2004-082
, .
,
City of Hopkins
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-82
WHEREAS, James Parker has submitted a proposal to the City of Hopkins to construct an
office-condominium building (the "Project") on property located at Second
Avenue South (the "Property"), and
WHEREAS, A group of citizens (the "Petitioners") on September 10,2004, submitted a
petition to the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board ("EQB") requesting that
an Environmental Assessment Worksheet ("EA W") be required for the Project,
and
WHEREAS, The City Council ofthe City of Hopkins is the goveruing body legally responsible
for reviewing the EA W petition and determining whether to require an EA W, and
WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Hopkins has received information regarding the
need for an EA W
NOW, THEREFORE, based on all of the documents and other evidence received, the
City of Hopkins City Council makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. James Parker is the owner of the Property, an undeveloped parcel approximately five (5)
acres in size located on Second Avenue South.
2. Parker has submitted a proposal to the City of Hopkins to construct the Project on the
Property.
3. The Property includes areas designated as floodplain and/or wetland and the Project, as
proposed, likely will require construction, grading or disturbance on some portion of the
areas designated as floodplain and/or wetland.
4. On September 10, 2004, the Petitioners submitted a petition to the EQB requesting that
an EA W be ordered for the Project. Pursuant to Minnesota law, the EQB forwarded the
petition to the City of Hopkins, which is designated by law as the governing body
responsible for determining whether to order an EA W.
5. An EA W shall be prepared when a project is not exempt from EA W review and, because
of the nature or location of the proposed project, the project may have the potential for
significant environmental effects.
6. The City Council directed that all information regarding the need for an EA Won the
Project be submitted for consideration not later than October 4,2004.
7. The City Council received Petitioners' submissions to the EQB, including a cover letter
from David Rosedahl and the Petition signed by the Petitioners. There was no
information provided in these submissions regarding a specific environmental effect that
might result from the Project.
8. The City Council received a letter dated October 1, 2004, from Harry Summit of Liesch
Associates, Inc. on behalf of the Nine Mile Cove Association, a homeowner's association
for property located near the Property. It appears at least some members of the
association are also Petitioners.
9. Summits' letter contends an EA W is necessary and appropriate and that the Project will
impact the floodplain and wetland areas of the Property and will create surface water
issues, including run-off rate and water quality. There was no information provided by
Mr. Summit that identified a specific significant environmental effect that might result
from the proposed filling of the floodplain or wetland or from the surface water.
10. Summits' letter also questions whether there is sufficient area outside of the floodplain or
wetland available on the Property to construct the Project. Summit submitted additional
documents regarding this issue.
11. The City Council received a letter from Parker dated October 4, 2004, alleging that an
EA W cannot be required for the Project, claiming the Project is exempt pursuant to
Minnesota Rules Section 4410.1000 Subpt. 10.
12. Parker's letter discussed the issue of available area to construct the Project but did not
address any environmental effects to the floodplain, wetlands or surface water that might
result from the Project.
13. The City of Hopkins retained Chris Meehan of Wenck Associates, Inc. to review all
information submitted regarding the Project, including the information submitted on
behalf of Petitioners regarding the EA W. The City Council received a written report from
Meehan dated October 7, 2004.
14. On October 12, 2004, the City Council met to review the information submitted by
Petitioners, Summit, Parker and Meehan. Meehan appeared and discussed the
information submitted and his report. Mr. Meehan also attended the October 19, 2004,
City Council meeting and again reviewed this information with City Council members.
15. Meehan stated that the Project as proposed would result in the filling of an undetermined
amount of floodplain, the filling of .10 acres of Type 3 wetlands and would result in
untreated stormwater runoff from the driveway used to access the Proj ect from Second
Avenue.
. .
16. Meehan said neither the Petitioners nor Summit had submitted any evidence that the
Project might have the potential for significant environmental effects as a result ofthe
floodplain or wetland fill or the runoff water.
17. Meehan stated that the floodplain, wetland and surface water issues are subject to
regulations administered by the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District ("NMCWD").
Meehan said Parker had not yet submitted all the necessary information to the NMCWD
to address these issues. Meehan said neither the Petitioners nor Summit had submitted
any evidence identifying a specific significant environmental impact that might be caused
by the Project that would be beyond the scope of the standard NMCWD review. Meehan
stated that Parker should be required to following the standard permitting process through
the NMCWD and that the resolution of any floodplain, wetland or surface water issues
raised in that permitting process would resolve any potential environmental effects for the
Proj ect.
18. Meehan stated that the Project is not exempt from EA W review.
19. The City Council, at its October 19, 2004, meeting, also received public comments and
presentations from representatives of the Petitioners.
20. The Hopkins' City Attorneys office reviewed Minnesota Rules Section 4410.1000 subpt.
10 (the "Rule") and spoke with Jon Larsen of the EQB regarding the exemption
language. The City Attorney indicated that, pursuant to the Rule, some projects are
exempt from the EA W review. The City Attorney said that projects that otherwise might
be exempt pursuant to the Rule would remain subj ect to EA W review if any part of the
project was located within a floodplain. The City Attorney further stated the floodplain
language in the Rule was poorly drafted and could be read so that it did not to apply to
the Project, making the Project exempt from EA W review. The City Attorney said he
spoke with Jon Larsen of the EQB who indicated the Rule had been erroneously drafted,
that the floodplain language always was intended to apply to all projects and that the
EQB always had applied the floodplain language to all projects. The City Attorney,
therefore, determined that the Project was not exempt from EA W review.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Hopkins
hereby determines that, based on its Findings of Fact:
1. The Project is not exempt from EA W review.
2. The information submitted by Petitioners and Summit fails to establish that the
Project might have the potential for significant environmental effects.
3. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet is not required for the Project.
4. The petition for an EA W is deuied.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Hopkins this 19th day of October, 2004.
BY~~~~~
Gene well, Mayor