CR 91-109 EAW Ramsgate Townhomes
i Y
o
.
May I, 1991
m
-S- <eo
o P K \ '"
council Report 91-109
EAW - RAMS GATE TOWNHOMES
ProDosed Action.
staff recommends the City council review
distribution when completed, the draft EAW
Townhomes.
and approve for
for the Ramsgate
Once staff has fully completed the preparation of the EAW,
the EAW will be distributed to applicable agencies and
interested persons for review and comments.
Overview.
On April 2, 1991 the City Council ordered a discretionary
EAW on the proposed Ramsgate Townhomes. The City Council
had the option to order a discretionary EAW because the
proposed townhomes are within 300 feet of the Minnehaha
Creek. If the townhomes had not been within 300 feet of the
creek, the townhomes would have been exempt from an EAW.
.
The staff has been compiling the necessary information to
complete the EAW. Attached is a draft of that EAW. The
only sections not completed are the traffic section and the
summary of issues, which are in the process of being
completed. If the Council wants more or different
information ln the EAW, this is the time to address your
concerns to the staff.
The removal of the trees is the concern addressed in the
petition submitted by the petitioners. The EAW has
addressed the removal of the trees on the property.
primary
o
o
o
Issues to Consider.
What is an EAW?
Has the staff addressed
What is the next step?
the questions in the EAW?
Supportinq Documents.
o EAW petition
o Draft EAW
.
.
CR91-109
Page 2
primary Issues to Consider.
o What is an EAW?
When the City Council ordered the EAW it appeared that there
was some confusion on what an EAW was and what it did. The
following is background information regarding the EAW
process. Below are excerpts from the book EAW Guidelines -
Guidance and Information for the Preparation of
Environmental Assessment Worksheet.
TERMS TO KNOW
EQB - Environmental Quality Board
RGU - Responsible Government Unit
EAW - Environmental Assessment Worksheet
BIS - Environmental Impact statement
WHAT IS AN EAW?
.
The EAW is defined by state statute to be a "brief document
which is designed to set out the basic facts necessary to
determine whether an EIS is required for a proposed action."
The purpose of the EAW process is to disclose information
about potential environmental impacts of the project. The
EAW process is not a approval process. The information
disclosed in the EAW process has two functions: (1) it is
used to determine whether an EIS is needed; and (2) it
indicates how the project can be modified to lessen its
environmental impact - such modification may be imposed as
permit conditions by regulatory agencies. The information
disclosed comes from three sources: (1) the EAW itself; (2)
comments received on the EAW; and (3) responses made to
comments received on the EAW. However, the EAW itself is
generally the most important source of information.
THE EAW PROCESS INVOLVES FOUR MAJOR STEPS:
STEP 1 - the proposer of the project supplies data necessary
for the completion of the EAW to the Responsible
Governmental Unit.
STEP 2 - The RGU prepares the EAW
STEP 3 - 30-day public comment period
.
STEP 4 - The RGU responds to the comments received and makes
a decision on the need for an EIB based on the EAW, comments
.
CR91-109
Page 3
recei ved, and the responses to the comments. The RGU and
other units of government may require modification to the
project to mitigate environmental impacts as disclosed
through the EAW process.
HOW IS IT DETERMINED WHAT GOVERNMENTAL UNIT IS THE RGU?
EQB rules assign responsibility for preparing the EAW and
determining the need for an EIS to a specific unit of
government call the IIResponsible Governmental unit" or
"RGU. n The RGU is generally the unit with the greatest
responsibility for approving or supervising the project.
For mandatory EAWs, the mandatory category in the EQB rules
assigns the RGU. For citizen petitions, the EQB Chair
designates the RGU. If a unit of government orders an EAW
on its own initiative, it becomes the RGU. A state agency
is always the RGU for projects it will conduct itself.
WHO PREPARES THE EAW AND WHO PAYS FOR ITS COSTS?
e
The project proposer is required to supply any data or
information requested by the RGU which is in his or her
possession or to which he or she has reasonable access I
while it is the duty of the RGU to complete the form.
PREPARATION OF THE EAW BY THE RGU
The RGU is legally responsible for the accuracy and
completeness of the information contained in the EAW. The
RGU is to assume the lead role in completing the EAW, not
the proposer, the RGU has the authority to decide what
Information should and should not be in the EAW. The RGU
should prepare the final EAW itself, using the submission
from the proposer as a source of information rather than as
the final text.
HOW MUCH INFORMATION IN ENOUGH?
The statutes defines an EAW to be a "brief document which is
designed to set out the basic facts necessary to determine
whether as EIS is required for a proposed action." Any
information which helps clarify the likelihood or level of
significance of a potential impact is useful in an EAW
because it helps the RGU make a better determination about
the need for a EIS.
.
.
CR91-109
Page 4
o
Has the staff addressed the questions in the EAW?
Many questions in the EAW are not applicable to this
project. The staff received help to complete this EAW from
the DNR, Benshoof and Associates (traffic consultants) and
the applicant. We believe that the questions have been
answered to the best of our knowledge. If the Council feels
more information should be provided in the EAW, the Council
should point this out to staff.
o What is the next step?
.
Once the EAW is complete, the EAW is submitted to the EQB
staff. This EAW serves as notification to the EQB staff to
publish the notice of availability of the EAW in the EQB
Monitor. At this time of submission of the EAW to the EQB
staff, the city shall also distribute one copy of the EAW to
other regulatory agencies. The 30-day comment period for
review and comment of the EAW shall begin the day the EAW
availability notice is published in the EQB Monitor.
Written comments are submitted to the city during the 30-day
review period. The comments shall 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.
The city may hold one or more public meetings to gather
comments on the EAW if it determines that a meeting is
necessary of useful.
.
"
.
e
.
\"
4{t" 2 ,~
~V\.. "'~.
j r
\iIi f;, ~
,~
- . ------ --
,y lC, ,,~ '
f~~LI).,
'\.. ......-
C\j .. .
c;:, r.
<:'I.,
. n-- -~~~. - ,
[~~~~'.:-i:). ~J~":"'" -
QUAUTY l"~, ,.J,
. ..~~'-
.\
,\
Date: March 22, 1991
CEr'l""D
RTi' T,' ~~,
_:.1 __ . -
[NYI!( -:;1~f!i~.HAI.
~ ~UA~I I Y B0A1U>
~. ,~ ~ .
" 1,)/
oj
To:
Environmental Quality Board
300 Centennial Office Building
658 Cedar Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
],1
_.) t
,.,V":
. . r..,'0'~'
-.~
From:
Minnehaha Oaks Subdivision
c/o Joey Carlson
928 Twelve Oaks Center
15500 Wayzata Blvd.
Wayzata, MN 55391
Phone:
Office
Horne
473-8890
935-1663
Project Location
A small tract in the city of Hopkins, Minnesota in the southwest corner of the
intersection of Cambridge Street and Hiawatha Avenue (see accompanying map)
Project Description
The proposed project consists of building twelve (12) townhouses on a site d,escribed by
Alan E. Olson, District Forester of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources as
follows.
"The city of Hopkins has a valuable resource in this woodlot although it is
not large it is unique as one of the only old oak woods of its type in the
city. When you think that the trees that make up this little forest were
seedlings not long after the American Civil War, I think there is a heritage
and a history that would be worth saving for the benefit of the people of
your city. There are programs at the Federal and State governmental levels
to plant trees to re-establish our forests, I think we need to save the trees
we already have especially in our urban environment."
More details are given in the attached March 16, 1991 letter from Mr. Olson outlining
additional information as to the environmental importance of the trees.
Whereas, the 1.54 acres forested plot (J.D. #19-117-21210001) bordering Hiawatha Ave.
contains 75 mature beautiful oak trees;
; ,
. Whereas, these 75 oak trees average 70-80 years old;
Where, the State of Minnesota is embarking on a 13.5 million dollar per year tree
planting program;
Whereas, the forested area adds life giving oxygen to the atmosphere;
Whereas, the trees utilize carbon dioxide by the photosynthetic process;
Whereas, carbon dioxide contributes to the greenhouse effect and its tendency to
increase the temperature of the global atmosphere;
Whereas, the global warming is undesirable;
Whereas, the forested area to be preserved is virgin timber;
Whereas, there are no oak trees in Central Park at 17th Avenue South in Hopkins;
Whereas, there are no oak trees in Oak Park at 900 Lake Street in Hopkins;
Whereas, there are no oak trees in Burns Park at 201 Park Lane in Hopkins;
.
Whereas, City Forester, Ray Vogtmann, considers the forested area an asset to the City
of H,opkins;
An important sound barrier would be destroyed by the removal of these trees for the
building of the proposed townhouses. In a memorandum -- May 14, 1974 Mr. John
Bergly, as a consulting planner for the city of Hopkins described forested area as follows:
"This strip of land is a very attractive amenity in the neighborhood and
serves as a buffer between the single family homes and the apartment
complex. The slope of the land and the mature trees as well as the
underbrush provide a visual as well as a physical separation between two
dissimilar densities,"
Whereas, destruction of the trees would eliminate a major and important sound barrier
between Trunk Highway No. 7 and the beautiful homes of Hiawatha Oaks Subdivision;
Whereas the destruction of the trees would destroy wildlife habitat and cause the
movement of resident or migratory animal species;
Whereas, the City of Hopkins is not planting young oak trees along the boulevards of the
Hopkins streets because trees of this variety do not flourish at such locations;
.
Whereas, construction of the several proposed townhouses will result in the loss of these
beautiful oak trees; and
. Whereas, the construction of the townhouses would result in the destruction of virtually
all the oak trees, resulting in greatly increased runoff to Minnehaha Creek, which already
reaches flood stages seriously damaging to several private homes along Hiawatha
Avenue;
We, the undersigned hereby petition under the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act of
1973 to review the major environmental impact of the proposed construction project.
DATE
NAME
ADDRESS (City and Zip Code)
<,7
. '.J _" I"
, :!~\ '.,., "',' ,,'\
(1 ;,
" 0/
..t. t..- L-- t./""'-l.-/l.""". .
L'~. -:.: ::. [L~ 7.' !~':: <.:: '.-; ( :: "
~i)-'-. f:,( ~_l.j.(/'L'-'
)\ "7i ~ '......_-'!c. ~. --.
t /', .' _" \ /,' . _ .
,
{( .;:=(>~-\
'-F \' / \ ;. _~~'.' ~ ..
[/1 \.
~.Z
l \-: L , "\ ,- .> --c; "I _S
. .,1,. ') 2/;: /
':J:: ~,A' /
Ii"'..:/. ..c "'("-c, (:t...... /L: -,,_,(, ".
, /
-' .r' /~ct:c;(t'"~,.t" - '.,.~::-</<~'.i'. " <>/j?/';
ll3 ') ! IL :' .,<!: l'f<.-c.... 1(' HoC,' ~):-J.;'} },. 5s..o'L(,;
I
,J ( ,/'
- .". [';" ~
~:J')-?~/3
.
- r I,
, . / ~'
~ . -;" . 'I I .
, '
,J..:. .
.) /'". ')
I'; J/, ~. '~J- ?<j~j
t(Jd/~ IA~(
~'i (\..) ~ s~..::: ( ---
.L" /) Z"r/ ~
L) . J 7' ~
.
:-:.', L} ('.\
.
e
.
Alan E. Olson
DNR-Forestry
219 E. Frontage Rd.
Waconia, MN 55387
Minnehaha Oaks Subdivision
C/O Joey Carlson
928 Twelve Oaks Center
15500 Wayzata Blvd
Wayzata, MN 55391
3/16/91
Dear Mr. Carlson:
This Letter 'is a follow up to our meeting of 3/14/91 with Mr.
Archie Carter. We discussed many positive benefits of trees
particularly trees in the urban environment. You described to me
the proposed Ramsgate Townhouse project. The issue that I was
asked to focus on was the benefits of maintaining the oak trees
next to Hiawatha Avenue rather than removing them for the proposed
development.
I visited the site after our meeting and this is what I found:
The site is a small west facing slope that has a hill at the south
end and a hill at the center sloping to the north. The property
is covered by trees and shrubs. The predominant tree species is
bur oak with two red elms and six large black cherry in the
overstory. There are also several cottonwoods located on the west
central side of the property. The understory consists mostly of
prickly ash,small black cherry and other shrub species. The bur
oak are the largest trees on the site with an average height of
fifty feet and average diameter of 20 inches. One tree that I took
a core sample from to determine age was 122 years old and still in
very good health.
The trees on the north end of the property are taller and larger in
diameter, this would be due to better growing conditions in that
location.
The benefits to the surrounding neighborhood and the city of
Hopkins to leave these trees;would be as follows:
Trees are well known producers of oxygen and users of carbon
dioxide. They will moderate the immediate environment around them
by cooling the air in the swnmer and slowing the wind in the
winter. They also cleanse the air of dirt and dust particles in the
summertime by their leaves. There is also benefits of wildlife
habitat, there are several nesting sites for birds and mammals in
this woods, and the tremendous aesthetic qualities available here.
.
.
.
The city of Hopkins has a valuable resource in this woodlot
although it is not large it is unique as one of the only old oak
woods of its type in the city. When you think that the trees that
make up this little forest were seedlings not long after the
American Civil War, I think there is a heritage and a history that
would be worth saving for the benefit of the people of your city.
There are programs at the Federal and state governmental levels to
plant trees to re-establish our forests, I think we need to save
the trees we already have especially in our urban environment.
Please contact my office for further assistance.
sincerely,
~ ~.w~
Alan E. Olson
DNR-Forestry
N//2 SEe /9. 7://7. R.2/
. ~-J
'.. ..
.... ~ .
'J,.. .,:\~ '1/.'
.f'~') L '<.~
'- .."....
'.::'.
.I.1~~
.. . ~a.J.'C.." 0. . IJI': ,# An
CITY O' l lOU'S PARA
cln Of O,,,,N$
. .. :::'.' '0..
~
.........-
"-
co
~-
, ..-&-
~'-_I
-,
. , .
L.".ID11
,,'I'l I.' I
CAtaBRIOGE
't= L ..".
"n'~ lOl~'
U .,
"U"Inot
zn
(,s,,)
I
~
..
....
~.
b
!"
r
..
4:" If
. ,.'!41.'
II:
'0
~'
.. ......
.. . .- ,,", .~
~. . ~ ~
,~."Bt~ ~ ,:~-'..
_ \~~'*. #Ir.)
--. '. .
10
'I
.
'I .1
I .. ,..
.
'I I . .' .1
l'~ ..
10 10 I
4.'''" fO
2' ..... 4
Z u~~ 11
'" "..~
a:
;)
as CD' n 2
Z ."
01 ~ 561
24 t > ..
t
..0
., ,
.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW)
Note To preparers
This worksheet is to be completed by the Responsible Governmental unit
(RGU) or its agents. The project proposer must supply any reasonably
accessible date necessary for the worksheet, but is not to complete the
final worksheet itself. If a complete answer does not fit in the space
allotted, attach additional sheets as necessary.
For assistance with this worksheet contact the Minnesota Environmental
Quality Board (EQB) at (612) 296-8253 or toll-free) 1-800-652-9747 (ask
operator for the EQB environmental review program) or consult "EAW
Guidelines," a booklet available from the EQB.
Note To Reviewers
Comments must be submitted to the RGU (see item 3) dur ing the 30 -day
comment period following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. (Contact
the RGU or the EQB to learn when the commend period ends.) Comments should
address the accuracy and completeness of the information, potential impacts
that may warrant further investigation, and the need for an EIS. If the
EAW has been prepared for the scoping of an EIS (see item 4), comments
should address the accuracy and completeness of the information and suggest
tltissues for investigation in the EIS.
1. project Title Ramsgate Townhomes
2. Proposer Mark Z. Jones
3. RGU
City of Hopkins
Contact person Ivan Mohner
Contact person Nancy Anderson
Address 5290 villa Way
Edina. MN 55436
and title
Planner
Address 1010 First street s.
Phone
925-1020
Hopkins
Phone 935-8474
4. Reason for EAW preparation
o EIS scoping 0 mandatory EAW
o Proposer volunteered
~citizen petition
o RGU discretion
If EAW or EIS is mandatory glve EQB rule category number(s)
5. Project Location
tit
N
1/2 NW
1/4 Section 19
Township 117
Range
21
County
Hennepin
CityjTWp
Hopkins
1
.
Attach copies of each of the following to the EAW:
a. a county map showing the general location of the project;
b. copy(ies) of USGS 7.5 minute,1:24,000 scale map (photocopy is OK)
indicating the project boundaries;
c. a site plan showing all significant project and natural features.
6. Description Give a complete description of the proposed project and
ancillary facilities (attach additional sheets as necessary). Emphasize
construction and operation methods and features that will cause physical
manipulation of the environment or produce wastes. Indicate the timing
and duration of construction activities.
Ramsgate Townhomes consists of twelve townhomes located in two six unit
buildings. The townhomes will be two story, three bedrooms with a two
car tuck-under garage. Surface parking for two additional vehicles will
be provided for on the double width driveway for a total of four parking
spaces per unit. Access will be from Cambridge street (to the north of
the site) rather than from Hiawatha Avenue.
The 1.534 acre site is located in the N.E. part of Hopkins. The north
boundary of the site abuts Cambridge street; Hiawatha Avenue forms part
of the east boundary except the south end that abuts a single family
residence; the south and west boundaries abut property owned by Ramsgate
Apartments. The site is located in the Minnehaha Creek watershed
District.
.
The buildings will be two story on the east elevation and three story to
the west with two car tuck-under garages on the west side. The project
when completed will have 52% of its total area covered by impervious
surfaces of buildings, with 48% of the site either in the natural state,
landscaped areas or in a water holding area required by Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District.
The project preparation will include tree removal and relocation of
5,000 yards of fill within the site. This project, if approved, is
expected to start during the fall of 1991 with completion in the
spring/summer 1992.
Provide a 50 or fewer word abstract for use ln EQB Monitor notice:
7. Project Magnitude Data
Total Project Area (acres) 1.534
Number of Residential Units
Unattached
or Length (miles)
.11
Attached
12
Commercial/Industrial/Institutional
Total
Indicate area of specific uses:
Office
Building Area (gross floor space)
square feet;
.
Manufacturing
Retail
Other Industrial
Warehouse
Institutional
2
.
Light Industrial
Agricultural
other Commercial (specify)
Building Height(s)
approximately 30 feet
8. permits and Approvals Required List all known local, state, and federal
permits, approvals, and funding required:
Unit of Government
Type of Application
status
Local - Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District
storm Water
Management
not submitted - waiting
for city approval
Local - City of Hopkins
Conditional Use
Building permit
Plat approval
Grading permit
Permit waiting on EAW
waiting on C.U.P. approval
waiting on C.U.P. approval
waiting on C.U.P. approval
.
9. Land Use Describe current and recent past land use and development on
the site and on adjacent lands. Discuss the compatibility of the
project with adjacent and nearby land uses; indicate whether any
potential conflicts involve environmental matters. Identify any
potential environmental hazard due to past land uses, such as soil
contamination or abandoned storage tanks.
The subject property is vacant and has always been a vacant parcel. The
adjacent property on the east, south and west is residential. To the
north is state Highway 7.
The site when developed will consist of 12 townhomes. The surrounding
area on three sides of the site is either high density residential or
single family homes. The proposed land use on the subject property is
compatible with the surrounding uses.
10. Cover Types Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the
following cover types before and after development (before and after
totals should be equal):
Before
After
Before
After
Types 2 to 8
Wetlands
Wooded/Forest
Brush/Grassland
Cropland
o
o
Urban/Suburban 0
Lawn Landscaping
Impervious Surface .38
Other (describe)
.734
1. 54
o
o
o
o
o
.80
.
3
.
11. Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources
a. Describe fish and wildlife resources on or near the site and discuss
how they would be affected by the project. Describe any measures to
be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts.
si te is only 1.534 acres and surrounded be developed land. In
observing the site there were no animals visible other than birds.
The site when developed will have 18 trees that will be retained and
106 other trees and shrubs will be planted.
b. Are there any state-listed endangered, threatened, or special-
concern species; rare plant communities; colonial waterbird nesting
colonies; native prairie or other rare habitat; or other sensitive
ecological resources on or near the site? D ~
Yes ANO
If yes, describe the resource and how it would be affected by the
project. Indicate if a site survey of the resources was conducted.
Describe measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts.
.
The site has about 70 oak trees, 6" and larger, the project will
require removal of about 52 of these trees, after the project is
completed 18 oak trees will remain along with some other existing
trees. New trees to be planted will be 23 deciduous, 18 evergreen,
and 88 other shrubs and evergreens.
12.
Physical Impacts on Water Resource will the project involve the
physical or hydrologic alteration (dredging, filling, stream diversion,
outfall structure, diking, impoundment) of any surface water (lake,
pond, wetland, stream, drainage ditch)? D ~
Yes A No
If yes, identify the water resource to be affected and describe: the
alteration, including the construction process; volumes of dredged or
fill material; area affected; length of stream diversion; water surface
area affected; timing and extent of fluctuations in water surface
elevations; spoils disposal sites; and proposed mitigation measures to
minimize impacts.
13. Water Use
a. will the project involve the installation or abandonment of any
wells? D g
Yes J=\NO
For abandoned wells give the location and Unique well number. For
new wells, or other previously unpermitted wells, give the location
and purpose of the well and the Unique well number (if known) .
.
b. will the project require an appropriation of ground or surface water
(including dewatering)? D g
Yes /9.. No
If yes, indicate the source, quantity, duration, purpose of the
appropriation, and DNR water appropriation permit number of any
existing appropriation. Discuss the impact of the appropriation on
ground water levels.
4
.
c. will the project require connection to a public water supply?
D Yes ~NO
If yes, identify the supply, the DNR water appropriation permit
number of the supply, and the quantity to be used.
No. Connection would be made indirectly to Minnehaha Creek. The
city's water supply comes from deep wells.
14. Water-related Land Use Management Districts Does any part of the
project site involve a shoreland zoning district, a delineated lOa-year
flood plan, or a state or federally designated wild or scenic river
land use district? IY(
DYes ANo
If yes, identify the district and discuss the compatibility of the
project with the land use restrictions of the district.
15. Water Surface Use will the project change the number or type of
watercraft on any water body? D ~
Yes P No
If yes, indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss
any potential overcrowding or conflicts with other users or fish and
wildlife resources.
.16.
Soils Approximate depth (in feet) to:
Ground water: minimum 3' to 711 average 1411
Bedrock: minimum unknown average beyond soil boring depths
Describe the soils on the site, giving SCS classifications, if known.
(SCS interpretations and soil boring logs need not be attached.)
SCSM - silty sandy clay
SM with CL - silty sand with seams of clay
SP - sand
SP - with CL - sand with seams of silty clay
SP with SM-SC - sand with some gravel seams of silty clay
17. Erosion and Sedimentation Give the acreage to be graded or excavated
and the cubic yards of soil to be moved:
acres 1.50 ; cubic yards 5000
Describe any steep slopes or highly erodible soils and identify them on
the site map.
Describe the erosion and sedimentation measures to be used during and
after construction of the project,
.
The existing slopes vary up to a 40% slope. (2-1/2: 1) The proposed
slopes will vary from 1% to 1: 1 slopes at the detention pond. The
steep slopes around the pond will be riprapped. other site slopes and
landscaped areas will be sodded. Erosion and sedimentation preventive
measures during and after construction will meet the requirements to
the City of Hopkins and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. These
measures will included silt fencing, straw bales and pond detention
areas for sedimentation removal.
5
.
Areas and volumes:
1.50 acres graded
+ 5,000 cul/ds earth graded
18. Water Quality - Surface Water Runoff
a. Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the
project. Describe methods to be used to manage and/or treat runoff.
Surface water runoff will be increased due to construction of the
townhomes and impervious surfaces. The increased runoff will be stored
1n the detention pond and released at pre-construction rates in
accordance with the rules of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
The detention pond will provide sedimentation removal and a skimmer
outlet structure will remove floatables from the ponded runoff.
b. Identify the route(s) and receiving water bodies for runoff from the
site. Estimate the impact of the runoff on the quality of the
receiving waters. (If the runoff may affect a lake consult "EAW
Guidelines" about whether a nutrient budget analysis is needed.)
The detention pond outlets to a MNDOT storm sewer which flows into
Minnehaha Creek. The impact on Minnehaha Creek will be
insignificant.
.
c. If wastes will be discharged into a sewer system or pretreatment
system, identify the system and discuss the ability of the system to
accept the volume and composition of the wastes. Identify any
improvements which will be necessary.
Sanitary discharge from this project is proposed to flow into an
existing sanitary main in Hiawatha Avenue that is over-capacity.
Some mains relocation are necessary and are in the planning stage.
20. Ground Water - Potential for contamination
a. Approximate depth (in feet) to ground water: 3'- 7' minimum;
14' average.
b. Describe any of the following site hazards to ground water and also
identify them on the site map: sinkholes; shallow limestone
formations/karst conditions; soils with high infiltration rates;
abandoned or unused wells. Describe measures to avoid or minimize
environmental problems due to any of these hazards.
NONE
c. Identify any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or present on
the project site and identify measures to be used to prevent them
from contaminating ground water.
NONE
.
6
.
21. Solid Wastes; Hazardous Wastes; Storage Tanks
a. Describe the types, amounts, and compositions of solid or hazardous
wastes to be generated, including animal manures, sludges and ashes.
Identify the method and location of disposal. For projects
generating municipal solid waste indicate if there will be a source
separation plan; list type(s) and how the project will be modified
to allow recycling.
Construction waste from 12 townhomes, the amount of waste would be
about 400 cubic yards. The construction waste would be disposed at
Oem-Con Landfill, Inc., 3601 West 130th street Louisville Township.
b. Indicate the number, location, size, and use of any above or below
ground tanks to be used for storage of petroleum products or other
materials (except water).
NONE
.
22. Traffic Parking spaces added Existing spaces (if project
involves expansion) Estimated total Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
generated Estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated (if
known) and its timing: , For each affected road indicate
the ADT and the directional distribution of traffic with and without
the project. Provide an estimate of the impact on traffic congestion
on the affected roads and describe any traffic improvements which will
be necessary.
NOT COMPLETE
23. VehiCle-related air emissions Provide an estimate of the effect of the
project's traffic generation on air quality, including carbon monoxide
levels. Discuss the effect of traffic improvements or other mitigation
measures on air quality impacts. (If the project involves 500 or more
parking spaces, consult "EAW Guidelines" about whether a detailed air
quality analysis is needed.)
NOT COMPLETE
24. Stationary source air emissions will the project involve any
stationary sources of air emissions (such as boilers or exhaust
stacks) ? d1 0
~ Yes No
If yes, describe the sources, quantities, and composition of the
emissions; the proposed air pollution control devices; the quantities
and composition of the emissions after treatment; and the effects on
air quality.
,
Each townhome will be heated with a gas forced air furnace that will
have a chimney flue exhausting through the roof area.
7
.
.
.
25. Will the project generate dust, odors, or noise during construction
and/or operation? ~ D
~ Yes No
If yes, describe the sources, characteristics, duration, and quantities
or intensity, and any proposed measures to mitigate adverse impacts.
Also identify the locations of sensitive receptors in the vicinity and
estimate the impacts on these receptors.
A minor amount of dust may be generated during grading and
construction. Grading will take place during the fall months, with
most construction being during the winter months. During operation
noise level would be that normal for habitiational dwellings
26.
Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site:
a. archaeological, historical, or architectural resources? D ~
Yes .l:\.J No
DYes IRI No
DYes IRI No
DYes ~NO
~Yes DNo
If any items are answered Yes, describe the resource and identify
any impacts on the resource due to the project. Describe any
measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts.
b. prime or unique farmlands?
c. designated parks, recreation areas, or trails?
d. scenic views and vistas?
e. other unique resources?
The site has about 70 oak trees 6" and larger, 18 of the existing oaks will
remain after construction. Many new plantings will also be added.
27.
Will the project create adverse visual impacts? (Examples include:
glare from intense lights; lights visible in wilderness areas; and
large visible plumes from cooling towers or exhaust stacks.)
DYes ~NO
If yes, explain.
28.
Compatibility with plans Is the project subject to an adopted local
comprehensive land use plan or any other applicable land use, water, or
resource management plan of an local, regional, state, or federal
agency? I\Ir D
~ Yes No
If yes, identify the applicable planes), discuss the compatibility of
the project with the provisions of the plan(s), and explain how any
conflicts between the project and the planes) will be resolved. If no,
explain.
The Comprehensive Plan for the City of Hopkins has designated the
subject property as high density residential. The proposed plan has
significantly less density than that allowed in the Comprehensive Plan.
8
.
29. Impact on Infrastructure and PUblic services Will new or expanded
utilities, roads, other infrastructure, or public services be required
to serve the project??n D
o Yes No
If yes, describe the new or additional infrastructure/services needed.
(Any infrastructure that is a "connected action" with respect to the
project must be assessed in this EAW; see "EAW Guidelines" for
details.)
Roadway and watermain utilities will not need to be expanded. other
discharge points on the sanitary sewer system will need to be served
off a realigned sanitary main to address a pre-existing problem of
over-capacity. Approximately 660 feet of new sewer will be necessary.
30. Related Developments; CumUlative Impacts
a. Are future stages of this development planned or likely?
DYes ij No
If yes, briefly describe future stages, their timing, and plans for
environmental review,
b. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project?
DYes ~NO
c. Is other development anticipated on adjacent lands or outlots?
.
D Yes ~ No
If yes, briefly describe the development and its relationship to the
present project.
d. If a, b, or c were marked Yes, discuss any cumulative environmental
impacts resulting from this project and the other development.
31. Other Potential Environmental Impacts If the project may cause any
adverse environmental impacts which were not addressed by items 1 to
28, identify and discuss them here, along with any proposed mitigation.
32. summary of Issues (This section need not .be completed if the EAW is
being done for EIS scoping; instead, address relevant issues in the
draft Scoping Decision document which must accompany the EAW.) List
any impacts and issues identified above that may require further
investigation before the project is commenced. Discuss any
alternatives or mitigative measures that have been or may be considered
for these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be
ordered as permit conditions.
.
This development consists of the construction of 12 townhomes and a
parking lot for 32 cars. There is parking on the site now, but it will
be moved to the south end of the site. The development will remove
most of the existing trees on the site. 18 trees will be retained plus
129 new plantings will be added to replace the plantings removed.
9
.
.C.
,
The sanitary sewer is in the planning stages of being re-routed to fix
an existing problem of over-capacity,
NOT COMPLETE
CERTIFICATIONS BY THE RGU K(ALL 3 CERTIFICATIONS MUST BE SIGNED FOR EQB
ACCEPTANCE OF THE EAW FOR PUBLICATION OF NOTICE IN THE EOB MONITOR)
A.
I hereby certify that the information contained in this document is
accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge.
Signature
B.
I hereby certify that the project described in this EAW is the complete
project and there are no other projects, project stages, or project
components, other than those described in this document, which are
related to the project as "connected actions" or "phased actions," as
defined, respectively, at Minn. Rules, pts. 4410.0200, subp. 9b and
subp. 60.
Signature
I hereby certify that copies of the completed EAW are being sent to all
points on the official EQB EAW distribution list.
Signature
Title of signer
Date
10
.
CITY OF HOPKINS
RESOLUTION NO. 91-65
APPOINTMENT OF LEE GUSTAFSON AS CITY ENGINEER
WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary to appoint a
new city Engineer as required by Minnesota Statutes.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the
City of Hopkins, Minesota, that Lee Gustafson be duly appointed
as City Engineer for the city of Hopkins.
Adopted by the city Council of the City of Hopkins this 7th day
of May, 1991.
BY
Nelson W, Berg, Mayor
. ATTEST:
City Clerk
.