wide easement to encompass this
pipeline route. The project proponent contacted the Office of Pipeline Safety, and, at their suggestion,
the project team will contact the pipeline operator to confirm that the easement width is acceptable and to
determine appropriate setbacks.
13.0. Fish, Wildlife, Ecological Resources
WCD Comment
Buckthorn removal will minimize the spread of this restricted noxious weed and visual barriers could be
replanted to native trees and shrubs. Response
The project proponent has not yet determined the extent of buckthorn removal to be implemented. Open space and greenway planning will be considered and advanced in association with the Preliminary
Plat/PUD. Native vegetation plantings will be considered in where appropriate and practicable.
AMB Comment
What agency will oversee Blanding’s turtle mitigation measures and follow through to ensure
implementation?
Response
To minimize potential adverse effects on turtles and their mobility, the project will avoid most wetlands,
implement stringent sediment and erosion controls, consider the use of surmountable curbs on roadways,
and consider use of erosion control materials constructed of organic fibers rather than plastic. Mitigation
practices will be implemented to the extent that it can reasonably and practicably integrated into
Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Record of Decision – The Royal Golf Club Residential Development
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
16
construction plans and specifications. Construction will be overseen by the City, VBWD, and other local
and state agencies.
14.0. Historic Properties
SHPO Comment
The developer hired a cultural resources consultant to conduct a Phase I Archaeological Survey prior to
development. SHPO looks forward to receiving and reviewing the results of the survey.
Response
The Phase I Archaeological Survey was complete and submitted to SHPO. The survey found two small
archaeological sites that were not considered potentially eligible for the national register. No further
archaeological work was recommended. Effects on intact archaeological resources are not anticipated.
15.0. Visual
MA Comment
The proposal needs to address light pollution and its impact on the regional ecosystem and wildlife.
Response
Post-development intensity of artificial lighting will be typical of suburban residential development and less than typical commercial developments. Consequently, detailed assessment of light pollution is not necessary and does not pose the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW Guidelines (Minnesota EQB 2013) suggest that EAWs address “non-routine impacts that may be due to the emission
of light or a ‘visual nuisance’ caused by the project during construction or operation.” Examples of such
non-routine impacts include “intense light causing a glare problem” and “lights on tall communication
towers intruding on the visual integrity of a scenic vista.” The proposed project does not include these
types of intense lighting.
17.0. Noise
AMB Comment
What provision is being made so the surrounding landowners are allowed their rightful peace and quiet? I
would like to suggest all noise generating equipment may only be operated from 8 AM to 5 PM and only
Monday to Friday.
Response
As stated in the EAW, noise levels are expected to be at or near existing levels after construction is
complete. Noise levels during construction will vary considerably. Noise generated by construction
equipment and residential building construction will be limited primarily to daylight hours when noise
levels are typically high compared to night. Construction noise will be regulated according to the City’s
Noise Ordinance. Additional noise mitigation measures will be considered if construction noise becomes
problematical.
18.0. Transportation
Met C Comment
Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Record of Decision – The Royal Golf Club Residential Development
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
17
Traffic forecasts by Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) are not discussed in the EAW. Metropolitan
Council has draft TAZ forecasts for 2040 available for local government review. The proposed
development fits within the community total forecast and no change is needed.
Response
Comment noted for the record. W.Co. Comment
It should be noted that the County’s 5 Year CIP includes no programmed improvements for the CSAH 10/Lake Elmo Avenue intersection.
Response
Comment noted for the record.
W.Co. Comment
There should be further conversations with the County on the current status of the identified Regional
Trail Corridor (Washington County Comprehensive Plan 2030) along CSAH 17/Lake Elmo Avenue.
Response
Comment noted for the record.
W.Co. Comment
The future clubhouse/banquet facility and the commercial public use golf course traffic was not included
in the traffic analysis. Please clarify how you will incorporate this expected increase in use into the
traffic study.
Response
Golf course traffic was discussed under Item 19 (Cumulative Potential Effects) and addressed in
Appendix G (Traffic Impact Study) of the EAW. The Traffic Impact Study noted that the existing golf course was not in operation at the time of the turning movement counts. As a result, the site traffic forecasting included the residential units and the golf course. The traffic forecast was based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition (2012) single-family
detached housing and golf course land uses. The Trip Generation Manual describes the golf course land
use as including “9-, 18-, 27-, and 36-hole municipal courses. Some sites may also have driving ranges
and clubhouses with a pro shop, restaurant, lounge, and banquet facilities.” Thus, the trip generation
numbers provided in the Traffic Impact Study account for the future clubhouse/banquet facility as well as
the golf course. Table 3 below shows the total trip generation used in the traffic study, which accounts for both land uses. A similar table is also provided in the appendix of the Traffic Impact Study.
Table 3. Trip Generation Estimates of Residential and Golf Course Project
ITE Code1 Land Use No. of Units Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips
In Out Total In Out Total
Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Record of Decision – The Royal Golf Club Residential Development
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
18
Table 3. Trip Generation Estimates of Residential and Golf Course Project
ITE
Code1 Land Use No. of
Units
Daily
Trips
AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips
In Out Total In Out Total
210 Single-family detached housing 293 2,790 55 165 220 185 108 293
430
18-hole golf course
with clubhouse, dining
room, bar & grill
18 644 29 8 37 27 26 53
Total 3,434 84 173 257 212 134 346
1Code corresponds to land use identified by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
It should also be noted that the forecasted traffic was based upon information from the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE), the standard process for estimating traffic. Traffic data collected locally
by Spack Consultants suggests the development may generate slightly lower volumes than used in the
study.
HHA Comment
Baseline traffic volumes may be underestimated due to golf course and school closure at the time.
Response
The collected 2016 volumes were compared against previous counts in the area taken in May of 2013 for the Manning Avenue Corridor Management and Safety Improvement Project and MnDOT’s Official AADT Counts. This comparison showed similar traffic volumes between the counts, suggesting that construction in the area and the lack of school traffic had a minimal effect on the overall volume of traffic on the study roadways. The Manning Avenue/Manning Trail intersection was included in both
studies reviewed in estimating baseline traffic volumes. The 2013 Manning Avenue Study listed a total
traffic volume of 1,287 vehicles during the p.m. peak hour. The traffic volumes collected in 2016 resulted
in a total traffic volume of 1,300 vehicles during the p.m. peak hour. In addition, the MnDOT traffic
counts from 2015 show an average daily traffic volume of 11,300 vehicles per day, compared to the daily
volume of approximately 13,800 vehicles per day from 2016 volumes.
The Traffic Impact Study noted the existing golf course was not in operation at the time of the study’s
traffic counts. Therefore, traffic for the proposed golf course was estimated as part of the overall traffic
associated with the proposed development and studied accordingly. Because the existing golf course was
closed during data collection, trip generation was calculated in the Traffic Impact Study to forecast the
traffic that will be generated by the proposed golf course. This trip generation, which is based on ITE
rates previously discussed, includes the ancillary facilities typically included with golf courses, such as
clubhouses and banquet facilities. These trips were added to the residential development trip generation,
resulting with a comprehensive total of new trips caused by both the proposed golf course and the
residential development. Table 3, above, shows the trip generation of both the residential and golf
course land uses, as well as the total used in the study.
The results of the study forecast satisfactory operations into the future. A slight increase in the initial
traffic volumes would not significantly affect the predicted results of acceptable operations. The City
will continue to review the traffic study during the PUD/preliminary plat process and may require
improvements as necessary.
Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Record of Decision – The Royal Golf Club Residential Development
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
19
AMB Comment
I disagree with the Traffic Impact Study conclusion that the proposed project will have minimal effects
on adjacent public roads and that nearby intersections will continue to operate at an overall Level of
Service (LOS) A. A proper study needs to be completed.
Response
The Traffic Impact Study followed standard procedures for this type of analysis, using common processes and analyses techniques. A more detailed response would require comments on specific parts of the traffic study that raise concerns or seem incorrect in ways that would cause conclusions to be
incorrect. Specific traffic study comments identified above are addressed in detail. The golf course and
related facilities were included in the Traffic Impact Study, as previously discussed and shown under the
response to Washington County (W.Co.), Table 3, and the response to Homestead Homeowners Assn. (HHA)’s comment, above. The Traffic Impact Study assumed full development of the proposed site and predicted traffic volumes to
the year 2030, accounting for additional growth in the area. Partial development was not studied.
The Traffic Impact Study discussed the project site’s internal roadways and access to the existing public
roads. As proposed, the housing on the east side of the golf course has one access to Manning Trail
North. A second access could be provided to 20th Street N, and may be required with the preliminary
plat. The preference for this second access is based on the City’s policy regarding cul-de-sac roads. The
second access does not affect the results of the Traffic Impact Study.
The internal roadways proposed for the residential component do not all connect, resulting in separate
areas with separate access points to external roadways. A resident would not be able to drive between all
residential components and/or the golf course without travelling on the existing public roads. For
example, a resident on the east side of the golf course would have direct access to Manning Trail North,
and would need to use this road to reach any other area, regardless of destination. This affects the traffic
volume on the internal roads and the locations where drivers will access the existing public roads. The
Traffic Impact Study addressed travel patterns for the study roadways and intersections based on this
proposed internal roadway layout and external roadway access points.
19.0. Cumulative Potential Effects
AMB Comment
The commercial aspect of the development, the golf course, clubhouse, storage area, sport complex, and
driving range were not part of the study. These commercial aspects of the development will add to the
traffic, congestion, water runoff, and have a strong environmental impact on the area.
Response
The commercial aspect of the development is accessory to the public use of the golf course and facilities.
The traffic and water use of the golf course, clubhouse, and related facilities were assessed under Item 19
(Cumulative Potential Effects) of the EAW. Golf course traffic was also addressed in Appendix G of
the EAW (i.e., the Traffic Impact Study). See the response to Washington County, above, for more
information on traffic. The golf course will be rehabilitated and reduced from 27 to 18 holes. The
relatively small amount of impervious surface area and the abundant open space within the golf course
indicates that golf course rehabilitation is unlikely to adversely affect runoff quantity and quality. The
Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Record of Decision – The Royal Golf Club Residential Development
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
20
sports complex will be converted to residential use and effects of this conversion were addressed
throughout the EAW. Intensification of the clubhouse or related facilities will trigger a conditional use
permit, and such golf course amenities would be evaluated by the City again during the conditional use
permit review process.
20.0. Other Environmental Effects
HHA Comment
An EIS might be required if the golf course is developed to become residential use.
Response
The golf course is not proposed to be re-guided or re-zoned, and there is no basis to expect that it will be
converted to residential use. Any proposed future residential use of the golf course would require a comprehensive land use plan amendment and rezoning. FINDINGS OF FACT
Project Description
Proposed Project
The Royal Golf Club Residential Development is proposed on 222 acres of privately-owned land. The
project includes 292 single-family residential lots that will be served by municipal utilities. The project
will involve installation of public and private infrastructure, grading, stormwater ponding, and open
space preservation. The residential development is part of the overall Royal Golf Club area, which covers 477 acres and was previously known as Tartan Park. Tartan Park was a 27-hole golf course, clubhouse, and sports complex with wetlands and open space. The existing 27-hole golf course will be rehabilitated as an 18-hole golf course. The rest of the golf course, sports complex, and some of the open space will be converted to residential use.
The proposed residential project has a net density of about 1.5 units per acre and will preserve about 90.8
acres as private open space. Additional open space may be identified for preservation during the
preliminary plat/PUD review process. Shoreland overlay districts of five public waters cover about 48
percent of the project area (107 acres), and will minimally meet the shoreland requirement of 50 percent
open space protected by an easement.
The City is working with the project proponent to review alternative designs in the interest of balancing
multiple interests. These interests include project needs, environmental compliance, land use
consistency, public services, and safety. While these factors may influence the project as it proceeds
toward final design, environmental effects are expected to be lessened during routine design changes that
occur as part of the project review and approval process.
Site Description and Existing Conditions
The Residential Development area includes 198 acres of useable land and 24 acres of regulated wetlands
and public waters. The usable area includes 109 acres of golf course and sports complex, 77 acres of
woodland, 10 acres of roads and parking, and two acres of ponds. About 20 percent of the area has
slopes of 12 percent or greater.
Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Record of Decision – The Royal Golf Club Residential Development
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
21
Decision Regarding the Potential for Significant Environmental Effects
Minnesota Rules Part 4410.1700, subpart 7 lists four criteria that shall be considered in deciding whether
a project has the potential for significant environmental effects. Those criteria and the City’s findings
are presented below.
A. Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Environmental Effects
Minnesota Rules Part 4410.1700, subpart 7 (A) indicates the first factor that the City must consider is the
“type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects.” The City’s findings are set forth below.
1. Cover Types. The project will convert about two acres of ponds, 41 acres of woodland, and 109
acres of golf course and sports complex to residential homes, lawns, open spaces, streets, and
stormwater systems. The project includes 90.8 acres of private open space. The project will
preserve about 36 acres of woodland and 24 acres of protected wetlands. Wildlife corridors
exist along the west side of the site and cross the site from northwest to southeast.
2. Shorelands. The project meets the minimum requirements for allowable base densities under
Minnesota shoreland rules and PUD shoreland evaluation methods, and includes a minimum of
50 percent open space protected by easement. Due to drainage divides, only about 58 acres of
the 107 acres of shoreland on the site drain directly to shoreland waters. The open spaces,
buffers, and drainage divides will help minimize effects of shoreland development on nearby
waters.
3. Floodplains. The project is designed to compensate for effects on floodplains and is not
expected to diminish the capacity of the project area to accommodate flooding. The project is
expected to involve about 10 to 20 acre-feet of fill in the flood fringes of Downs Lake and Lake
Rose. The project will include flood storage replacement and homes and infrastructure will be
elevated above flood elevations as required by the City and the VBWD. The project will require
a Letter of Map Revision based on Fill (LOMR-F) for properties constructed on fill and elevated
above the floodplain.
4. Land Use. The proposed project is compatible with the proposed land use, zoning, and
surrounding land uses. The project will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to guide the
residential development area with a net density of 1.5-2.49 units/acre. The residential area will
be rezoned from PF – Public and Quasi-Public Open Space to Golf Course Community/Planned
Unit Development, which is a newly proposed zoning district.
5. Geology and Soils. Residential development grading operations are expected to affect about 135
to 145 acres and involve movement of about 750,000 to 1,000,000 cubic yards of soil to
construct streets, residential building pads, and stormwater ponds. Sinkholes are known to occur
in the greater project area and the project area underlain by carbonate bedrock. Final elevations
of infiltration areas will be about 25 to 75 feet above bedrock. Maintaining this separation
between infiltration areas and bedrock is expected to minimize the potential for sinkhole
development.
6. Water Quality. Ultimately, compliance with City, VBWD, NPDES, and MPCA requirements
will minimize and mitigate potential adverse effects on receiving waters. Project development
will change the land use from golf course, woodland, and sports complex to single-family
residential use and open space. This land use change is expected to have mixed effects on runoff
water volume and quality. Stormwater rate and volume controls that comply with City and
Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Record of Decision – The Royal Golf Club Residential Development
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
22
VBWD requirements will limit increases in runoff volume and associated pollutant transport.
Erosion control plans will be reviewed and accepted by the City and the VBWD prior to project
construction. Potential adverse effects from construction-related sediment and erosion on water
quality will be minimized by implementation of sediment control BMPs.
7. Wetlands and Surface Waters. The project will directly affect five wetlands. Wetland 21
covers less than 0.1 acre and is proposed to be filled and replaced in compliance with the WCA.
Four other wetlands (Wetlands 3, 4, 6 and 16) will be partially filled, excavated, and used as part
of the project stormwater system. These four wetlands were created incidentally during golf
course construction, currently catch golf course runoff, and are isolated and incidental. Although
they are waters of the state, MPCA staff have determined that they are constructed features, have
limited environmental value, and that mitigation will not be required.
8. Wastewater. The project is expected to produce normal domestic wastewater. This wastewater
is expected to be typical of residential developments. The project will not include industrial
wastewater production or onsite wastewater treatment. The residential project is expected to
generate about 80,000 gallons of wastewater per day. The 18-hole golf course, clubhouse, dining
room, and bar and grill are predicted to generate a maximum of 1,370 gallons of wastewater per
day. The City and Metropolitan Council have planned for increased capacity to convey and treat
sanitary wastewater. The proposed project will require three additional sanitary sewer lift stations to support the development. One of these lift stations, along with its force main pipe, will be considered temporary infrastructure.
9. Hazardous Materials. The MDH sampled surface water to assess PFC concentrations in the
creek and in Horseshoe Lake during September 2016. Some samples included PFC
concentrations above EPA Health Advisory Limits (HAL), which are commonly referred to as
“drinking water standards.” The HALs only apply to exposure scenarios involving drinking water and cannot be used in identifying risk levels for ingestion of food sources such as fish, meat produced from livestock that consumes contaminated water, or crops irrigated with contaminated water. The surface waters that contain PFC concentrations above drinking water standards will not be used for drinking water. Surface water is not intended to be used for
drinking and access to Horseshoe Lake for fishing purposes will be limited. The MDH website
states that bathing, swimming and using this water for irrigation of crops is not a health concern.
If necessary, appropriate precautions will be implemented to remove PFCs from golf course
drinking water or provide an alternative drinking water supply until the municipal water
connection is completed.
A Phase II investigation determined that soil from 26 golf course greens, two tee boxes, one
fairway, and one soil storage area required remediation. Remediation has been underway and
contaminated soil is managed on a Regulated Soil Management Area (RSMA) located on the golf
course. The RSMA has been designed to minimize risks to groundwater and the public. The
design was reviewed and approved by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture with guidance
from MPCA.
10. Ecological Resources. The project will convert golf course, sports complex, woodland, and
ponds to residential land uses, including roads, homes, lawns, stormwater ponding, and open
space. Habitat conversion is expected affect the number and type of wildlife species in the area,
but changes in wildlife abundance are not expected to be regionally significant. Measures to
minimize adverse effects on wildlife include the preservation of about 36 acres of woodland and
Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Record of Decision – The Royal Golf Club Residential Development
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
23
24 acres of wetlands/waters, creation of stormwater ponds and infiltration areas, and protection
of open spaces.
11. Historic Resources. The Phase I Archaeological Survey was complete and submitted to SHPO.
The survey found two small archaeological sites that were not considered potentially eligible for
the national register. No further archaeological work was recommended. Effects on intact
archaeological resources are not anticipated.
12. Visual Resources. Project development is expected to result in routine effects on visual
resources. There are no scenic views or vistas located on or adjacent to the project area. The
project does include intense lights that may cause glare or lights on tall towers. Post-
development artificial lighting will be typical of suburban residential development and less than
typically included in commercial developments.
13. Noise. Noise levels are expected to be at or near existing levels after construction is complete.
Noise levels during construction will vary considerably. Noise generated by construction
equipment and residential building construction will be limited primarily to daylight hours when
noise levels are typically high compared to night and regulated through the City’s Noise
Ordinance.
14. Transportation. The traffic that will be generated by the proposed project does not raise
capacity or safety concerns. Traffic generated by the project will have little effect on the
regional transportation system. Intersections surrounding the site will continue to operate at
acceptable levels of service with the addition of traffic generated by the proposed project.
B. Cumulative Potential Effects
Minnesota Rules Part 4410.1700, subpart 7 (B) indicates the second factor the City must consider is the
“whether the cumulative potential effect is significant; whether the contribution from the project is
significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect; the
degree to which the project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address
the cumulative potential effect; and the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the
project.” The City’s findings are set forth below.
Projects typically combine to produce cumulative effects on City resources like water and wastewater treatment. The City has planned for growth and increased capacity to address these cumulative effects. The proposed project will implement approved mitigation measures and be consistent with land use policies for areas served by City sewer and water.
Effects of the project on natural resources are not likely to combine with effects of other projects in a
manner that will results in significant environmental effects. Stormwater regulations administered by
multiple agencies and erosion and water quality BMPs are expected to minimize cumulative effects of
post-development runoff on downstream waters. The policies and regulations set forth by the City, the
VBWD, and other government agencies provide the impetus for other mitigation measures discussed
throughout this EAW. These mitigation measures will help ensure that cumulative environmental effects
are minimized.
C. Extent to Which the Environmental Effects are Subject to Mitigation
Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Record of Decision – The Royal Golf Club Residential Development
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
24
Minnesota Rules Part 4410.1700, subpart 7 (C) indicates the third factor the City must consider is the
“extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory
authority.” The City’s findings are set forth below.
Environmental effects on cover types, shorelands, floodplains, water quality, and traffic are subject to
additional approvals and/or mitigation through requirements of local, state, and federal regulations, ordinances, management plans, and permitting processes. The following permits and approvals are required for the project addressed under the EAW and these permitting and approval processes will provide additional opportunity to require mitigation.
Potential environmental effects associated with this project will be mitigated in accordance with
applicable rules and regulations. The City therefore finds that potential environmental effects of the
project are less than significant and “subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority.”
Table 4. Permits and Approvals
Unit of Government Type of Application Status
City of Lake Elmo EAW Final Declaration Submitted
City of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan Amendment Submitted
City of Lake Elmo Concept Plan Approval Approved
City of Lake Elmo Rezoning To be applied for
City of Lake Elmo Preliminary Plat/PUD Approval To be applied for
City of Lake Elmo Shoreland PUD Conditional Use Permit To be applied for
City of Lake Elmo Grading Permit To be applied for
City of Lake Elmo Building Permit To be applied for
City of Lake Elmo Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Approval To be applied for
City of Lake Elmo Municipal Water Connection Permit To be applied for
City of Lake Elmo Sanitary Sewer Connection Permit To be applied for
Valley Branch Watershed
District Wetland Boundary / Type Determination Approved
Valley Branch Watershed
District
Grading, Stormwater and Erosion Control
Permit To be applied for
Valley Branch Watershed
District Wetland Replacement Plan Decision Submitted
Washington County Right-of-Way Permit (CSAH 17) To be applied for
Washington County Access Permit (CSAH 17) To be applied for
Metropolitan Council Comprehensive Plan Amendment To be applied for
Minnesota Department of
Health Water Main Extension Approval To be applied for
Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources Water Appropriation Permit To be applied for (if
needed)
Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency NPDES/SDS General Permit To be applied for
Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency Sanitary Sewer Extension Approval To be applied for
Federal Emergency
Management Agency
Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill
(LOMR-F) To be applied for
Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Record of Decision – The Royal Golf Club Residential Development
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
25
Table 4. Permits and Approvals
Unit of Government Type of Application Status
U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers
Wetland Delineation Concurrence /
Jurisdictional Determination Approved
D. Extent to Which Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and Controlled
Minnesota Rules Part 4410.1700, subpart 7 (D) indicates the final factor 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, including other EISs.” The
City’s findings are set forth below.
1. The proposed project design, plans, EAW, related studies, and mitigation measures apply
knowledge, approaches, standards, and best management practices gained from previous
experience and projects that have, in general, successfully mitigated potential offsite
environmental effects.
2. The EAW, in conjunction with this document, contains or references the known studies that
provide information or guidance regarding environmental effects that can be anticipated and
controlled.
3. Larger projects, studied under Alternative Urban Areawide Reviews (AUARs) as a substitute for an EIS, have included studies and mitigation measures comparable to those included in this EAW.
4. There are no elements of the proposed project that pose the potential for significant
environmental effects that cannot be addressed by the project design, assessment, permitting and
development processes and by ensuring conformance with regional and local plans.
5. The environmental effects of this development can be anticipated and controlled by the City’s
PUD/preliminary plat application and regulatory processes
6. Considering the results of environmental review and permitting processes for similar projects,
the City finds that the environmental effects of the project can be adequately anticipated and
controlled.
Based on the EAW, comments received from agencies and individuals, the responses to comments, and
the criteria above, the City finds that The Royal Golf Club Residential Development does not have the
potential for significant environmental effects and does not require the preparation of an EIS.
RECORD OF DECISION
Based on the information contained in the EAW, the written comments received and the responses to
those comments, and the findings of fact, the City of Lake Elmo, the RGU for this environmental review,
has reached the following conclusions:
1. The EAW and this Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Record of Decision document, and
related documentation for the project were prepared in compliance with the procedures set forth by
Minnesota Rules Parts 4410.1000 to 4410.1700 and the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board.
Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Record of Decision – The Royal Golf Club Residential Development
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
26
2. The EAW and this Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Record of Decision document and
related documentation for the project have satisfactorily addressed all of the issues for which existing
information could have been reasonably obtained.
3. The project proposed does not meet any of the mandatory EIS thresholds contained in Minnesota Rules Part 4410.4400. 4. The project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects based upon the above findings of fact and the evaluation of the criteria per Minnesota Rules Part 4410.1700, subpart 7 as
set forth above.
5. Pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, subpart 5, a copy of this Response to Comments, Findings
of Fact, and Record of Decision is being provided, within five days to all persons on the Minnesota
Environmental Quality Board distribution list, the persons commenting on the EAW, and to persons
who requested a copy. This Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Record of Decision will
also be made available on the City of Lake Elmo’s web site.
The City makes a Negative Declaration and does not require the development of an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for this project. City Council Resolution 2017-____ declaring a negative
declaration of need for an EIS is attached as part of this document.
Figure 1
Shorelands, Floodplains, and Steep Slopes
[to be attached]
Appendix A
Written Comments Submitted to
the City of Lake Elmo
[to be attached]
Appendix B
Updated Shoreland PUD Evaluation
[to be attached]
Appendix C
Comparison of Detected PFC Levels
to Health Advisory Limits
[to be attached]
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
CENTRAL REGION 1200 WARNER ROAD SAINT PAUL, MN 55106 651-259-5800
mndnr.gov
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CONTAINING A MINIMUM OF 10% POST-CONSUMER WASTE. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER.
November 22, 2016 Transmitted electronically
Stephen Wensman
3800 Laverne Ave. N.
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
RE: The Royal Golf Club Residential Development EAW
Dear Stephen Wensman,
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) has reviewed the Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW) for the Royal Golf Club Residential Development EAW.
General Comments
To date, MNDNR has provided formal comments on the concept PUD to the City of Lake Elmo and informal comments to the developer on the PUD density analysis. These comments have been based on the assumption that the PUD will have City water and sewer. MNDNR will formally review the
preliminary PUD and plat when these are submitted to the City, to determine if they meet the PUD provisions in State shoreland rules.
MNDNR review of shoreland PUDs looks for consistency with the density allowances, setbacks, and height as well as a variety of more subjective performance standards dealing with protection of vegetation
and sensitive slopes. While we look for compliance with the numerical standards, we recognize that good
environmental design cannot be reduced to compliance with a set of numbers. The shoreland PUD standards were part of the 1989 State shoreland rules and were an early form of conservation design
regulations. A lot has been learned about conservation design since 1989 and many communities in Minnesota have adopted different shoreland PUD standards to limit density, ensure better natural resource/open space protection, and provide for greater alignment with the community’s vision.
MNDNR has concerns on the design of the Royal Golf Club Residential PUD because the proposed
development is too dense for the natural resources on the site. In making this evaluation, MNDNR is
considering overall project suitability by looking at how the design impacts the existing natural environment on the site. From our perspective, a development is not suitable if it is consuming areas of high quality vegetation and areas with slopes greater than 12 percent (which MNDNR considers steep
slopes). Ultimately, however, it is up to the City of Lake Elmo to evaluate project suitability, natural resource protections, and transportation concerns associated with this proposal.
Specific Comments
• Page 3 - Rewrite the statement on page 3 so that it does not imply that the City has determined
that this project meets shoreland overlay district requirements. At this stage of the PUD process, it is premature to state that the proposed project design complies with shoreland overlay district
requirements. The City of Lake Elmo has not approved this development yet nor has the City
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
CENTRAL REGION 1200 WARNER ROAD SAINT PAUL, MN 55106 651-259-5800
mndnr.gov
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CONTAINING A MINIMUM OF 10% POST-CONSUMER WASTE. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER.
fully evaluated whether the development plans are in conformance with City ordinances and State
shoreland rules.
• Page 3 states that this project minimizes effects on floodplains. However, page 10, states that
there will be about 15.6 acre-feet of fill in the flood fringe to accommodate 15 residential lots and streets. The statement on page 3 is misleading since there will be significant changes to the
existing floodplain configuration. What layout design modifications could be made to avoid the
need for floodplain fill and rerouting of flood waters into storage ponds? How will floodplain storage outside of the PUD boundary be managed (i.e., who will own and maintain these storage ponds)?
• Page 3 – Please correct the MNDNR PWI # for the unnamed public water wetland from 82-117W
to 82-417W. The MNDNR ID # for the unnamed public watercourse is M-050-009-001.
• Page 8 states that the City’s ordinance requires only two conditions to be met to allow for PUDs (the City’s PUD ordinance and the State shoreland PUD rules). PUDs, by their very nature, are a
negotiation between the local government and the proposer. The City, through the PUD process,
can require additional conditions in exchange for the increased density that is allowed under a PUD. Through the PUD process and negotiations with the developer, the City can also exert
influence on how a property is developed and what the design of that development looks like. For example, the City can require greater tree preservation, slope/erosion protection, interconnectivity, conservation easements, or other environmental or public benefits.
• Page 9 and Appendix A - Please update the shoreland PUD suitable area, open space, and density calculations (Tables 5 and 6 and Appendix A) to match those numbers provided in analyses
completed after the submittal of the EAW. Include with this analysis a map showing areas suitable for development and those areas not suitable for development and their acreages. Also include with this analysis a map showing areas of open space and those areas not included in
open space and their acreages.
• Page 11 states that the proposed project is compatible with surrounding land uses. Describe in
more detail in what ways the PUD’s design plan is compatible with surrounding land uses. Please provide more detail on the preservation of forest buffers and how they provide compatibility with surrounding land uses. Has this proposal considered ways to preserve existing forest areas to
allow for plant and wildlife preservation?
• Figure 7 – Please show the location of steep slopes on Figure 7, to help the reader determine the
location of proposed lots, structures, and roads in relation to steep topographic areas.
• Has a tree preservation and replacement plan been prepared for this proposed development that
meets City ordinance?
Thank you for the consideration of our comments.
Sincerely,
/s/ Rebecca Horton
Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist – Central Region
Division of Ecological and Water Resources
PROTECTING, MAINTAINING AND IMPROVING THE HEALTH OF ALL MINNESOTANS
An equal opportunity employer
November 23rd, 2016
Stephen Wensman Planning Director
City of Lake Elmo
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Dear Mr. Wensman,
Thank you for providing the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) with the opportunity to
comment on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Royal Golf Club
Residential Development project. The mission of MDH is to protect, maintain, and improve the health of all Minnesotans. The careful planning and development of projects such as this one
supports this mission and is an important step in ensuring health in all policies.
MDH does have several comments regarding groundwater, water quality, and soil contamination
at and near the site:
Section 10 – “Geology” Although no sinkholes have been identified on the project property, the Minnesota Geological
Survey (MGS) karst inventory does map one sinkhole less than one mile northeast of the project
property, just north of the intersection of Manning Avenue and 27th St. N. (UTM coordinates 510846/4981836). Depth to carbonate bedrock is an important factor in the potential for karst development, with that potential increasing significantly where depths are less than 50 feet
(Alexander, et al. , 2003, “Sinkholes, Sinkhole Probability, and Springs and Seeps”, Goodhue
County Atlas, County Atlas Series, Atlas C-12, Part B, Plate 10). Well logs near the east property
boundary of the project area indicate depth to bedrock is approximately 47-59 ft. (unique well numbers: 442166, 447252, 431201, and 503306). Two infiltration areas and two stormwater ponds are planned near the northeast corner of the project property (as shown on Figure 7). Consideration
should be given to potential karst development beneath these infiltration areas and whether any
mitigation measures are needed, particularly given the proximity of these areas to planned home
construction. Section 11 – “Water Resources” The groundwater discussion should include more information regarding the perfluorochemical
(PFC) contamination in the groundwater in this area. Groundwater has been impacted by PFCs
from the former Washington County Landfill and 3M-Oakdale Disposal Site. Due to groundwater flow, surface water-groundwater interactions, and stormwater management activities, the groundwater east of Lake Elmo has been impacted by PFCs emerging from these disposal areas.
Recent MDH sampling has detected PFCs at concentrations above the new Environmental
Stephen Wensman
The Royal Golf Club Residential Development
Page 2
November 23rd, 2016 Protection Agency (EPA) Lifetime Health Advisory levels of 70 parts per trillion for PFOS and
PFOA in the surface water in Lake Elmo, the unnamed creek that discharges from Lake Elmo onto
the project property, Horseshoe Lake, and the series of ditches and stormwater ponds further
downstream. Surface water ponds on the property that are part of the Project 1007 drainage system are almost certain to be similarly impacted. The full extent and distribution of PFCs in this portion of Lake Elmo are still being determined. Use of surface water or groundwater at the project site
should be carefully managed to avoid human exposure and prevent further spreading of the
contamination. MDH further recommends landscaping options be implemented to create
significant buffers in order to restrict public access to Horseshoe Lake. Preliminary data suggests PFC contamination is primarily in the Prairie du Chien aquifer (OPDC),
but excessive use of Jordan aquifer (CJDN) wells may cause downward migration of the
contamination, potentially placing downgradient CJDN wells at risk. MDH recommends the
project proposer work with MDH, MPCA, and DNR to evaluate water quality in the existing wells and surface waters on the project property and determine appropriate use of these to mitigate for these potential impacts.
Section 12 – “Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes”
The sub-section titled “Investigation History” indicates a “disposal area” is located on an adjoining property to the southeast. The location is not shown on any figures and no information is provided regarding this disposal area and its proximity to the project property.
The sub-section titled “Response Action Plan” indicates that contaminated soils excavated at the
site are to be managed in a “Regulated Soil Management Area” beneath a 2 ft. cover. The figure shown in the Phase II Investigation Report (Appendix D) indicates the area proposed for this management area has a significant slope and may be prone to erosion. MDH assumes MPCA will
be consulted in the design and construction of this facility to ensure it provides long-term
encapsulation of these soils to prevent exposures.
The sub-section titled “PFCs and Area Groundwater Contamination” (page 27) should be revised to reflect that PFCs above levels of health concern are present in the groundwater in this part of
Lake Elmo. Although the concentrations detected in the CJDN wells on the property do not exceed
levels of health concern, as noted above continued extraction of water from the CJDN may result
in increased PFCs in this aquifer over time. Appendix D – Table 3 Although the table correctly identifies the current MDH Health Risk Limits for PFOS, PFOA,
PFBA, and PFBS, it should be noted that MDH now uses the new EPA health advisory levels of
70 ng/L for PFOS and PFOA when evaluating health risks. Health starts where we live, learn, work, and play. To create and maintain healthy Minnesota
communities, we have to think in terms of health in all policies. Thank you again for the
opportunity to provide comments on this EAW for the Royal Golf Club Residential Development
project. Feel free to contact me at (651) 201-4907 or david.bell@state.mn.us if you have any questions regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
Stephen Wensman
The Royal Golf Club Residential Development
Page 3
November 23rd, 2016
David Bell
Environmental Review Coordinator
Environmental Health Division
Minnesota Department of Health
PO Box 64975
Saint Paul, MN 55164-0975
Supervisors: Louise Smallidge ▫ Bob Rosenquist ▫ George Weyer ▫ John Rheinberger ▫ Jim Levitt
November 22, 2016
Stephen Wensman, Planning Director
City of Lake Elmo
3800 Laverne Ave N.
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
RE: The Royal Golf Club Residential Development EAW
Dear Steven,
The Washington Conservation District (WCD) has received and reviewed the above-mentioned EAW.
The WCD review focuses on wetlands, erosion and sediment control, natural area management, and
stormwater management. Based on this review the WCD offers the following comments:
Section 7 – Cover Types
Use of native vegetation and habitat restoration is encouraged in the open space areas, including native
vegetated buffers around stormwater treatment systems. Enhancing the greenway cooridor that
connects Lake Elmo to natural areas to the east is encouraged.
Section 10 – Geology, Soils and Topography / Land Forms
Section b. Soils and Topography
• Compliance with NPDES, watershed, and local requirements will minimize adverse impacts of soil
erosion and sedimentation. The WCD can provide support to the City to ensure compliance as
needed. The WCD recommends phasing the earthwork and grading to the greatest extent possible
to limit the scale and duration of exposed soils during construction.
• Preserve HSG B soils to the extent possible. Protecting zones of optimum infiltration from
compaction is preferred
• Minimize soil compaction and provide soil restoration in landscaped areas to enhance infiltration
• Deep-rip the soils with a toothed bucket in low or compacted areas to promote infiltration after
major construction is complete
Section 11 – Water Resources
Section iv. Surface Waters
• The EAW indicates the site will meet City and VBWD infiltration guidelines, which recommend
retaining the 1.1” rain event on-site. WCD encourages the use of bioretention to meet the onsite
volume retention standards. Bioretention promotes both infiltration and evapotranspiration which
more effectively mimics terrestrial hydrology than pure infiltration systems. These systems are
designed to be distributed throughout the site and treat small contributing drainage areas, breaking
up larger catchments into smaller, more manageable parts. Minimizing the drainage area provides
multiple benefits to stormwater treatment, including the potential for reduced infrastructure
conveyance costs.
To ensure the long-term effectiveness of volume control, the following design specifications are
presented for consideration:
• Do not rely on long-term infiltration from unlined stormwater ponds or wet detention basins
• Install bioretention/infiltration practices off-line
• Include flow-splitter and high-flow bypass
• Provide pre-treatment (especially for sediment to prolong the life of a practice)
• Keep the max water depth to acceptable levels based on soil types and actual infiltration rates
• Refer to the Minnesota Stormwater Manual, 2013 (on MN PCA website) for additional design and
implementation considerations
The WCD is also serving on the WCA TEP and will provide comments on the wetland permiting through
that process.
Section 13 – Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities and Sensitive Ecological Resources (Rare Features)
Section d.
• Buckthorn removal from entire project area rather than leaving visual barrier along exterior
roadways will minimize spread of this restricted noxious weed. Replace visual barrier of
removed Buckthorn by replanting native trees and shrubs.
Conclusions
There are no known impacts that have not already been addressed in this EAW that warrant an
Environmental Impact Statement. The Washington Conservation District appreciates the opportunity to
review this EAW. Please call me at 651-330-8220, extension 20, if you have any questions about our
review.
Sincerely,
Jay Riggs, District Manager
Washington Conservation District
Cc: John Hanson, VBWD
2301 Legion Avenue
Lake Elmo MN 55042
November 21, 2016
City of Lake Elmo
Planning and Zoning Department
Stephen Wensman, Planning Director
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042
Dear Mr. Wensman,
I would like to comment, ask questions, and clarify the EAW for the proposed Royal Golf Residential
Development proposed by HC Golf Development, LLC in the city of Lake Elmo, Washington County. I will
be referring to pages in the EAW that have given me concern.
My first concern is that the commercial aspect of the development, the golf course, club house, storage
area, sport complex, and driving range were not part of the study. These commercial aspects of the
development will add to the traffic, congestion, water runoff, and have a strong environmental impact
on the area.
On page 3 it states “Traffic generated by the project will have little to no impact on the regional
transportation system. Intersections surrounding the site will continue to operate at acceptable levels
of service with the traffic generated by the proposed project.” This is followed up later on page 35 by a
traffic study that was completed in July, 2016, when the golf course, driving range, club house, sport
complex, and storage building were closed and the streets to the east and west, Lake Elmo Avenue and
Manning Avenue, were under construction and school was not in session. I disagree with the Traffic
Impact Study conclusion that the proposed project will have minimal effects on adjacent public roads
and that nearby intersections will continue to operate at an overall Level of Service (LOS) A. A proper
study needs to be completed.
The study continues on page 35 to say “These residential development is expected to generate a total of
2,780 average daily trips, including 1,390 vehicles entering the site and 1,390 vehicles exiting the site. It
continues with “The complete development analyzed included an 18-hole golf course with 293 single
family home land parcels. Based on this layout, the resulting new traffic associated with the proposed
development is expected to be 1,717 vehicles entering and 1,717 vehicles exiting the development per
day (total daily trip generation of 3,434 vehicles).” There is a difference in traffic if the commercial
aspects are included in the study and they should be as they will be part of the traffic.
Also in the traffic discussion it appears they are unsure what roads the traffic will use and which traffic
to count. It would also be good to determine if the entire area will be developed at this time as this will
impact the traffic count. “There is another potential access onto Manning Trail N for the proposed
residential component. This future access will depend upon development of the adjacent property and
is not included in this traffic analysis. It should be noted that the proposed site driveways do not provide
access to the entire development as each access only services a portion of the overall site. This results in
traffic that does not mix within the site, and depending on where the driver’s origin and destination, will
determine which access to use.
Page 8 states “The City’s ordinance also requires that shoreland PUDs be connected to public water and
sewer systems, and that least 50% of the shoreland area be maintained as open space.” This is true,
however only that land within 1000 feet of a shoreland is zoned this way and needs to be connected to
public sewer, the remainder of the land could use septic systems. In fact, depending on the placement
of the lots no home would need to use public sewer.
Page 10 states “The project is proposing to place about 14.0 acre-feet of fill in the flood fringe of Downs
Lake to elevate an area for construction of 15 residential lots and adjoining streets. Construction of a
municipal street around the east side of Lake Rose will require about 1.6 acre-feet of fill in the flood
fringe of Lake Rose.” We want to make sure proper authorities are committed to supervising this activity
as streets and 15 homes could be flooded if not completed correctly. This area has been flooded in the
past. It is unfortunate the developer is not listening to the land and building outside of a floodplain.
Page 11 states “The proposed project is compatible with the proposed land use, zoning, and surrounding
land uses. The project is designed to preserve considerable forested buffers adjacent to surrounding
roadways. These vegetated buffers will enhance the compatibility of the project with nearby land uses
and help preserve the forested character of the area.” It is true this may be compatible with land use,
but certainly not with density of the surrounding homes. The current surrounding lots are about one
acre and go up to almost 50 acres per household, the proposed lots start at 0.4 acre and go up to .75
acre per household. The conversion of forest to impervious surface will significantly change the
character of the area and decrease the natural habitat of the existing wildlife corridor. Also on page 32 it
states: “buckthorn may be left in the understory along exterior roadways to provide visual screening.” I
don’t believe an invasive species is considered a “forested buffer” and will not enhance the project.
Page 13 describes the “Grading operations for residential development construction are expected to
affect 137.5 acres and involve movement of about 750,000 to 1 million cubic yards of soil to construct
streets, residential building pads, and stormwater ponds. Grading is expected to avoid disturbance on
84.4 acres within the project area“. It is unfortunate so much land has to be disturbed, however it
means there will be considerable noise. Page 34 directs our attention to “Noise generated by
construction equipment and residential building construction will be limited primarily to daylight hours
when noise levels are commonly higher than at night.” If this is true, what provision is being made so
the surrounding landowners are allowed their rightful peace and quiet? I would like to suggest all noise
generating equipment may only be operated from 8 AM to 5 PM and only Monday to Friday.
Page 16 states “The project is expected to produce normal domestic wastewater. This wastewater is
expected to be typical of residential developments. The project will not include industrial wastewater
production or onsite wastewater treatment.” It is unfortunate the club house and other commercial
aspects are not included as there will be wastewater from them. No estimates were given as to the
amounts.
Page 18 states “The net increase in impervious surface is estimated at 38.6 acres. The creation of
stormwater features and the preservation of wetland buffers and other open spaces is expected to
mitigate potential adverse effects from the increase in impervious surface.” Again I ask for scrutiny of
any permits and close supervision and of the mitigation as they are increasing the impervious area. Also,
can we be assured there will be supervision of these projects over time to make sure they are in proper
working order? Will unlimited access be given to the proper authorities to all stormwater management
facilities? This area has had major flooding in the past and with the addition of so much impervious
surface it will need timely reviews.
Page 30 tells us “The project area includes potential Blanding’s turtle’s (Emydoidea blandingii), habitat
consisting of wetlands and sandy soils. The best Blanding’s turtle habitat includes wetland complexes
larger than 10 acres that are surrounded by open sandy uplands.” The concern continues on Page 32
with “The project may have effects on Blanding’s turtles that may occur in the area. To minimize
potential adverse effects on turtles and their mobility, the project will avoid most wetlands, implement
stringent sediment and erosion controls, consider the use of surmountable curbs on roadways, and
consider erosion control materials constructed of organic fibers rather than plastic.” I don’t believe
these developers wish to eliminate a state-listed threatened species, and therefore should abide by the
necessary measures to assure their survival. It is one thing to “try” and another to actually do them.
They also need to avoid disturbance in type 2 and 3 wetlands, no dewatering of wetlands in the winter,
and use wildlife friendly erosion control methods. Also, roads should be kept to minimum standards on
widths and lanes (this reduces road kills by slowing traffic and reducing the distance turtles need to
cross). Who will be overseeing these measures and what agency will follow through to make sure they
are done?
On Page 32 I was happy to see, “To the extent practicable, tree clearing will occur between October and
April, when migratory songbirds and bats are not nesting or reproducing.” This is extremely important as
oak wilt is prevalent in the area and we don’t wish to have trees cut at the wrong time of the year.
Please check with an arborist to make sure it is safe before cutting. However, “buckthorn may be left in
the understory along exterior roadways to provide visual screening” is not acceptable. Buckthorn is an
invasive species and difficult to remove, but to intentionally leave it when there are alternatives
available is unacceptable in Minnesota. A certified landscape architect should oversee this aspect of the
project.
Page 33 states, “Although the proposed project may affect some views from nearby homes, the project
proponent has included design elements in the project to minimize visual effects on nearby
homeowners.” There are residents on all four sides of the development and all wish to have as little
sight of the development as possible. Buckthorn is not an acceptable buffer.
“The project will not involve installation of intense lights that would cause glare, nor will it include
industries that would emit vapor plumes.” The developer needs to follow the lighting codes of Lake
Elmo.
Page 34 states, “The project is not expected to generate dust or odors at levels considered unusual for
suburban development construction practices.” The surrounding area does not have dense
development, the area is not your “usual suburban development”. “Dust, odors, and noise levels are
expected to be slightly higher during project construction than project operations”. Hours of operation
are important especially if they will be going on for 5-7 years. The health and emotional wellbeing of the
surrounding homeowners should be considered and is important. I again suggest all noise generating
equipment may only be operated from 8 AM to 5 PM and only Monday to Friday.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the EAW.
Sincerely,
Ann M. Bucheck
From: archyeagle@gmail.com [mailto:archyeagle@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Matthew Archibald
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 4:11 PM
To: Stephen Wensman <SWensman@lakeelmo.org>
Cc: Matthwew Archibald <matt.archibald@gmail.com>
Subject: Royal Golf Club Environmental Assessment Worksheet 30-day comment period
Hello Mr. Wensman,
I write in comment of the EAW that was filed for the Royal Golf Club Residential Development
as a concerned local resident. I live at 11365 24th Street Court North, Lake Elmo.
What else do I need to complete to fully document my concerns regarding this EAW other than
writing my comments in this format here? I do not agree with the completeness of the prepared
file, here are the features that I feel need more due diligence in Sections 8, 12, 15 and 20:
Section 8. Permit and Approvals required.
Missing an Approval from the city. I see no record of a Tree Preservation plan or tree inventory as
required by the Lake Elmo Zoning Code Chapter 154. In the EAW, Table 2 summarizes the Before
and After Cover types. Included in this out line there is a 53% reduction in the woodland cover.
30% is the limit of the allowable tree removal rate within the City Code. With this documented plan
to reduce woodland cover by more than 53%, this is a "potential impact that warrants detailed
further investigation" and documentation. The Developer should hired a registered Forrester to
inventory all the onsite trees to be added to this Environmental Impact Statement.
Unit of Government Type of Application Status
City of Lake Elmo Tree Preservation Plan Not outlined, Prepared,
Submitted or Approved
154.257 TREE PRESERVATION.
A. Purpose. Within the City of Lake Elmo, trees and woodlands are considered a valuable asset
to the community. The City places a priority on protecting this asset and finds that it is in the best
interest to regulate the development and alteration of wooded areas within the community. All
builders, developers and subdividers shall comply with all the provisions in the Zoning Code
which address the preservation of existing significant trees. All builders, developers and
subdividers are encouraged to preserve all healthy trees of significant value even if the trees do
not meet the size requirements to be considered significant trees.
Section 12. Contaminatio/Hazardous Materials/ Wastes
Within the Regulated Soil Management Area - what isthe potential impact to local residential
groundwater of managing all of the excavated hazardous soil on-site, at the west end of the Driving
range? What type of impervious barrier was laid below the transferred Regulated soil? I see you
no description for the layer used in the HELP model referenced in the report by Carlson McCain,
Inc. Additional, expansion on the assumptions and outputs from this model are a gap from this
report in Appendix D. By concentrating the hazardous soil at the west side of the driving range -
how has this minimized the impact of these hazards on the local Groundwater? I see how this has
minimized the impact to the planned development but what about the rest of the community in
Lake Elmo?
Section 15 &/or Section 20 “Visual” and “Other Potential Environmental
Effects”
Light pollution – What are the project details related to minimizing escapement of light into the
environment. The proposal needs to address light pollution and the impact on the regional
ecosystem and wildlife. I think a documented report detailing the baseline local night-time
brightness compared to the expected increase will be an important feature to outline as part of the
Environmental Impact Statement.
Thank you for your work and attention to these comments,
Matt
26105 Wild Rose Lane, Shorewood, Minnesota 55331, Phone: 952-401-8757, Fax: 952-401-8798
Memorandum
Date: Revised January 9, 2017
To: Stephen Wensman, City of Lake Elmo
cc: Rick Packer, H.C. Golf Course Development, LLC
Kristina Handt, City of Lake Elmo
Mark Kjolhaug, Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company
From: Rob Bouta, Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company
Re: Revised Shoreland PUD Evaluation, The Royal Golf Club Residential
Development, Lake Elmo, MN (KES 2016-118)
On behalf of H.C. Golf Course Development, LLC, this memo transmits a revised Shoreland
PUD Evaluation and map showing shoreland development and open space areas currently
proposed. The Applicant understands that open space planning will be revised and further
reviewed during the preliminary plat/PUD application review. We anticipate that final protected
open space maps will be prepared by land surveyors and may vary slightly from the open space
shown herein.
This evaluation shows that the project complies with allowable base densities in every shoreland.
The project also complies with the requirement for a minimum of 50% protected open space.
This shoreland evaluation excludes DNR public waters from total shoreland areas. Regulated
wetlands, incidental wetlands, and bluffs are excluded from net suitable areas.
Tables 1 and 2 show the overall shoreland density evaluation and open space percentage,
respectively. Tables 3 and 4 show the tiered shoreland density evaluation and open space for
the Lake Elmo and DNR public watercourse shorelands. Tables 5 and 6 show similar data for
the Downs Lake shoreland. Shoreland data for Lake Rose and Horseshoe Lake are shown in
Tables 7 and 8, and 9 and 10, respectively. The attached Figure shows the current shoreland
development and open space plan for onsite shorelands.
Memorandum – Revised Shoreland PUD Evaluation, The Royal Golf Club Residential Development
Revised January 9, 2017
Page 2
Table 1. Overall Shoreland Density Evaluation
Shoreland Total Area Wetlands
(sq.ft.)
Bluffs
(sq.ft.)
Net Suitable Area Required
Lot Size
(sq. ft.)
Allowable
Base
Density
Proposed
Density Sq. Ft. Acres Sq. Ft. Acres
Lake
Elmo 1,223,356 28.08 15,246 40,043 1,168,067 26.82 15,000 77.9 31
Downs
Lake 250,566 5.75 27,443 0 223,123 5.12 20,000 11.2 7
Lake Rose 1,911,838 43.89 207,413 0 1,704,425 39.13 20,000 85.2 41
Horseshoe
Lake 1,268,757 29.13 46,543 84,694 1,137,520 26.11 20,000 56.9 32
Total 4,654,517 106.85 296,645 124,737 4,233,135 97.18 231.2 111
Table 2. Overall Shoreland Open Space Calculation
Shoreland Total Area
(sq.ft.)
Not Open Space Net Open
Space
(sq.ft.)
%
Open
Space Lots (sq.ft.) Street Right-
of-Way (sq.ft.)
Lake Elmo 1,223,356 428,300 185,695 609,361 50
Downs Lake 250,566 58,745 60,854 130,967 52
Lake Rose 1,911,838 578,051 348,719 985,068 52
Horseshoe Lake 1,268,757 538,263 110,548 619,946 49
Total 4,654,517 1,603,359 705,816 2,345,342 50
Memorandum – Revised Shoreland PUD Evaluation, The Royal Golf Club Residential Development
Revised January 9, 2017
Page 3
Table 3. Lake Elmo Shoreland Density Evaluation
Tier
Total
Area
(sq.ft.)
Wetlands
(sq.ft.)
Bluffs
(sq.ft.)
Net
Suitable
Area
(sq.ft.)
Required
Lot Size
(sq. ft.)
Allowable
Base
Density
Cumulative
Allowable
Density
Proposed
Density
Cumulative
Proposed
Density
Tier 1 (0-267
feet) 77,109 1,225 0 75,884 15,000 5.1 5.1 0 0
Tier 2 (267-
534 feet) 263,042 7,487 34,031 221,524 15,000 14.8 19.8 5 5
Tier 3 (534-
801 feet) 407,684 4,084 6,012 397,588 15,000 26.5 46.3 12 17
Tier 4 (801-
1,000 feet) 475,521 2,450 0 473,071 15,000 31.5 77.9 14 31
Total 1,223,356 15,246 40,043 1,168,067 77.9 77.9 31 31
Table 4. Lake Elmo Shoreland Open Space Calculation
Tier
Total
Area
(sq.ft.)
Not Open Space
Net Open
Space (sq.ft.)
% Open
Space
Cumulative
% Open
Space Lots
(sq.ft.)
Street
Right-of-
Way
(sq.ft.)
Shore Impact Zone (0-37.5 ft) 0 0 0 0 NA NA
Tier 1 (0-267 feet) 77,109 0 13,524 63,585 82 82
Tier 2 (267-534 feet) 263,042 39,193 10,807 213,042 81 81
Tier 3 (534-801 feet) 407,684 192,160 85,451 130,073 32 54
Tier 4 (801-1,000 feet) 475,521 196,947 75,913 202,661 43 50
Total 1,223,356 428,300 185,695 609,361 50
Memorandum – Revised Shoreland PUD Evaluation, The Royal Golf Club Residential Development
Revised January 9, 2017
Page 4
Table 5. Downs Lake Shoreland Density Evaluation
Tier
Total
Area
(sq.ft.)
Wetlands
(sq.ft.)
Bluffs
(sq.ft.)
Net
Suitable
Area
(sq.ft.)
Required
Lot Size
(sq. ft.)
Allowable
Base
Density
Cumulative
Allowable
Density
Proposed
Density
Cumulative
Proposed
Density
Tier 1 (0-320
feet) 0 0 0 0 20,000 0.0 0.0 0 0
Tier 2 (320-
640 feet) 12,081 0 0 12,081 20,000 0.6 0.6 0 0
Tier 3 (640-
1,000 feet) 238,485 27,443 0 211,042 20,000 10.6 11.2 7 7
Total 250,566 27,443 0 223,123 11.2 11.2 7 7
Table 6. Downs Lake Shoreland Open Space Calculation
Tier
Total
Area
(sq.ft.)
Not Open Space Net Open
Space
(sq.ft.)
% Open
Space
Cumulative
% Open
Space
Lots
(sq.ft.)
Street
Right-of-
Way (sq.ft.)
Shore Impact Zone (0-75ft) 0 0 0 0 NA
Tier 1 (0-320 feet) 0 0 0 0 0
Tier 2 (320-640 feet) 12,081 0 10,790 1,291 11 11
Tier 3 (640-1,000 feet) 238,485 58,745 50,064 129,676 54 52
Total 250,566 58,745 60,854 130,967 52
Memorandum – Revised Shoreland PUD Evaluation, The Royal Golf Club Residential Development
Revised January 9, 2017
Page 5
Table 7. Lake Rose Shoreland Density Evaluation
Tier
Total
Area
(sq.ft.)
Wetlands
(sq.ft.)
Bluffs
(sq.ft.)
Net
Suitable
Area
(sq.ft.)
Required
Lot Size
(sq. ft.)
Allowable
Base
Density
Cumulative
Allowable
Density
Proposed
Density
Cumulative
Proposed
Density
Tier 1 (0-
320 feet) 792,725 74,793 0 717,932 20,000 35.9 35.9 7 7
Tier 2 (320-
640 feet) 527,816 67,454 0 460,362 20,000 58.9 58.9 17 24
Tier 3 (640-
1,000 feet) 591,297 65,166 0 526,131 20,000 26.3 85.2 17 41
Total 1,911,838 207,413 0 1,704,425 85.2 85.2 41 41
Table 8. Lake Rose Shoreland Open Space Calculation
Tier Total Area
(sq.ft.)
Not Open Space
Net Open
Space (sq.ft.)
% Open
Space
Cumulative
% Open
Space Lots
(sq.ft.)
Street Right-
of-Way (sq.ft.)
Shore Impact Zone
(0-75 ft) 372,708 0 80,548 292,160 78 78
Tier 1 (0-320 feet) 792,725 88,973 194,179 509,573 64 64
Tier 2 (320-640
feet) 527,816 251,474 49,973 226,369 43 56
Tier 3 (640-1,000
feet) 591,297 237,604 104,567 249,126 42 52
Total 1,911,838 578,051 348,719 985,068 52
Memorandum – Revised Shoreland PUD Evaluation, The Royal Golf Club Residential Development
Revised January 9, 2017
Page 6
Table 9. Horseshoe Lake Shoreland Density Evaluation
Tier
Total
Area
(sq.ft.)
Wetlands
(sq.ft.)
Bluffs
(sq.ft.)
Net
Suitable
Area
(sq.ft.)
Required
Lot Size
(sq. ft.)
Allowable
Base
Density
Cumulative
Allowable
Density
Proposed
Density
Cumulative
Proposed
Density
Tier 1 (0-320
feet) 650,924 42,997 84,694 523,233 20,000 26.2 26.2 2 2
Tier 2 (320-
640 feet) 251,109 0 0 251,109 20,000 12.6 38.7 11 13
Tier 3 (640-
1,000 feet) 366,724 0 0 366,724 20,000 18.3 57.1 19 32
Total 1,268,757 42,997 84,694 1,141,066 57.1 57.1 32 32
Table 10. Horseshoe Lake Shoreland Open Space Calculation
Tier Total Area
(sq.ft.)
Not Open Space
Net Open
Space (sq.ft.)
% Open
Space
Cumulative
% Open
Space Lots
(sq.ft.)
Street Right-
of-Way (sq.ft.)
Shore Impact Zone
(0-75 ft) 342,471 0 0 342,471 100 100
Tier 1 (0-320 feet) 650,924 39,453 0 611,471 94 94
Tier 2 (320-640
feet) 251,109 201,983 49,126 4,174 2 68
Tier 3 (640-1,000
feet) 366,724 296,827 61,422 10,088 3 49
Total 1,268,757 538,263 110,548 625,733 49
Shoreland Development and Open Space
The Royal Golf Club Residential Development Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Note: Boundaries on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. (KES 2016-034) Revised 11/01/2016
¯0 675Feet
Lake Elmo/DNR Watercourse Shoreland
Lake Rose Shoreland
Horseshoe Lake Shoreland
Downs LakeShoreland
Horseshoe LakeDNR82-74P
Lake RoseDNR82-112W
Lake ElmoDNR82-106P
Downs LakeDNR 82-110W
DNR 82-417W
DNR 82-418W
Project Boundary
1000' Shoreland
300' Shoreland
Shoreland Tier Boundary
Infiltration Area
Floodplain Replacement
Stormwater Pond
Delineated Wetland
DNR Public Water/Watercourse
Bluff
1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard
House Pad
Lot Boundary
Road Right-of-Way
T4T3T2T1
T1
T1
T2
T2T2
T2
T1
T3
T3
T3
Horseshoe Lake Shorela
n
d
Lake Rose Shorel
a
n
d
Units 2011 MDH HRL 2016 EPA HAL Well No. 1 Well No. 3 Well No. 4 Duplicate
Perfluorobutryate (PFBA)ng/l 7,000 7,000 12 39.7 109 41.7
Perfluoro-n-pentanoic acid (PFPeA)ng/l NE NE <1.16 <1.52 <1.04 1.13
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)ng/l NE NE <1.13 <1.22 <1.04 1.19
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)ng/l NE NE <1.13 <1.22 <1.04 <1.06
Perflurooocatanoic acid (PFOA)ng/l 300 70 <1.13 2.53 1.53 2.63
Perflorononanoic acid (PFNA)ng/l NE NE <1.13 <1.22 <1.04 <1.06
Perflurodecanoic acid (PFDA)ng/l NE NE <1.13 <1.22 <1.04 <1.06
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA)ng/l NE NE <1.13 <1.22 <1.04 <1.06
Perflurorododecanoic acid (PFDoA)ng/l NE NE <1.13 <1.22 <1.04 <1.06
Ferfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS)ng/l 7,000 7,000 <2.27 <2.44 <2.09 <2.11
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS)ng/l NE NE <2.27 <2.44 <2.09 <2.11
Perflurooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)ng/l 300 70 <2.27 3.44 5.15 3.75
Perfluoroctansulfonamide (PFOSA)ng/l NE NE 1.13 <1.22 <1.04 <1.06
Total PFOA + PFOS ng/l 300 70 <3.4 5.97 6.68 6.38
Hazard Index(1) calculated 1 0.002 0.09 0.11 0.10
Aquatic Orangisms Aquatic Plants Fish Fish Off-site Creek
Units Chronic Maximum Consumption (2)Total (3)Creek HS-1 HS-2 HS-3
Perfluorobutryate (PFBA)ng/l 440 240 260 250
Perfluoro-n-pentanoic acid (PFPeA)ng/l 14 12 J ND ND
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)ng/l 10 <50 12 16
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)ng/l NA NA NA NA
Perflurooocatanoic acid (PFOA)ng/l 1,705,000 15,346,000 610 1,620 57 75 59 68
Perflorononanoic acid (PFNA)ng/l NA NA NA NA
Perflurodecanoic acid (PFDA)ng/l NA NA NA NA
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA)ng/l NA NA NA NA
Perflurorododecanoic acid (PFDoA)ng/l NA NA NA NA
Ferfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS)ng/l 0 ND 11 ND
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS)ng/l 7 9 8 12
Perflurooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)ng/l 18,600 19,000 6 6 53 290 210 370
Perfluoroctansulfonamide (PFOSA)ng/l NA NA NA NA
Notes
< = Compound not detected; reporting limit is displayed
NA = not analyzed
ND = not detected above labotoary reporting limit
NE = not established
HRL = Health Risk Limit
MDH = Minnesota Department of Health
EPA = Environmental Protection Agency
HAL = Health Advisory Level
ng/l = nanograms per liter; roughly equivalent to parts per trillion
* data obtained from MDA - sampled 9/21/16
(1) for PFC admixtures
Highlighed cells exceed one or more screenign criteria
(2) Based on consumption from Mississippi River at Pool 3
(3) Based on consumption from Mississippi River at Pool 3 and drinking water
HS = Horseshoe Lake
Comparison of PFCs Detected in On-Site Water Wells to Drinking Water Screening Limits
Comparison of PFCs Detected in Surface Water to Surface Water Screening Limits
Surface Water Samples*Screening Limits
Horseshoe Lake
December 30, 2015 Sample DataDrinking Water Screening Limits
On-site Water Wells
Figure 1 - Shorelands, Floodplains, and Steep Slopes
The Royal Golf Club Residential DevelopmentLake Elmo, Minnesota
Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. (KES 2016-034)
¯0 675Feet
Lake Elmo/DNR Watercourse Shoreland
Lake Rose Shoreland
Horseshoe Lake Shoreland
Downs LakeShoreland
Horseshoe LakeDNR82-74P
Lake RoseDNR82-112W
Lake ElmoDNR82-106P
Downs LakeDNR 82-110W
DNR 82-417W
DNR 82-418W
Project Boundary
1000' Shoreland
300' Shoreland
Shoreland Tier Boundary
Infiltration Area
Floodplain Replacement
Stormwater Pond
Delineated Wetland
DNR Public Water/Watercourse
1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard
House Pad
Lot Boundary
Road Right-of-Way
Steep Slopes
12-25% slopes
25-40% slopes
T4T3T2T1
T1
T1
T2
T2T2
T2
T1
T3
T3
T3
PROTECTING, MAINTAINING AND IMPROVING THE HEALTH OF ALL MINNESOTANS
An equal opportunity employer
November 23rd, 2016
Stephen Wensman Planning Director
City of Lake Elmo
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Dear Mr. Wensman,
Thank you for providing the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) with the opportunity to
comment on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Royal Golf Club
Residential Development project. The mission of MDH is to protect, maintain, and improve the health of all Minnesotans. The careful planning and development of projects such as this one
supports this mission and is an important step in ensuring health in all policies.
MDH does have several comments regarding groundwater, water quality, and soil contamination
at and near the site:
Section 10 – “Geology” Although no sinkholes have been identified on the project property, the Minnesota Geological
Survey (MGS) karst inventory does map one sinkhole less than one mile northeast of the project
property, just north of the intersection of Manning Avenue and 27th St. N. (UTM coordinates 510846/4981836). Depth to carbonate bedrock is an important factor in the potential for karst development, with that potential increasing significantly where depths are less than 50 feet
(Alexander, et al. , 2003, “Sinkholes, Sinkhole Probability, and Springs and Seeps”, Goodhue
County Atlas, County Atlas Series, Atlas C-12, Part B, Plate 10). Well logs near the east property
boundary of the project area indicate depth to bedrock is approximately 47-59 ft. (unique well numbers: 442166, 447252, 431201, and 503306). Two infiltration areas and two stormwater ponds are planned near the northeast corner of the project property (as shown on Figure 7). Consideration
should be given to potential karst development beneath these infiltration areas and whether any
mitigation measures are needed, particularly given the proximity of these areas to planned home
construction. Section 11 – “Water Resources” The groundwater discussion should include more information regarding the perfluorochemical
(PFC) contamination in the groundwater in this area. Groundwater has been impacted by PFCs
from the former Washington County Landfill and 3M-Oakdale Disposal Site. Due to groundwater flow, surface water-groundwater interactions, and stormwater management activities, the groundwater east of Lake Elmo has been impacted by PFCs emerging from these disposal areas.
Recent MDH sampling has detected PFCs at concentrations above the new Environmental
Stephen Wensman
The Royal Golf Club Residential Development
Page 2
November 23rd, 2016 Protection Agency (EPA) Lifetime Health Advisory levels of 70 parts per trillion for PFOS and
PFOA in the surface water in Lake Elmo, the unnamed creek that discharges from Lake Elmo onto
the project property, Horseshoe Lake, and the series of ditches and stormwater ponds further
downstream. Surface water ponds on the property that are part of the Project 1007 drainage system are almost certain to be similarly impacted. The full extent and distribution of PFCs in this portion of Lake Elmo are still being determined. Use of surface water or groundwater at the project site
should be carefully managed to avoid human exposure and prevent further spreading of the
contamination. MDH further recommends landscaping options be implemented to create
significant buffers in order to restrict public access to Horseshoe Lake. Preliminary data suggests PFC contamination is primarily in the Prairie du Chien aquifer (OPDC),
but excessive use of Jordan aquifer (CJDN) wells may cause downward migration of the
contamination, potentially placing downgradient CJDN wells at risk. MDH recommends the
project proposer work with MDH, MPCA, and DNR to evaluate water quality in the existing wells and surface waters on the project property and determine appropriate use of these to mitigate for these potential impacts.
Section 12 – “Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes”
The sub-section titled “Investigation History” indicates a “disposal area” is located on an adjoining property to the southeast. The location is not shown on any figures and no information is provided regarding this disposal area and its proximity to the project property.
The sub-section titled “Response Action Plan” indicates that contaminated soils excavated at the
site are to be managed in a “Regulated Soil Management Area” beneath a 2 ft. cover. The figure shown in the Phase II Investigation Report (Appendix D) indicates the area proposed for this management area has a significant slope and may be prone to erosion. MDH assumes MPCA will
be consulted in the design and construction of this facility to ensure it provides long-term
encapsulation of these soils to prevent exposures.
The sub-section titled “PFCs and Area Groundwater Contamination” (page 27) should be revised to reflect that PFCs above levels of health concern are present in the groundwater in this part of
Lake Elmo. Although the concentrations detected in the CJDN wells on the property do not exceed
levels of health concern, as noted above continued extraction of water from the CJDN may result
in increased PFCs in this aquifer over time. Appendix D – Table 3 Although the table correctly identifies the current MDH Health Risk Limits for PFOS, PFOA,
PFBA, and PFBS, it should be noted that MDH now uses the new EPA health advisory levels of
70 ng/L for PFOS and PFOA when evaluating health risks. Health starts where we live, learn, work, and play. To create and maintain healthy Minnesota
communities, we have to think in terms of health in all policies. Thank you again for the
opportunity to provide comments on this EAW for the Royal Golf Club Residential Development
project. Feel free to contact me at (651) 201-4907 or david.bell@state.mn.us if you have any questions regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
Stephen Wensman
The Royal Golf Club Residential Development
Page 3
November 23rd, 2016
David Bell
Environmental Review Coordinator
Environmental Health Division
Minnesota Department of Health
PO Box 64975
Saint Paul, MN 55164-0975
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
CENTRAL REGION 1200 WARNER ROAD SAINT PAUL, MN 55106 651-259-5800
mndnr.gov
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CONTAINING A MINIMUM OF 10% POST-CONSUMER WASTE. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER.
November 22, 2016 Transmitted electronically
Stephen Wensman
3800 Laverne Ave. N.
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
RE: The Royal Golf Club Residential Development EAW
Dear Stephen Wensman,
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) has reviewed the Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW) for the Royal Golf Club Residential Development EAW.
General Comments
To date, MNDNR has provided formal comments on the concept PUD to the City of Lake Elmo and informal comments to the developer on the PUD density analysis. These comments have been based on the assumption that the PUD will have City water and sewer. MNDNR will formally review the
preliminary PUD and plat when these are submitted to the City, to determine if they meet the PUD provisions in State shoreland rules.
MNDNR review of shoreland PUDs looks for consistency with the density allowances, setbacks, and height as well as a variety of more subjective performance standards dealing with protection of vegetation
and sensitive slopes. While we look for compliance with the numerical standards, we recognize that good
environmental design cannot be reduced to compliance with a set of numbers. The shoreland PUD standards were part of the 1989 State shoreland rules and were an early form of conservation design
regulations. A lot has been learned about conservation design since 1989 and many communities in Minnesota have adopted different shoreland PUD standards to limit density, ensure better natural resource/open space protection, and provide for greater alignment with the community’s vision.
MNDNR has concerns on the design of the Royal Golf Club Residential PUD because the proposed
development is too dense for the natural resources on the site. In making this evaluation, MNDNR is
considering overall project suitability by looking at how the design impacts the existing natural environment on the site. From our perspective, a development is not suitable if it is consuming areas of high quality vegetation and areas with slopes greater than 12 percent (which MNDNR considers steep
slopes). Ultimately, however, it is up to the City of Lake Elmo to evaluate project suitability, natural resource protections, and transportation concerns associated with this proposal.
Specific Comments
• Page 3 - Rewrite the statement on page 3 so that it does not imply that the City has determined
that this project meets shoreland overlay district requirements. At this stage of the PUD process, it is premature to state that the proposed project design complies with shoreland overlay district
requirements. The City of Lake Elmo has not approved this development yet nor has the City
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
CENTRAL REGION 1200 WARNER ROAD SAINT PAUL, MN 55106 651-259-5800
mndnr.gov
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CONTAINING A MINIMUM OF 10% POST-CONSUMER WASTE. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER.
fully evaluated whether the development plans are in conformance with City ordinances and State
shoreland rules.
• Page 3 states that this project minimizes effects on floodplains. However, page 10, states that
there will be about 15.6 acre-feet of fill in the flood fringe to accommodate 15 residential lots and streets. The statement on page 3 is misleading since there will be significant changes to the
existing floodplain configuration. What layout design modifications could be made to avoid the
need for floodplain fill and rerouting of flood waters into storage ponds? How will floodplain storage outside of the PUD boundary be managed (i.e., who will own and maintain these storage ponds)?
• Page 3 – Please correct the MNDNR PWI # for the unnamed public water wetland from 82-117W
to 82-417W. The MNDNR ID # for the unnamed public watercourse is M-050-009-001.
• Page 8 states that the City’s ordinance requires only two conditions to be met to allow for PUDs (the City’s PUD ordinance and the State shoreland PUD rules). PUDs, by their very nature, are a
negotiation between the local government and the proposer. The City, through the PUD process,
can require additional conditions in exchange for the increased density that is allowed under a PUD. Through the PUD process and negotiations with the developer, the City can also exert
influence on how a property is developed and what the design of that development looks like. For example, the City can require greater tree preservation, slope/erosion protection, interconnectivity, conservation easements, or other environmental or public benefits.
• Page 9 and Appendix A - Please update the shoreland PUD suitable area, open space, and density calculations (Tables 5 and 6 and Appendix A) to match those numbers provided in analyses
completed after the submittal of the EAW. Include with this analysis a map showing areas suitable for development and those areas not suitable for development and their acreages. Also include with this analysis a map showing areas of open space and those areas not included in
open space and their acreages.
• Page 11 states that the proposed project is compatible with surrounding land uses. Describe in
more detail in what ways the PUD’s design plan is compatible with surrounding land uses. Please provide more detail on the preservation of forest buffers and how they provide compatibility with surrounding land uses. Has this proposal considered ways to preserve existing forest areas to
allow for plant and wildlife preservation?
• Figure 7 – Please show the location of steep slopes on Figure 7, to help the reader determine the
location of proposed lots, structures, and roads in relation to steep topographic areas.
• Has a tree preservation and replacement plan been prepared for this proposed development that
meets City ordinance?
Thank you for the consideration of our comments.
Sincerely,
/s/ Rebecca Horton
Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist – Central Region
Division of Ecological and Water Resources
2301 Legion Avenue
Lake Elmo MN 55042
November 21, 2016
City of Lake Elmo
Planning and Zoning Department
Stephen Wensman, Planning Director
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042
Dear Mr. Wensman,
I would like to comment, ask questions, and clarify the EAW for the proposed Royal Golf Residential
Development proposed by HC Golf Development, LLC in the city of Lake Elmo, Washington County. I will
be referring to pages in the EAW that have given me concern.
My first concern is that the commercial aspect of the development, the golf course, club house, storage
area, sport complex, and driving range were not part of the study. These commercial aspects of the
development will add to the traffic, congestion, water runoff, and have a strong environmental impact
on the area.
On page 3 it states “Traffic generated by the project will have little to no impact on the regional
transportation system. Intersections surrounding the site will continue to operate at acceptable levels
of service with the traffic generated by the proposed project.” This is followed up later on page 35 by a
traffic study that was completed in July, 2016, when the golf course, driving range, club house, sport
complex, and storage building were closed and the streets to the east and west, Lake Elmo Avenue and
Manning Avenue, were under construction and school was not in session. I disagree with the Traffic
Impact Study conclusion that the proposed project will have minimal effects on adjacent public roads
and that nearby intersections will continue to operate at an overall Level of Service (LOS) A. A proper
study needs to be completed.
The study continues on page 35 to say “These residential development is expected to generate a total of
2,780 average daily trips, including 1,390 vehicles entering the site and 1,390 vehicles exiting the site. It
continues with “The complete development analyzed included an 18-hole golf course with 293 single
family home land parcels. Based on this layout, the resulting new traffic associated with the proposed
development is expected to be 1,717 vehicles entering and 1,717 vehicles exiting the development per
day (total daily trip generation of 3,434 vehicles).” There is a difference in traffic if the commercial
aspects are included in the study and they should be as they will be part of the traffic.
Also in the traffic discussion it appears they are unsure what roads the traffic will use and which traffic
to count. It would also be good to determine if the entire area will be developed at this time as this will
impact the traffic count. “There is another potential access onto Manning Trail N for the proposed
residential component. This future access will depend upon development of the adjacent property and
is not included in this traffic analysis. It should be noted that the proposed site driveways do not provide
access to the entire development as each access only services a portion of the overall site. This results in
traffic that does not mix within the site, and depending on where the driver’s origin and destination, will
determine which access to use.
Page 8 states “The City’s ordinance also requires that shoreland PUDs be connected to public water and
sewer systems, and that least 50% of the shoreland area be maintained as open space.” This is true,
however only that land within 1000 feet of a shoreland is zoned this way and needs to be connected to
public sewer, the remainder of the land could use septic systems. In fact, depending on the placement
of the lots no home would need to use public sewer.
Page 10 states “The project is proposing to place about 14.0 acre-feet of fill in the flood fringe of Downs
Lake to elevate an area for construction of 15 residential lots and adjoining streets. Construction of a
municipal street around the east side of Lake Rose will require about 1.6 acre-feet of fill in the flood
fringe of Lake Rose.” We want to make sure proper authorities are committed to supervising this activity
as streets and 15 homes could be flooded if not completed correctly. This area has been flooded in the
past. It is unfortunate the developer is not listening to the land and building outside of a floodplain.
Page 11 states “The proposed project is compatible with the proposed land use, zoning, and surrounding
land uses. The project is designed to preserve considerable forested buffers adjacent to surrounding
roadways. These vegetated buffers will enhance the compatibility of the project with nearby land uses
and help preserve the forested character of the area.” It is true this may be compatible with land use,
but certainly not with density of the surrounding homes. The current surrounding lots are about one
acre and go up to almost 50 acres per household, the proposed lots start at 0.4 acre and go up to .75
acre per household. The conversion of forest to impervious surface will significantly change the
character of the area and decrease the natural habitat of the existing wildlife corridor. Also on page 32 it
states: “buckthorn may be left in the understory along exterior roadways to provide visual screening.” I
don’t believe an invasive species is considered a “forested buffer” and will not enhance the project.
Page 13 describes the “Grading operations for residential development construction are expected to
affect 137.5 acres and involve movement of about 750,000 to 1 million cubic yards of soil to construct
streets, residential building pads, and stormwater ponds. Grading is expected to avoid disturbance on
84.4 acres within the project area“. It is unfortunate so much land has to be disturbed, however it
means there will be considerable noise. Page 34 directs our attention to “Noise generated by
construction equipment and residential building construction will be limited primarily to daylight hours
when noise levels are commonly higher than at night.” If this is true, what provision is being made so
the surrounding landowners are allowed their rightful peace and quiet? I would like to suggest all noise
generating equipment may only be operated from 8 AM to 5 PM and only Monday to Friday.
Page 16 states “The project is expected to produce normal domestic wastewater. This wastewater is
expected to be typical of residential developments. The project will not include industrial wastewater
production or onsite wastewater treatment.” It is unfortunate the club house and other commercial
aspects are not included as there will be wastewater from them. No estimates were given as to the
amounts.
Page 18 states “The net increase in impervious surface is estimated at 38.6 acres. The creation of
stormwater features and the preservation of wetland buffers and other open spaces is expected to
mitigate potential adverse effects from the increase in impervious surface.” Again I ask for scrutiny of
any permits and close supervision and of the mitigation as they are increasing the impervious area. Also,
can we be assured there will be supervision of these projects over time to make sure they are in proper
working order? Will unlimited access be given to the proper authorities to all stormwater management
facilities? This area has had major flooding in the past and with the addition of so much impervious
surface it will need timely reviews.
Page 30 tells us “The project area includes potential Blanding’s turtle’s (Emydoidea blandingii), habitat
consisting of wetlands and sandy soils. The best Blanding’s turtle habitat includes wetland complexes
larger than 10 acres that are surrounded by open sandy uplands.” The concern continues on Page 32
with “The project may have effects on Blanding’s turtles that may occur in the area. To minimize
potential adverse effects on turtles and their mobility, the project will avoid most wetlands, implement
stringent sediment and erosion controls, consider the use of surmountable curbs on roadways, and
consider erosion control materials constructed of organic fibers rather than plastic.” I don’t believe
these developers wish to eliminate a state-listed threatened species, and therefore should abide by the
necessary measures to assure their survival. It is one thing to “try” and another to actually do them.
They also need to avoid disturbance in type 2 and 3 wetlands, no dewatering of wetlands in the winter,
and use wildlife friendly erosion control methods. Also, roads should be kept to minimum standards on
widths and lanes (this reduces road kills by slowing traffic and reducing the distance turtles need to
cross). Who will be overseeing these measures and what agency will follow through to make sure they
are done?
On Page 32 I was happy to see, “To the extent practicable, tree clearing will occur between October and
April, when migratory songbirds and bats are not nesting or reproducing.” This is extremely important as
oak wilt is prevalent in the area and we don’t wish to have trees cut at the wrong time of the year.
Please check with an arborist to make sure it is safe before cutting. However, “buckthorn may be left in
the understory along exterior roadways to provide visual screening” is not acceptable. Buckthorn is an
invasive species and difficult to remove, but to intentionally leave it when there are alternatives
available is unacceptable in Minnesota. A certified landscape architect should oversee this aspect of the
project.
Page 33 states, “Although the proposed project may affect some views from nearby homes, the project
proponent has included design elements in the project to minimize visual effects on nearby
homeowners.” There are residents on all four sides of the development and all wish to have as little
sight of the development as possible. Buckthorn is not an acceptable buffer.
“The project will not involve installation of intense lights that would cause glare, nor will it include
industries that would emit vapor plumes.” The developer needs to follow the lighting codes of Lake
Elmo.
Page 34 states, “The project is not expected to generate dust or odors at levels considered unusual for
suburban development construction practices.” The surrounding area does not have dense
development, the area is not your “usual suburban development”. “Dust, odors, and noise levels are
expected to be slightly higher during project construction than project operations”. Hours of operation
are important especially if they will be going on for 5-7 years. The health and emotional wellbeing of the
surrounding homeowners should be considered and is important. I again suggest all noise generating
equipment may only be operated from 8 AM to 5 PM and only Monday to Friday.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the EAW.
Sincerely,
Ann M. Bucheck
From:Corbett, Michael J (DOT)
To:Stephen Wensman
Cc:Scheffing, Karen (DOT); Sherman, Tod (DOT); Moynihan, Debra (DOT)
Subject:The Royal Golf Club Residential Development EAW
Date:Monday, November 07, 2016 2:05:01 PM
Hello Mr. Wensman,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for The
Royal Golf Club Residential Development EAW, located in Lake Elmo, MN. The Minnesota
Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has reviewed the EAW and has no concerns.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Michael Corbett, PE
MnDOT Metro Division – Planning
1500 W County Road B-2
Roseville, MN 55113
651-234-7793
Michael.J.Corbett@state.mn.us
The Minnesota Department of Transportation invites you to take our two-minute
survey to help us improve our services. MnDOT External Customer Survey
Thank you for telling us about your experience
Supervisors: Louise Smallidge ▫ Bob Rosenquist ▫ George Weyer ▫ John Rheinberger ▫ Jim Levitt
November 22, 2016
Stephen Wensman, Planning Director
City of Lake Elmo
3800 Laverne Ave N.
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
RE: The Royal Golf Club Residential Development EAW
Dear Steven,
The Washington Conservation District (WCD) has received and reviewed the above-mentioned EAW.
The WCD review focuses on wetlands, erosion and sediment control, natural area management, and
stormwater management. Based on this review the WCD offers the following comments:
Section 7 – Cover Types
Use of native vegetation and habitat restoration is encouraged in the open space areas, including native
vegetated buffers around stormwater treatment systems. Enhancing the greenway cooridor that
connects Lake Elmo to natural areas to the east is encouraged.
Section 10 – Geology, Soils and Topography / Land Forms
Section b. Soils and Topography
• Compliance with NPDES, watershed, and local requirements will minimize adverse impacts of soil
erosion and sedimentation. The WCD can provide support to the City to ensure compliance as
needed. The WCD recommends phasing the earthwork and grading to the greatest extent possible
to limit the scale and duration of exposed soils during construction.
• Preserve HSG B soils to the extent possible. Protecting zones of optimum infiltration from
compaction is preferred
• Minimize soil compaction and provide soil restoration in landscaped areas to enhance infiltration
• Deep-rip the soils with a toothed bucket in low or compacted areas to promote infiltration after
major construction is complete
Section 11 – Water Resources
Section iv. Surface Waters
• The EAW indicates the site will meet City and VBWD infiltration guidelines, which recommend
retaining the 1.1” rain event on-site. WCD encourages the use of bioretention to meet the onsite
volume retention standards. Bioretention promotes both infiltration and evapotranspiration which
more effectively mimics terrestrial hydrology than pure infiltration systems. These systems are
designed to be distributed throughout the site and treat small contributing drainage areas, breaking
up larger catchments into smaller, more manageable parts. Minimizing the drainage area provides
multiple benefits to stormwater treatment, including the potential for reduced infrastructure
conveyance costs.
To ensure the long-term effectiveness of volume control, the following design specifications are
presented for consideration:
• Do not rely on long-term infiltration from unlined stormwater ponds or wet detention basins
• Install bioretention/infiltration practices off-line
• Include flow-splitter and high-flow bypass
• Provide pre-treatment (especially for sediment to prolong the life of a practice)
• Keep the max water depth to acceptable levels based on soil types and actual infiltration rates
• Refer to the Minnesota Stormwater Manual, 2013 (on MN PCA website) for additional design and
implementation considerations
The WCD is also serving on the WCA TEP and will provide comments on the wetland permiting through
that process.
Section 13 – Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities and Sensitive Ecological Resources (Rare Features)
Section d.
• Buckthorn removal from entire project area rather than leaving visual barrier along exterior
roadways will minimize spread of this restricted noxious weed. Replace visual barrier of
removed Buckthorn by replanting native trees and shrubs.
Conclusions
There are no known impacts that have not already been addressed in this EAW that warrant an
Environmental Impact Statement. The Washington Conservation District appreciates the opportunity to
review this EAW. Please call me at 651-330-8220, extension 20, if you have any questions about our
review.
Sincerely,
Jay Riggs, District Manager
Washington Conservation District
Cc: John Hanson, VBWD