CR 91-154 EAW - Ramsgate TownhomesJuly 30, 1991
I Y O )
G T
9 5
0 P K i Council Report 9i -154
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.
On July 16 the City Council tabled the matter to allow for
additional study to be given to noise levels in the project area.
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. B As a result an E.I.S. has never been
done for,this size of project.
Primary Issues to Consider
• What is'an E.A.W. and an E.I.S.?
• What is the background for this E.A.W.?
• What is the project and site description?
• What agencies /individuals submitted.written comments?
• What were the comments during the 30 comment period?
• What is the staff conclusion as relates to the comments
received?
• What were the noise levels at various locations
around the site?
Supporting Documents.
o EAW
T esolution 91 -91
Nancy S. Anderso
Plan r
•
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�ls 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.
H
LI
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
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.?
Chronoloav 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
D. Reason for E.A.W. preparation - 'discretionary
0 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.
a
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 Ouality - 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 1 - 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.
x
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.
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 bring 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.
o What were the noise levels at various locations around
the site?
At the July 16 City Council meeting, the Hiawatha residents
expressed a concern about the noise level to the
neighborhood once the trees are removed. In response to
this concern, staff contacted the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency requesting noise monitoring at various
locations around the subject site.
On July 30, 1991, at approximately 9:00 a.m., Rebecca
Niedzielski of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency did
noise monitoring at several places around the subject
property. Attached is a map of the locations and noise
levels. None of the readings exceeded the Hopkins Zoning
Ordinance Standards and the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency Noise Standards. The noise standard both for Hopkins
and the Pollution Control Agency's rules is 65 decibels for
the daytime. None of the readings exceeded 60 decibels.
Attached are the Hopkins Zoning Ordinance standards and the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Noise Standards.
On the attached site plan showing the locations and noise
levels, at some locations there are two readings. There are
two readings in some locations because there was a
difference in the decibel level if there was automobile
traffic. In the areas further to the south, the traffic
noise was not a factor.
Alt rnatives.
1. Approve the resolution determining there are no
significant environmental impacts and that an E.I.S.
r
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
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.
(a
a '
■
■
�■ i
OCATIO
� f
49 -51
�I
I
43
VI 1
READINGS
W [
/n
W
N
rr r e
V
Z
W
I
n «r
z i
Z_
52 - 5 5 -- traffic
J
W �
a
l
a
N Y
CL
0
n3F
R a
!�
3
wj
z
w
w
• n.
o.
kground =
W - -°
� I
.,.r 1
y 8 3 a
J IJ
Y I
I
n
i
T ,
rr r e
V
Z
ss
z « «1.f, «►.
n «r
Q
52 - 5 5 -- traffic
J
Z
a
w
w
3 D
J
w
J
of
c'
NS NO!
SE
m
T ,
ss
4 I
L_
x
52 - 5 5 -- traffic
g
O
0
�
45 background
di d
n
X ,
m
lo
x
Y
_&
o�n
Q
rc
z
z
z
a
N
VI
IA
N O
o W
55- t
W
W d
��-
48 no traffic
c'
NS NO!
SE
m
l�
page 3 - NOISE POLLUTION RULES
7010.0030 NOISE CONTROL REQUIREMENT.
No person may violate the standards established in part
7010.0040, unless exempted by Minnesota Statutes, section 116.07,
subdivision 2a. Any municipality having authority to regulate
land use shall take all reasonable measures within its
jurisdiction to prevent the establishment of land use activities
listed in noise area classification (NAC) 1, 2, or 3 in any
location where the standards established in part 7010.0040 will
be violated immediately upon establishment of the land use.
Statutory Authority: MS s 116.07 subds 2,4
7010.0040 NOISE STANDARDS.
Subpart 1. Scope._ These standards describe the limiting
levels of sound established on the basis of present knowledge for
the preservation of public health and welfare. These standards,,
are consistent with speech, sleep, annoyance, and hearing
conservation requirements for receivers within areas grouped
according to land activities by the noise area classification
(NAC) system established in part 7010.0050. However, these
standards do not, by themselves, identify the limiting levels of
impulsive noise needed for the preservation of public health and
welfare. Noise standards in subpart 2 apply to all sources.
Subp. 2. Noise standards.
Noise Area Daytime Nighttime
Classification L 50 L 10 L 50, L 10
1 60 65 50 55
2 65 70 65 70
3 75 80 75 80
Statutory Authority: MS s 116.07 subds 2,4
7010.0050 NOISE AREA CLASSIFICATION.
Subpart 1. Applicability The noise area classification is
based on the land use activity at the location of the receiver
and determines the noise standards applicable to that land use
activity unless an exemption is applied under subpart 3. ,
Subp. 2. Noise area classification. The noise area
classifications and the activities included in each
classification are listed below:
Hopkins City Code (Zoning)
555.01
Section 555 — Zoning: performance standards
555.01. Noise Subdivision 1. General rule All uses shall be so operated as
to control the emission of noise within the following maximum standards.
Subd. 2. Definitions.
a) decibel means a unit of sound pressure level dB;
b) L10 means the noise level, expressed in dB(A), which is exceeded
10% of the time for a one hour survey. The survey hour must be the noisi—
est hour during a representative daytime or nighttime.
c) L50 means the noise level expressed in decibels dB(A) which is
exceeded 507 of the time for a one hour survey. The survey hour must be
the noisiest hour during a representative daytime or nighttime.
d) Daytime hours are those from 6:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. Nighttime
hours are those from 9:00 P.M. to 6:00 A.M.
e) Impulsive noise means either a single sound pressure peak (with
either a rise time less than 200 milliseconds or total duration less than
200 mulliseconds) or multiple sound pressure peaks spaced at least by 200
millisecond pauses.
0 Subd. 3. Noise standards
Districts
Daytime
Nighttime
L50 L10
L50 L10
Residential
60 65
50 55
Business
65 70
65 70
Industrial
75 80
75 80
555.03. Smoke and particulate matter Uses shall be so operated as to control
the emission of smoke or particulate matter to the degree that it is not
detrimental to or- shall endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general
welfare of the public. For purposes of grading the density of smoke the
Ringelmann Chart published and used by the United States Bureau of Mines shall
be employed. The emission of smoke shall not be of a density greater than
number 2 on the Ringelmann Chart.
555.05. Toxic or noxious matter Any use established shall be so operated as
to not permit the discharge onto the soil but shall be removed the site
according to a plan approved by the city.
f f .
•
L]
Note To Preparers
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW)
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 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
issues for investigation in the EIS.
. Project Title Rams ate Townhomes
2. Proposer Mark Z. Jones
Contact person Ivan Nohner
Address 5290 Villa Way
Edina MN 55436
Phone 925 -1020
4: Reason for EAW Preparation
O EIS scoping O mandatory EAW
El Proposer volunteered
3. RGU City of Hopkins
Contact person Anderson'
and title Planner
Address 101 First Street S.
Hopkins
Phone 935 -8474
citizen petition O RGU discretion
If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category number(s)
5. Project Location
N 1/2 NW 1/4 Section 19 Townshi 117 Range 21
County Hennepin City /Twp Hopkins
1
Light Industrial Agricultural
Other Commercial (specify)
Building Height(s) approximately 30 feet
8. P rmits and Approvals Required List all known local, state, and federal
permits, approvals, and funding required:
Unit of Government Tvpe 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. 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
0
0
Urban /Suburban 0
Wetlands
.734
Lawn Landscaping
Wooded /Forest
1.54
0
Impervious Surface .38
Brush /Grassland
0
0
.80
Other (describe)
0 opland
0
0
3
C. Will the project require connection to a public water supply?
R Yes 0 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. Wat r- 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?
11 Yes Im No
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? O
Yes ONO
If yes, indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss
0 any potential overcrowding or conflicts with other users or fish and
wildlife`resources.
16. Soils Approximate depth (in feet) to:
Ground water: minimum V to 7 ' average 14'
Bedrock: I 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 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
landscaped areas will be sodded. Erosion and sedimentation preventive
5
a
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;
__L4 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.
0 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,- Ancluding 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
24. stationary source air emissions Will the project involve any
stationary sources of air emissions (such as boilers or exhaust
stacks)?
® Yes 0 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.
25. Will the project generate dust, odors, or noise during construction
and /or operation?
1 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.
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 0 140
If yes, explain.
W
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
0
habitational dwellings
26.
Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site:
a. archaeological, historical, or architectural resources?
Yes
b. prime or unique farmlands?
No
O Yes
c. designated parks, recreation areas, or trails?
No
0 Yes
®
d. scenic views and vistas?
No
E
Yes
e. other unique resources?
No
Yes
ONO
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 lib 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 0 140
If yes, explain.
W
7 ,
1 1 l
d. If a, b, or c were marked Yes, 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. oth r 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.
0 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 thiq 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.
0
11
N
W E
0
o _
..� H7 Dayton '
".b Champlin
i
I �
i
� � 2
O �
NORM
a
o�
HENNEPIN COUNTY
Minn sota
Lege
.� — ® Q
^� Tangl Sch
� it JI ,� / Jr �
I
I �1� � 1 o (j • ( (��o�� S , \ I .J)� -- 7� _ vfa ,nr e,rr
1 1� j' � L( r �,• c„ SJI I r r94 o c
/� . 11Y �•\ � � • V `I ` PLl/d � la
t o -sa CG; 1 t �4.� .r 7 HMI
1 _
,111 Nor i ��
Ji IQ
. �- 'I � �� 1� � ,� •�sam 0 gPY�i• , , � r •: e ; �, : ,_ a �� �� .
• J Gravel'Plt
>3 vl 28TR 1 i .sr
�(� •r � II (� �s�` P rk r
l i( 1 I 1 rl i- f W. Y9 srL
/N
_'d M9 7 , •` 1 0 / I
./ 950 I 1 t .••^ ° b�. ( �.� 9j 0. /' J quila .h ` ...
Z) ;ilf ;� °r '�c r' Pi r C •S• \� ) + rsir I,ursn�
� �. • "� l� .�' : ' ..a• t��� I Aquila Par - r
° ���'=�'__ - l� 'y. .I -r ' ,� •,• ff ��t C.. gy m , 4I It
trl}i' cy S 950 d ( .°......r..�
o --
` ••� i t , ', \� �� ) - r :: - �3y ,) Tank � l
�il is ''� W � � , I,, � , �, q ,� �i� _ I __- •::_ �� - l L ` � ,�
1 •F�'. •n'.I F:' �- l — `� �� _ 1 (1 �) p `%�� ` J ar h_ $ !_l�
1� F , \ •. I ,• — U 1 1 = - v \ ti A� \1�l f , °PP'n6 nler r
0 1 II�
� t..'l! ` .,- � '-' '' 8k' l'- ) ',r�.l ' t �'` � - -' I ��' i'• ''` s h I [
_ q.L I / • �' ) ;� , rte' •; i �1 1 .. [ Cenler w NE
'r �� f 1. •/ 1 ' {.� �-. :•� J•�Oaly. R: o nlr lub � ( X11. J � •- �. d n
JL
I ,_ t. .:.I���.', •�3�r��; J !. u��� �♦ —
'�� )8NC a �� r 7 \ i 'V Z W (�'•") ((1 1R t • _2 ° , J •� _ 'I�• ,
J �i
9 �fr •' ?y� ( �����
( I � P 3'
f UPW
O I UL Vr
J 1 •I ��, ', �'•a \ r '�' d � Qh h 'L w m �� )•` }�/ .. , ~ .. - ---
0 - o CE Sr �. I A E .. �) l• Et •I•
LA it
�E
° � • < <'� • 1�a' .; •fu en c �-- 'j 4-j- 0 It
t 0 = >
�' �i . •J, I •'�� _ o •'° , — ' �kT t.; 4 0 ( la 0
.C� Q .l ° •C f "X Bt ifo 91 4 � - ✓" - � t�[;d ..•. ■ l -' (� 'I 'I �° (�I rl )i
J 4 11
1j ' (• /� • f J �� iI
A. . W 1 O ° Ste' en
�
JI 9 j� J �
`l� u ��- �� i •, "• , \ Hagan a I:- 1II���fi _ �� , ` 11 �1 e % i v �� )� ``�.•1 : I• l >lub
l��(C: `.fl , - ��' ', --. ' i'I ti;:•�kJl'�.i.�_ , 49
: 1 1 90<9�/I �� .... ... •. , /i- " (� -'�: •, ° l; , °,� '
• g./- 1 _ _ 1 ° C I r a ! . ' (' '' (� • k ' \ V l `� `•\,'
? Shady Oak i a' l�. l�C�,<< ;� •�,I �� ', • ` . %0 cl� ' , .�
g Lfrkc 11 y;r I (C�
0
� -- 4 .
1
�J a (1.1 �`° 2� I,; b ` ' 1 •••`'11 i95p ��• \- .� I�
1 928'
I�,• f' -- ., :�'. �. -, ,S lei���' --------- ^- -�"- -- O r-- - -- a - - •�- t-r =t!'r _ : •E � m
' !i •fI �� ,, , .:' I '
�,� ;'l�� ,�� I i 11 y� it I II / ^.•�/I —lr1 V �'`.�'IJ - -I •1�
f I
W
W
K
N
W
C�
D
K
m
2
V
�47ep eo., 10' Iipl
APT.
SLOG. —�
I I I
KEY .
N 0 20 40 ao 60 100 ►,..
( • ) EXIST. TREES (RETAIN IF POSSIBLE)
900 / FIRST FLOOR ELEVATION
900 BASEMENT ELEVATION
900 GARAGE ELEVATION
DATA
LESS 10 R.O.W.
3/91 (4850 5
ORIC'N SITE AREA
67,130 SF 62,280 SF NET
LOT•1 NORTH SITE
LOT 2
54.065 SF 49 ,215 s r
RAMSGATE
SOUTH SITE
:3,063 SF 13.065 SF
_
PROPOSED USE
RAMSGATE TOWNHOUSES
NORTH LOT 1
12 TOWNHOUSES pI a bee r . yeee s
HOPKINS. MINNESOTA
etvpt
12 TWO CAR TUCK UNDER GARAGES
24 SURFACE SPACES
SITE PLAN
SOUTH LOT 2
SURFACE PARKING 24 CARS
''
w•a IA nn
\
'4—
` uwj
o
AVENUE
�.
AV
A bs
jp
.��Mot..
'
—'
�--__--'
BOUNDARY a TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY
T MARK Z. JONES a ASSOCIATES
,.
^..
�
^
'.
,'
OW BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS
7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, SUITE 119/ EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 553441(612) 944-75901 FAX (612) 944 -9322
May 8, 1991 REFER TO FILE: 91 -12
MEMORANDUM'
TO: Nancy Anderson, City of Ho
Z.innegan
FROM: James A. Benshoof & David
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.
Y
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.
w '
l• � A
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 VOLUME 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.
0
g FINDINGS OF FACT
RAMSGATE TOWNHOMES
I. Project and Site
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 'kith 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.' Type, Extent and Reversability 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.
0
B. Cover Types.
There was an error made on the cover types for before and
after the development. The correct totals are as follows:
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 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
As stated
in
EAW
Correct
Figures
before
after
before
after
Wooded Forest
1.54
0
1.16
0
Urban /suburban
0
.734
0
.734
lawn landscaping
Impervious surface
.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 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
c y.
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 - 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.,
4
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 signif icant I 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.
•
•
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 existing 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 6th day of August, 1991.
Nelson W. Berg, Mayor
James A. Genellie, City Clerk
40