Loading...
CR 91-150 EAW - Ramsgate Townhomes� o July 10, 1991 tioP �5 Council Report 91 -150 EAW - RAMSGATE TOWNHOMES Proposed Action. Staff recommends the following motion: Move to adopt Resolution 91 -91 determining that there are no significant environmental impacts and Environmental Impact Statement is not required to be completed for the Ramsgate Townhomes Overview Mark Jones has applied for a conditional use permit to construct 12 townhomes on the southwest corner of Hiawatha Avenue and Cambridge Street. On March 26, 1991 the Zoning and Planning Commission recommended approval of the Ramsgate Townhomes. On March 28, 1991 the City received a petition to complete an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Ramsgate Townhomes. At the April 2, 1991 City Council meeting the 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 Minnehaha Creek. If the townhomes had not been within 300 feet of the creek, the project would have been exempt from an EAW. The 30 day written comment period for the EAW began on May 27, 1991 and expired on June 26, 1991. The purpose of the 30 day comment period is to allow persons or governmental agencies to 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. A representative at the Environmental Quality Board (E.Q.B.) did state that this is the first time an EAW has been done for this small size of development. As a result an E.I.S. has never been done for this size of project. Primary Issue to Consider. • What were the comments during the 30 comment period? • What is the staff conclusion as relates to the comments received? o What is an E.A.W.. and an E.I.S.? o What is the background for this E.A.W.? o What is.the project and site description? o What agencies /individuals submitted written comments? 0 Supporting Documents. o EAW o Resolution 91 -91 cci A. Nancy S. Anderson Planner • o What is -an E.A.W. and an E.I.S.? An EAW is def fined 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 an 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) response 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 (RGU). The RGU in this situation is the City of Hopkins. 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 EIS based on the EAW, comments received, 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. Standard and Criteria for the Decision of the need for an EIS. The standard for the decision is: " Does the project have the potential for significant environmental effects ?" In answering this question the' City must compare the impacts which may be reasonably expected to occur from the project with the following criteria: 1. Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects. 2. Cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects. 3. The extent to which environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority. • f 4. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other environmental studies undertaken by other public agencies or the project proposer, or of environmental impact statements previously prepared on similar projects. Purpose of a EIS if ordered n • The purpose of an EIS is to provide information for governmental units, the proposer of the project, and other persons to evaluate proposed projects which have the potential for significant environmental effects, to consider alternatives to the proposed project, and to explore methods for reducing adverse environmental affects. An E.I.S. has never been done for a project of this type. An E.I.S. can take many months and can be costly because of the data that needs to be. collected. The proposer of the project generally pays the costs for an E.I.S.. o What is the background for this E.A.W.? Chronology of Events 1. March 26, 1991 - Zoning and Planning Commission approves conditional use permit to construct 12 townhomes. 2. March 28, 1991 - petition for an EAW received for Ramsgate Townhomes 3. April 2, 1991 - City Council ordered preparation and submission of E.A.W. 4. May 17, 1991 - E.A.W. distributed to required agencies 5. May 29, 1991 - Notice of E.A.W. availability published in local newspaper 6. May 27, 1991 - Notice of E.A.W. availability published in E.Q.B. Monitor. Beginning of 30 day comment period. 7. June 26, 1991 - Expiration of 30 day comment period. o What is the project site and description? A. Project Name - Ramsgate Townhomes B. Proposer - Mark C. Jones C. Project Location - Southwest corner of Hiawatha Avenue and Cambridge Street V D.' Reason for E.A.W. preparation - discretionary E. Total Project Area - 1.54 acres F. Number of proposed residential units - 12 G. Brief description of site - The property in question is undeveloped. The property currently is a wooded site. The site is surrounded by multifamily residential to the west, single family homes to the south and east and State Highway 7 to the north. H. Brief description of the project - 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 rather than from Hiawatha Avenue. o What agencies /indivduals submitted written comments? Written comments were received from four indivdual /agencies. The written comments were received from the following: - State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources - Metropolitan Council - Larry McNeff, Hopkins resident - Minnesota Historical Society o What were the comments received during the 30 day comment period? A. Historical, Archaeological, etc. o Comments - Comments received through the E.A.W. process indicated that the project contained, no known historic or archaeological sites. Comments also indicated if federal funding were involved in the project in some way, that certain additional review requirements may be necessary. These comments were received by the Minnesota Historical Society. o Response - In response to these comments, the City will inform the developer that if the developer receives federal assistance for the project, the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation "Act of 1966 and 36CFR800 must be met by the developer. • B. Cover Types. There was an error made on the cover types for before and after the development. The correct totals are as follows: Wooded Forest Urban /suburban lawn landscaping Impervious surface As stated in EAW Correct Figures before after before after 1.54 0 1.16 0 0 .734 0 .734 .38 .80 .38 .80 This change does not have any significant impact on the conclusion of the EAW. C. Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources o Comments - Comments received through the E.A.W. process by Larry,McNeff indicated there are other small animals on the site. o Response - There may be other animals on the site. However in the staffs observations there were no other animals visible other than birds. o Comments - Comments received through the E.A.W. process by Larry McNeff indicated a concern for the trees being removed. o Response - The proposed development is proposed to retain 18 oak trees. There will be 23 new deciduous, 18 evergreen, and 88 other shrubs planted to replace the trees removed. The proposed trees retained and planted exceed the ordinance requirements. o Comments - The DNR noted that if there is damage to the roots or bark of the remaining oak trees, it may result in their eventual loss. D. Physical Impacts on Water Resource. o Comments - Comments received through the E.A.W. process by Larry McNeff expressed a concern about the impact of the project to the drainage ditch along Highway 7. o Response - The increased runoff will be stored in the retention pond and released at pre - construction rates in accordance with the rules of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. E. Water 4uality - Surface Water Runoff. This project will generate storm water runoff which will be served in large part by a retention pond proposed to be located on the north end of the site. This water will be released at pre- construction rates. o Comments - Comments received through the E.A.W. process by Larry McNeff expressed a concern for the history of flooding in the area. o Response - Dale Folen of RCM has reviewed the site plan for the Ramsgate Townhomes. In a letter dated March 26, 1991 he stated the following "The proposed pond will hold the expected increased runoff use to development and replace the volume of the existing local low area which would be filled be construction." F. Sanitary Sewer. The proposed development will generate approximately 3000 gallons of domestic waste sewage per day. This waste will flow into an existing sanitary main in Hiawatha Avenue which in turn is connected to the 33" MWCC Hopkins Interceptor. o Comments - Comments received through the E.A.W. process by Larry McNeff indicate sewer problems in the area. o Response - In response to these comments, the City proposed to reroute the existing sanitary flow from the Ramsgate Apartments to a new connection. This will remove the Ramsgate flow from the Hiawatha system to alleviate any existing or future problems. This will remove 360 units from the Hiawatha system and add the 12 townhomes. The City has initiated a project to correct existing sanitary sewer capacity problems along Hiawatha Avenue. However, this project has been put on hold due to the fact that the City has not been able to obtain up to this point the necessary easements form Ramsgate Apartment to allow for the extension of a new line. G. Metropolitan Council The E.A.W. was reviewed by the Metropolitan Council staff. The staff determined the following: "The staff review has concluded that the EAW is complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns and raises no major issues of consistency with Council policies. An EIS is not necessary for regional purposes. H: Traffic o Comments - Comments received through the E.A.W. process indicate that 144 -288 trips will be generated. This number of trips was estimated by Larry McNeff. o Response - Benshoof and Associates studied the traffic for the proposed development. It was estimated that an additional 108 trips will be'generated by the proposal. I. Vehicle - related ai emissions o Comments - Comments received through the E.A.W. process by Larry McNeff indicated that it is not necessary to have traffic congestion to cause a significant decrease in air quality. o Response - The . E.A.W. only addresses air quality due to traffic congestion. Since there is no expected traffic congestion with this project, (based upon findings from the traffic study) there is no expected decrease in air quality. o What are staff's conclusions as related to the comments received? The staff feels the EAW document adequately address all of the environmental issues as relates ' , to this project. The comments that were received did not ring up any issues that have not been addressed in the EAW. Based upon the findings of the EAW, the staff does not feel that the project will create any significant environmental impacts. Alternatives. 1. Approve the resolution determining there are no significant environmental impacts and that an E.I.S. is not needed. Under this action the project can proceed provided all necessary permits and approvals are secured. 2. Make`a finding that there is significant environmental impacts. Such a determination will require that an E.I.S. is needed for the project. An E.I.S. will have to be completed before the project is approved. 3. Continue for further information. If the City M Council indicates more information is needed, the item should be continued. The City Council can hold a public a hearing to gather more information. By E.Q.B. rules this must be done by July 26, 1991. • ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) Not 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) during the 30 -day comment period following notice 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 * issues for investigation in the EIS. I. Project Title _Ramsgate Townhomes 2. Proposer Mark Z Jones. Contact person Ivan Nohner Address Villa Way Edina, MN 55436 ; Phone 925 -1020 3. RGU City of Hopkins Contact person Nancy Anderson and title Planner Address 1010 First S treet S. Hopkins Phone 935 -8474 4: Reason for EAW Preparation 0 EIS scoping El mandatory EAW 0 Proposer volunteered 19, citizen petition EI RGU discretion If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category number(s) 5. Proj ct Location -N 1/2 NW 1/4 Section 19 Townshi 117 Range 21 County Hennepin City /T 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. D scription 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 the west with two car tuck -under garages on when completed will have 52% of its total surfaces of buildings, with 48% of the site landscaped areas or in a water holding area Watershed District. elevation and three story to the west side. The project area covered by impervious either in the natural state, required by Minnehaha Creek 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. 7. Project Magnitude Data Total•Project Area (acres) 1.534 Number of Residential Units Unattached or Length (miles) Attached 12 Commercial /Industrial /Institutional Total Indicate area of specific uses: Office Retail Warehouse Building Area (gross floor space) square feet; Manufacturing Other Industrial Institutional 2 0 Light Industrial Other Commercial (specify) Agricultural Building Height(s) approximately 30 feet S. Permits and Approvals Required List all known local, state, and federal permits, approvals, and funding required: Unit of Government Type of Application Status MNDOT Utility Permit on trunk done during construction Highway right -of -way Local - Minnehaha Creek Storm Water not submitted - waiting Watershed District Management for City approval Local - City of Hopkins Conditional Use Permit waiting on EAW Building permit waiting on C.U.P., approval Plat approval waiting on C.U.P. approval Grading permit 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 and south are single family homes. The property to the west is multiple family. To the north is State Highway 7. The site when developed will consist of 12 townhomes, two six unit buildings. 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 serves as a transition from high density multiple family to single family. 10. Cov r 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 0 0 Urban /Suburban 0 .734 Wetlands Lawn Landscaping Wooded /Forest 1.54 0 Impervious Surface .38 .80 Brush /Grassland O 0 Other (describe) ropland 0 0 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. Site is 1.534 acres and surrounded by 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? 0 Yes ® No 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)? Yes 0 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? Yes 0 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)? Yes IRNo 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 Ll o. Will the "project require connection to a public water supply? NYes 11 no If yes, identify the supply, the DNR water appropriation permit \ number of the supply, and the quantity to be used. Yes. Connection - will be made to the municipal water supply," specifically well #5. The Minnesota Department of Conservation permit number issued December 12, 1967, is 67- 1287G. The water usage per day for this development is estimated to be 4320 gallons. 14. Water- related Land Use Management Districts Does any part of the project site involve a shoreland,zoning district, a delineated 100 -year flood plan, or a state or federally designated wild or scenic river land use district? OYes �No If yes, identify the district and discuss the compatibility of the project with the land use restrictions of the district. 15. Wat r Surface Use Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body? 0 Yes N 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 V average 14' 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 retention pond. The steep 'slopes around the pond will be riprapped." - Other site slopes and 0 landscaped areas will be sodded. Erosion and sedimentation preventive 5 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 retention areas for sedimentation removal. 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 in the retention pond and released at pre - construction rates 'in accordance -with the rules of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The retention pond will provide sedimentation 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 retention pond outlets to a MNDOT storm sewer which flows into Minnehaha Creek. The runoff from the subject site will be stored'in the retention pond and released at pre - construction rates in accordance with the rules of the Minnehaha -Creek Watershed District. 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 which in turn is connected to the 33" MWCC Hopkins Interceptor., The estimated waste generated per unit per day is 250 gallons. The existing sewer, main in Hiawatha has been identified as having capacity problems. Currently, the average day sanitary sewer flows in the sewer main in Hiawatha Avenue that .would serve the proposed development are approximately 88% of the capacity of the system and the introduction of additional flows from 12, townhouse units would raise the percentage to 90 %. Of greater ' concern are the peak hour flows. Current peak hour flows are approximately 2.3 times the capacity of the existing system. With the additional 12 units, this factor would approach 2.4 times. Although no significant problems have appeared in - the system during normal operation, during . -- significant rainfalls there have been reports of serious backups from homeowners of lower properties in the area. The City has chosen a solution to capacity problems by rerouting a portion of the existing flow to a new connection with the 33" MWCC Hopkins Interceptor. More specifically this involves removing all of the current sanitary sewer flow from the Ramsgate Apartments from the Hiawatha Avenue system. This would require 200 feet of existing 8 -inch sanitary sewer to be relaid and the additional installation of 460 feet of new 8 -inch sanitary to its connection with the 33" interceptor located near the Ramsgate Apartments in Lake Street N.E. Elimination of these flows from the Hiawatha Avenue system would decrease flow rates at critical flat grade locations in Hiawatha Avenue to levels compatible with system capacity. The connection of the proposed townhouse units to the Hiawatha Avenue sanitary sewer could then be permitted. 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 21. Solid Wastes; Hazardous Wastes; Storage Tanks a. Describe the types, amounts, and compositions of solid or hazardous wastes to be generated,• 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 Dem -Con Landfill, Inc., 3601 West 130th Street Louisville Township. Normal household waste generated will be handled by the City garbage service. The City contracts with Reuter to dispose of the City garbage. Reuter processes the garbage for various uses. This garbage does not going a landfill. Approximately 781 pounds of garbage is generated per person per year. 7 • 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 24 Existing spaces (if project involves expansion) Estimated total Average Daily Traffic (ADT) generated 108 Estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated (if known) and its timing: a.m. 10, p.m. 11 . 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 necessary. Based on the relationship of the proposed development to the roadway system it -is estimated that about 108 daily trips would be generated by the development. About 80 percent of the 108 trips (87) trips will use Cambridge Street, east of the site, 15 percent (16 trips) will use Cambridge Street, west of the site, and 5 percent (5 trips) will use Hiawatha Avenue Accounting for existing and development trips, the resultant total volumes on Cambridge Street and Hiawatha Avenue are as follows: EXISTING DAILY POST - DEVELOPMENT LOCATION VOLUME DAILY VOLUME Cambridge St. east of Hiawatha Avenue 2480 2567 Hiawatha Avenue south of Cambridge 85 90 In view of the relatively.pmall increase in'both daily and peak period traffic volumes expected to result from the Ramsgate Townhomes development, the development will not adversely affect traffic flow on nearby roadways. See attached memo from Benshoof & Associates, Inc. 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.) Since there is no expected traffic congestion due to this project, this project will not cause any significant decrease in air quality. 0 8 24. Stationary source air emissions Will the project involve any stationary sources of air emissions (such as boilers or exhaust stacks)? Yes 11 ,40 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. 25. Will the project generate dust, odors; or noise during construction and /or operation? 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. Due to the small size of the project 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 habitational dwellings 26. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site: a. archaeological, historical, or architectural resources? Y s ® No b. prime or unique farmlands? DY s no c. designated parks, recreation areas, or trails? 0 Yes � No d. scenic views and vistas; 0 Yes rJ No e. other unique resources? 0Y s NO 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. 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. See answer to illy regarding the number of trees and other plantings added to the site. 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.) ,[] Yes IR No If yes, explain. D 28. Compatibility with comprehensive land resource management agency? ®Yes ONO If yes, identify the applicable plan(s), discuss the compatibility the project with the provisions of the plan(s), and explain how any conflicts between the project and the plan(s) will be resolved. If explain. of no, 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. The zoning on the subject site is R -2 (low density multiple family). The proposed project is a permitted use within the zoning district. 29. Impact on Infrastructure and Public services Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure, or public services be required to serve the project? Yes Ono 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 Guidelines" for details.) Roadway and watermain utilities will not need to be expanded. Because of the current parking restrictions the current roadway width of 22 feet can adequately accommodate the expected post - development traffic and provide sufficient access for emergency vehicles. It should be noted that this observation is valid only if the parking restriction along Hiawatha Avenue remains in place. a 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? 0 Yes R 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? El Yes ® No c. Is other development anticipated on adjacent lands or outlots? DY s 9 n If yes, briefly describe the development and its relationship to the is present project. plans Is the project subject to an adopted local use plan or any other applicable land use, water, or plan of an local, regional, state, or federal 10 d. If a, b, or c were marked Y s, discuss any cumulative environmental impacts resulting from this project and the other development. In 1969 the building plans for the adjacent apartment complex identified this area for townhomes. In 1972 a conditional use permit was granted for 22 townhomes, these townhomes were never constructed. 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. NONE 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 24 cars. There is parking on the subject site now which 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. There currently exists an over - capacity problem with the sanitary sewer in the area. However, the ganitary sewer is in the planning stages of being're- routed to fix thisi existing problem. The surface water runoff will be increased due to the construction of the townhomes and the impervious surfaces. The increase runoff will be stored in the retention pond located on the north side of the site will be released at pre- construction levels. The impact on Minnehaha Creek will be insignificant. The impact to the roadways has been reviewed. Because of the small increase in traffic it has been determined that there will be no affect on the traffic flow on the nearby roadways. It also has been determined that Hiawatha will not have to be widened given there are parking restrictions along Hiawatha. 11 A CERTIFICATIONS BY THE RGU (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 a comple "o best of my knowledge. Signature p 1 pnTIOy� 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, 11 as defined, respectively, at Minn. Rules, pts. 4410.0200, subp. 9b and subp. 60. Signature q) =�_ �r C. I hereby certify that copies of. the completed EAW are being sent to all points on e of 1 QB EAW distribution list. Signature Title of signer U �)IQpW A - Date ID lil M • 12 N w E s Cw7m, iii _� `� HENNEPIN COUNTY Minn sota Legend ea T ��j r� O m ,�� O tea. k, .0 L' =. r�' t 1��1 �� l� ' • r l �� �� ���� 9 v l� .9 0 Tangl Sch no V1R IN Ql� � � 1 _ f f U - l(j; I \\) jmq ) opkina N r NIB SC • .i, f l � ie j :: ;th q ) � (���t�� t ,� j, �' o a �7/ •' `rl ' � S V • ER g GlaYOl�PIt Plc �` 'V f �,•� L �j N !'._sr �/ �" 32 „1 ;•' ©•. ° �`� NG m 917 r =te / // I ) I / • \•, I � 10 - , I ` C 1� 9uils •h ... �: / lira el /.:;.• �"� 1 �'�Il > •• •.e• Aquila Park lt r �� �e _ ' ~-• t ' � L- �I \ ' / �S � w J3D �- -- l J � �� /i _ — / "`,' ( n• �I — r`� " • `� • 1 V 1 C = - - y1 [. , y r j a _ 1 1• I ( II( 11 1 �'W J H _ / ( __ 1 I/1 W fl' 111 tOr�k IL 1 I. ••� ` fl 950 �, �l,��L� : ;I ; � �: - :� I C. � � ) TanFie! I ���;,�: ' � ° .� _ • "�•• �•• f•1 " '• --��� �.� �7/••• o•� _ ���(��) l �C�� %� I , � ar \ti K sr rk f �a��f ( . �� �• '��.,••� t ,\ (� Q u ( �) v --� ` =�,` n > A Till OP 9",g S 11 hj1 t� )) �Shop�' Q (� ) ` Ja �r J '( ; �q Sj Center -� L �: J f a 2, ,!• .�' v, �. /• J: �.. �•- - Oalf.Rr 0 nlr lub f - 1 1'• 1 _, r � �'�' LED 20 t - � %�.� ..� ' _,• `• i � _ t� •:S1L '' �- v t� --, '- -4�, � -� -�• � -- - �: o i � ••� .) � 1' I(7 •\��• �'' � —'"_ _ ��• • �06 � u •� �%_ _ - - = v . � Jp 1 I � r � � b o o r .� a� , � ., f )�M� 0� \ ti = w ( c'•�vl I) �'p 11� 8 (� 19 � Q f1 aZ I _ ?,�\ •, /' ,oll • _ ` ` .W � i � w (n� — �� i— gyp....• ��\,�\1 J`;,� � r ` •;`•.�' ,� `y,\ - �'Jrlf Ch h t t - 5 b q�i.. •" i... , qq 'I' - - h 1 I A E tl, �' .. •(L / 1� � .h 1 —_ o �•�' / _ LA E 9e , (� 0 � ; i ( .; Cu en ch r Po iO is , f�" 1 v / w 1 k I • `t � I _ �� Y �is�'sr a � ' \ ( la 1 ..\ ao D � �r •.•- `• �� � K "i n, Ina ;( 4i - — •� �Q ' _ � - Ex Ee ;� � �r< �� a - � � �..� �• �, A. wry• 30 � S e 7" \ ® �S s u •-rte -- -= n ml - - LJ j tl ;• I ar e (i ° I �n � ,� I f 6 e y C vo ..c92 9( 7 .� `1 l__J : :i> i _ l :..f • � °; '� � ,1 u �/1` � 1 �� . � / i `•V' , (.1 r 1��J 4 . 1 / LTn srH sr l , ` l� �,•- ;1 • °� Hagan e �11�� �Il�_ �� • �o Il ~ •? '4�q�(R�� I 1 N • C ° Club '� �• �,• � � �/) 1 �. �' : •, : ; � f • � � till , � ��1� . �� �� \<< J \: �' � � •� ) _� ' ��n\ _ II • .'•) ' � I ' O -, Oak (.`_ I it . ! �' ' 1 � • 4 i :� � � ` S f \ � / / . C ♦ ,•. /• \ Shady Shady a 41S 1 a ) 1 t!• l i /I��. � \ III \ d I• v Shady S Cl (0, l�la j � ,1 l yr es . 1 S 9i. Luke . I'r'.I i Q)>i o ��'( „'� p � 1 '�', °', • L ' 1 X 11 -� '” \! o" i' (�,) ��D i 2 �,:� �\ �.I , f•,t'I 9 it •� .\ . \ I � i i i'�� i 928 ,k - - -- 2! \ �� �• i '\ — ��,.,, tom. -- . #'. !'J.,1 I —a, ----- - - - - -- -- � -- - -- r --„� — — •� -. t., =�•c ,• "'• - W � r�aroeto m.. 'r nor H I A W A T H A A V ammo m• E. • ^' ,r , .w w t DETENTION r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 STORM r! �+ o PONDMRUNOF r — —, _ 9 10 11 12 IN 1 < _ y' �tr•au� ewS � LOT 1 GISEWENT 4 SIGN — E1SEUCM -- N. MYP R ML IMpK l0� EXIST. GARAGES KEY N 0 20 40 60 so too EXIST. TREES (RETAIN IF POSSIBLE) 900 FIRST FLOOR ELEVATION 900 BASEMENT ELEVATION 900 GARAGE ELEVATION I PARKING I LOT 2 APT. DATA LESS 10' R.O.W. 3/91 (4850 S 0RIGINAL SITE AREA 67,130 SF 62.280 SF NET LOT -I NORTH SITE 54,065 SFI 49.215 SF RAMS GA TE LOT 2 SOUTH SITE :3.065 SF 13.065 SF PROPOSED USE RAMSGATE TOWNHOUSES NORTH LOT 1 12 TOWNHOUSES to no sr . 4Lm s tos) HOPKINS, MINNESOTA 12 TWO CAR TUCK UNDER GARAGES 24 SURFACE SPACES SITE PLAN SOUTH LOT 2 - SURFACE PARKING 24 CARS r.m • ii uj 03 H IAWAT HA x 9zz ------------- 96 6 ,o d oll, 91Z. 910 90 9,0 ve ............ r..• ..•... 9 th.1-g L.. -id ­,j -h :d 111*1 N t. f�K to went o[ RuW`:e. lne+eet.ple tit Mrt nf �u.rr,t.. ntn pl.t • mum."Zom W 1231-D L4XDSLMVZTDB&W- BMW,. F.0 BOUNDARY Bi TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY i PRFL4RE2 cOR MARK Z. )ONES a ASSOCIATES BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, SUITE 119/ EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 553441(612) 9447590 / FAX (612) 944.9322 May 8, 1991 REFER TO FILE: 91 -12 MEMORANDUM TO: Nancy Anderson, City of Ho FROM: James A. Benshoof & David innegan RE: Response to Question 22, EAW for Ramsgate Townhouses PURPOSE The purpose of this memorandum is to present the results of a study you requested regarding the Ramsgate Townhouses development. Specifically, it provides responses to Question 22 of an EAW being prepared for the development which will be located at the southwest corner of Cambridge St. and Hiawatha Ave. in the City of Hopkins. It is our understanding that the project will involve the construction of 12 townhouses just east of the existing Ramsgate Apartment Complex. To provide adequate responses to the requirements of Question 22, the focus of our study includes the number of on -site parking spaces provided, the estimated average daily and peak period traffic volumes generated by the development, the effect of these traffic volumes on nearby roadways, and any traffic improvements necessary to address such effects. PARKING SPACES As shown in the proposed Ramsgate Townhouses site plan, a total of 48 parking spaces, will be provided to serve residents and guests. Of this total, 24 will be provided in 12 two -car garages located beneath the townhouses and 24 will be surface parking spaces located along the west edge of the site. TRAFFIC VOLUMES To gain a better understanding of current traffic conditions near the Ramsgate Townhouses site, existing daily traffic volume counts were conducted by City of Hopkins staff during the period April 26 -30, 1991. These counts were taken on Cambridge St., just east of Hiawatha Ave., and on Hiawatha Ave., just south of Cambridge St. It is expected that any impacts related to traffic generated by this development will occur mainly on these roadways. Ms. Anderson -2- May 8, 1991 In order to identify changes in traffic volumes `on nearby roadways, an estimate of site - generated traffic volumes must be established. As such, trip generation analyses were conducted for the development using rates found in the Institute of Transportation Engineers publication, Trip Generation 1991. Applying these rates to the proposed development of 12 townhouses, the resultant trip generation projections are as follows: Trips Generated by Ramsgate Townhouses Development TIME PERIOD IN OUT TOTAL A.M. Peak Hour 2 8 10 P.M. Peak Hour 7 4 11 Daily 54 54 108 Based on the relationship of the proposed development to the roadway system it is our expectation that about 108 daily trips would be generated by the development. In our judgement, about 80 percent of the 108 total trips (87 trips) will use Cambridge St. east of the site, 15 percent (16 trips) will use Cambridge St. west of the site, and 5 percent (5 trips) will use Hiawatha Ave. Accounting for existing and development trips, the resultant total volumes on Cambridge St. and Hiawatha Ave. are as follows: EXISTING DAILY POST - DEVELOPMENT LOCATION V LUME DAILY VOLUME Cambridge St. east of Hiawatha Ave. 2480 2567 Hiawatha Ave. south of Cambridge St. 85 90 EFFECTS ON NEARBY ROADWAYS In view of the relatively small increase in both daily and peak period traffic volumes expected to result from the Ramsgate Townhouses development, it is our judgement that the development will not adversely affect traffic flow on nearby roadways. Cambridge St. has ample capacity to accommodate the expected 3.5 percent increase in daily traffic volumes. The presently low volume on Hiawatha Ave. will not be significantly altered because no parking or access for the development will be provided on Hiawatha Ave. Given the above findings, we have determined that no improvements to the roadway syystem will be needed in order to effectively accommodate traffic generated by the proposed development. An additional concern regarding available roadway width on Hiawatha Ave. was also addressed. It is our understanding that on- street parking recently has been restricted along Hiawatha Ave. As such, it is our judgement that the current roadway width of 22 feet can adequately accommodate the expected post - development traffic and provide sufficient access for emergency vehicles. It should be noted that this observation is valid only if the parking restriction along Hiawatha Ave. remains in place and is enforced. CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION 91 -91 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOPKINS ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT PERTAINING TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FOR THE PROPOSED RAMSGATE TOWNHOMES AND DETERMINING THAT AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED FOR SAID PROJECT. WHEREAS, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet hereafter referred to as E.A.W. was prepared pursuant to MEQB Rule 4410.1000 subpart 3; and WHEREAS, the availability of the E.A.W. was properly published in the E.Q.B. Monitor and the Hopkins /Minnetonka Sailor and was distributed to the required agencies and made available to the general public; and WHEREAS, the E.A.W. has passed through the required thirty (30) day review period during which written comments were received by the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of- Hopkins, acting as the Responsible Governmental Unit, has reviewed the E.A.W. and all timely comments which have been made regarding said E.A.W. and have reviewed the Findings of Fact and recommendations as related to the E.A.W. and has further reviewed the standards and criteria of MEQB Rule 4410.1000 subpart 3; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Findings of Fact pertaining to Ramsgate Townhomes are hereby adopted and that a determination has been made that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required to be completed for the Ramsgate Townhome Project. It is further determined that the following measure be required conditions for final project approval: 1. That the developer obtain Watershed District approval for the project. 2. That the developer is responsible for the maintenance of the ponding area. 3. That the developer provide erosion control measures approved by the staff. 4. That the townhomes are not occupied until the sanitary sewer problems are resolved and the developer has granted an easement through his property for the rerouting of the sewer. 5. Developer shall provide the City with a grading and drainage plan that shows exiting and proposed contours and drainage features. Furthermore, the developer shall provide hydrologic computations which must show that the rate and run -off from the site will not increase as a result of the development. 6. If the developer receives federal assistance for the project, the requirements of section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36FR800 must be met by the developer. Adopted this 16th day of July, 1991. Nelson W. Berg, Mayor James A. Genellie, City Clerk C v FINDINGS OF FACT RAMSGATE TOWNHOMES I. Project and Site Description A. Project Name - Ramsgate Townhomes B. Proposer - Mark C. Jones C. Project Location - Southwest corner of Hiawatha Avenue and Cambridge Street D. Reason for E.A.W. preparation - discretionary E. Total Project Area - 1.54 acres F. Number of proposed residential units - 12 G. Brief description of site - The property in question is undeveloped. The property currently is a wooded site. The site is surrounded by multifamily residential to the west, single family homes to the south and east and State Highway 7 to the north. H. Brief description of the project - 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 rather than from Hiawatha Avenue. II. Tvpe. Extent and Reversa of Environmental Effects A. Historical, Archaeological, etc. o Comments - Comments received through the E.A.W. process indicated that the project contained no known historic or archaeological sites. Comments also indicated if federal funding were involved in the project in some way, that certain additional review requirements may be necessary. These comments were received by the Minnesota Historical Society. o Response - In response to these comments, the City will inform the developer that if the developer receives federal assistance for the project, the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36CFR800 must be met by the developer. B. Cover Types. There was an made on the cover types for before and after the development. The correct totals are as follows: Wooded Forest Urban /suburban lawn landscaping Impervious surface As stated in EAW Correct Figures before after before after 1.54 0 1.16 0 0 .734 0 .734 .38 .80 .38 .80 This change does not have any significant impact on the conclusion of the EAW. C. Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources. • Ll o Comments - Comments received through the E.A.W. process by Larry McNeff indicated there are other small animals on the site. o Response - There may be other animals on the site. However in the staffs observations there were no other animals visible other than birds. o Comments - Comments received through the E.A.W. process by Larry McNeff indicated a concern for the trees being removed. o Response - The proposed development is proposed to retain 18 oak trees. There will be 23 new deciduous, 18 evergreen, and 88 other shrubs planted to replace the trees removed. The proposed trees retained and planted exceed the ordinance requirements. o Comments roots or in their D. Physical o Comments by Larry the prof - The DNR noted that if there is damage to the bark of the remaining oak trees, it may result eventual loss. Impacts on Water Resource. - Comments received through the E.A.W. process McNeff expressed a concern about the impact of act'to the drainage ditch along Highway 7. o Response - The increased runoff will be-stored in the retention pond and released at pre- construction rates in accordance with the rules of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. E.' Water Quality - Surface Water Runoff. This project will generate storm water runoff which will be served in large part by a retention pond proposed to be located on the north end of the site. This water will be released at pre- construction rates. o Comments - Comments received through the E.A.W. process by Larry McNeff expressed a concern for the history of flooding in the area. b Response - Dale Folen of RCM has reviewed the site plan for the Ramsgate Townhomes. In a letter dated March 26, 1991 he stated the following "The proposed pond will hold the expected increased runoff use to development and replace the volume of the existing local low area which would be filled be construction." F. Sanitary Sewer. The proposed development will generate approximately 3000 gallons of domestic waste sewage per day. This waste will flow into an existing sanitary main in Hiawatha Avenue which in turn is connected to the 33" MWCC Hopkins Interceptor. o Comments - Comments received through the E.A.W. process by Larry McNeff indicate sewer problems in the area. ® o Response - In response to these comments, the City proposed to reroute the existing sanitary flow from the Ramsgate Apartments to a new connection. This will remove the Ramsgate flow from the Hiawatha system to alleviate any existing or future problems. This will remove 360 units from the Hiawatha system and add the 12 townhomes. G. , Metropolitan Council. The E.A.W. was reviewed by the Metropolitan Council staff. The staff determined the following: "The staff review has concluded that the EAW,is complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns and raises no major issues of consistency with Council policies. An EIS is not necessary for regional purposes. H. Traffic. o 'Comments - Comments received through the E.A.W. process indicate that 144 -288 trips will be generated. This number of trips was estimated by Larry McNeff. o Response - Benshoof and Associates studied the traffic for the proposed development. It was estimated that an additional 108 trips will be generated by the proposal. f I. Vehicle- related air emissions. o Comments - Comments received through the E.A.W. process by Larry McNeff indicated that it is not necessary to have traffic congestion to cause a significant decrease in air quality. o Response - The E.A.W. only addresses air quality due to traffic congestion. Since there is no expected traffic congestion with this project, (based upon findings from the traffic study) there is no expected decrease in air quality. 0