The URL can be used to link to this page

CR 05-053 EAW - Parker Office Bldg CITY OF - April 14, 2005 HOPKINS Council Report 05-53 EA W - PARKER OFFICE BUILDING Proposed Action. Staff recommends approval of the following motion: adopt Resolution 05-40, determining that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet mAW) is exempt for the construction of an office proiect bv Advance Development. LLC. Overview. Jim Parker, Advance Development, LLC, filed for a site plan review and conditional use permit to construct a 10-unit office/condominium project on property directly south of the Hopkins Care Facility on the west side of Highway 169 in 2004. This property is located within the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. A petition dated September 10, 2004, was subsequently submitted to the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) requesting an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) be completed for this project. The petition was forwarded to the City by the EQB in a letter dated September 15, 2004. The City Council, at their October 19, 2004, meeting determined that an EA W was not required for the development. The City Council subsequently approved the site plan and conditional use permit. The decision of the City Council regarding the EA W was appealed to the district court, but the 30-day deadline was missed and the appeal was dismissed. Another petition dated March 14, 2005, was submitted to the (EQB) requesting another EA W to be completed for this project. The petition was forwarded to the City by the EQB in a letter dated March 22, 2005. Primarv Issues to Consider . What is the basis of the staff recommendation? . What recourse does a party have if they do not agree with the City Council's decision that the development is exempt? Supporting Documents. . Letter from Minnesota Environmental Quality Board, dated March 22, 2005 . Petition for EA W . Resolution 05-40 Financial Impact: $ N/ A_Budgeted: Related Documents (eIP, ERP, etc.): Notes: Y/N Source: CR05-53 Page 2 Primarv Issne to Consider What is the basis of the staff recommendation? A development may be exempt from an EA W under certain conditions. One of the EQB rules is that a project is exempt if "all government decisions have been made." The City Attorney reviewed the petition for the EA Wand, based on his opinion, this petition is exempt. If the City Council determines the development is not exempt from an EA W, the City Council can then determine an EA W is not required for this development or that an EA W is required for this development. What recourse does a party have if they do not agree with the City Council's decision that the development is exempt? If the City Council approves the resolution determining that an EA W is exempt for the Parker office building, the decision can be appealed in the county district court. Alternatives The City Council has the following alternatives regarding this matter: I. Approve the action as recommended by staff. With this action, staff forwards the decision to the EQB. 2. Make a determination that an EA W is not exempt. With this action, the City Council will then have to determine if an EA W will be required for the proposed development. With this action, the Council will need to make findings for the basis of requesting this action. City of Hopkins Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2005-040 WHEREAS, James Parker previously submitted a proposal to the City of Hopkins to construct an office-condominium building (the "Project") on property located at Second Avenue South (the "Property"), and WHEREAS, on January 18, 2005, pursuant to Resolution No. 2005-07 and Resolution No. 2005-08, the City Council of the City of Hopkins approved a site plan and conditional use permit for the Project; and WHEREAS, prior to the City Council approving the Project's site plan and conditional use permit, a group of citizens (the "Petitioners") submitted a petition to the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board ("EQB") requesting that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet ("EA W") be required for the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Resolution No. 2004-82, determined that an EA W was not necessary or appropriate for the Project; and WHEREAS, the Petitioners failed to timely appeal the City Council's decision denying the request for an EA W, and; WHEREAS, the City Council has received a second petition (the "Second Petitioner") requesting that Hopkins order the completion of an EA W for the Project; and WHEREAS, the Second Petition was submitted to Minnesota Environmental Quality Board ("EQB") after January 18, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Project may proceed without obtaining additional governmental approvals, and; WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Hopkins is the governing body legally responsible for reviewing the EA W petition and determining whether to require an EA W, and NOW, THEREFORE, based on all of the documents and other evidence received, the City of Hopkins City Council makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT 1. James Parker is the owner of the Property, an undeveloped parcel approximately five (5) acres in size located on Second Avenue South. 2. Parker previously submitted a proposal to the City of Hopkins to construct the Project on the Property. 3. The Property includes areas designated as floodplain and/or wetland and the Project, as proposed, likely will require construction, grading or disturbance on some portion of the areas designated as floodplain and/or wetland. 4. On September 10, 2004, the Petitioners submitted a petition to the EQB requesting that an EA W be ordered for the Project. Pursuant to Minnesota law, the EQB forwarded the petition to the City of Hopkins, which is designated by law as the governing body responsible for determining whether to order an EA W. 5. The City Council directed that all information regarding the need for an EA W on the Project be submitted for consideration not later than October 4, 2004. 6. The City Council received from Parker and the Petitioners submissions in opposition to and in support ofthe request for an EA W. 7. The City of Hopkins retained Chris Meehan of Wenck Associates, Inc. to review all information submitted regarding the Project. The City Council received a written report from Meehan dated October 7,2004. 8. On October 12, 2004, the City Council met to review the information submitted by Petitioners, Parker and Meehan. Meehan appeared and discussed the information submitted and his report. Mr. Meehan also attended the October 19,2004, City Council meeting and again reviewed this information with City Council members. 9. The City Council, at its October 19, 2004, meeting, also received public comments and presentations from representatives ofthe Petitioners. 10. The City Council, at its October 19, 2004, meeting, determined that an EA W was not necessary or appropriate for the Project and rejected Petitioner's request for an EA W. II. Petitioners failed to timely file an appeal of the City Council decision denying the EA W. 12. On January 18, 2005, the City Council, pursuant to Resolution No. 2005-07 and Resolution No. 2005-08, approved the Project site plan and conditional use permit. 13. On or about March 23, 2005, the City of Hopkins received from the EQB a second petition seeking an EA W for the Project. 14. Minn. Rule 41400,ddd exempts any project from the requirement for an EA W if "no further governmental approvals are necessary for the project at the time the petition is filed." 15. The Project received its final approval on January 18, 2005, pursuant to Resolution No. 2005-07 and Resolution No. 05-08. 16. No further governmental approvals are necessary for the Project to proceed. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Hopkins hereby determines that, based on its Findings of Fact: 1. The Project is exempt from EA W review. 2. The petition for an EA W is denied. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Hopkins this 19th day of April, 2005. By Gene Maxwell, Mayor ATTEST: Terry Obermaier, City Clerk March 22, 2005 Nancy Anderson, Planner City of Hopkins 1010 First Street South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 RE: Citizens petition for an EA W for "wetland project" Dear Ms Anderson: The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) has received a petition requesting that an EA W be prepared on the project described in the petition, and has determined that Hopkins is the appropriate governmental unit to decide the need for an EA W. The requirements for environmental review, including the preparation of an EA W, can be found in the Minnesota Rules, chapter 4410. The procedures to be followed in making the EA W decision are set forth in part 4410.1100. Key points in the procedures include: 1. No final government approvals may be given to the project named in the petition, nor may construction on the project be started until the need for an EA W has been determined. Project construction includes any activities which directly affect the environment, including preparation of land. If the decision is to prepare an EA W, approval must be withheld until either a Negative Declaration is issued or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is completed (see part 4410.3100, subpart I, page 34.) 2. A first step in making the decision regarding the need for an EA W would be to compare the project to the mandatory EA W, EIS and Exemption categories listed in parts 4410.4300,4410.4400, and 4410.4600, respectively. Ifthe project should fall under any of these categories, environmental review is automatically required or prohibited. If this should be the case, proceed accordingly. 3. If preparation of an EA W is neither mandatory nor exempted, the City has the option to prepare an EA W. The standard to be used to decide if an EA W should be done is given in part 4410.1100, subp. 6. Note that this requires that a record of decision including specific findings of fact be maintained. W STATE AND COI./MUNITY SERVICES EnvlronmentalQualltvBoard .656 CEDAR S1REETST. PAUL, MN 55 I 55. PHONE 651-297.1 257. FAX 651-296-3698 .TTY: 800-62 7-3529.WNW.EQB.STATE.MN US 4. You are allowed up to 30 working days (Saturdays, Sundays and holidays do not count) for your decision if it will be made by a council, board, or other body which meets only periodically, or 15 working days if it will be made by a single individual. You may request an extra 15 days from EQB ifthe decision will be made by an individual. 5. You must notify, in writing, the proposer, the petitioners' representative and the EQB of your decision within five working days. I would appreciate your sending a copy of your record of decision on the petition along with notification of your decision for our records. This is not required, however. 6. If for any reason you are unable to act on the petition at this time (e.g., no application has yet been filed or the application has been withdrawn), the petition will remain in effect for a period of one year, and must be acted upon prior to any final decision concerning the project identified in the petition. Notice of the petition and its assignment to your unit of government will be published in the EQB Monitor on March 28, 2005. If you have any questions or need any assistance, please do not hesitate to call. The phone number is (651) 296-3865. Sincerely, ~~~ Jon Larsen Principal Planner, Environmental Review ' cc: David Rosedahl, petitioners' representative March ..!i-, 2005 Mr. Greg Downing Environmental Quality Board 300 Centennial Office Building 658 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55155 RE: Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet Dear Mr. Downing: This is a petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet that is submitted on behalf of a group of citizens concerned for the integrity of the Nine Mile Creek, the Minnesota River and the Mississippi River. You will find all the requisite components necessary for a valid petition herein. If you have any questions in regard to the petition please do not hesitate to telephone me. Respectfully Submitted, !;r a~ ~t.d4I-"oyt5 &/1 j11,'e-4""J UiJ~; C, 1;;(- ;2.0S"-3:2()O David Rosedahl esq. 859 Nine Mile Cove Hopkins, MN 55343 952-238-8304 david@rosedah1.org PETITION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Description of Proposed Project The proposer, James Parker of Advance Development LLC., ("Proposer") has petitioned the Hopkins City Council and the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District (NMCWD) for a permit to fill 0.192 acres of type 3 wetland ("wetland") with approximately 670 yards of material, on an undeveloped parcel of property approximately five acres in size located on Second Avenue South, west of Highway 169, in the City of Hopkins, Hennepin County ("property"). The wetland is, or is adjacent to, a waterway that is on the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Protected/Public Waters Inventory List, and is part of a hydrologic complex that, in high water, extends into a park and has surface connectivity with the Nine Mile Creek which drains into the Minnesota River.! The property is located in the NMCWD which is designated as an Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) impaired water,2 which is part of the larger and severely impaired Lower Minnesota River Basin (sub-watershed 33).3 The proposer sets forth in the "Basic Application Form for Wetland Projects" (Form NA-02620-02) that slightly more than 8,364 square feet are to be affected.4 In the properly's history there is evidence of a past purchase that was effectuated to compensate for floodplain fill on a different site, which was made in agreement with the NMCWD.5 I Minnesota Statutes g103G.005. Public waters wetlands include all Type 3 [...] wetlands (as defined in the in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Circular No. 39, 1971) that are 2.5 acres or more in size in incorporated areas. See Minnesota Statutes &103G.005. subd. 17b. The wetland in the present case is part ofa wetland system that is well in excess of 2.5 acres. See Appendix Section I for map of protected waters in the area and for an aerial photo of wetland complex. 2 See Appendix Section II for EPA TMDL of Nine Mile Creek for Turbidity, 2004 assesment identifying impairments of Turbidity, Impaired Biota, and Chloride. Also, EP A TMDL for the Lower Minnesota River identifying the numerous impairments. 4 See Appendix Section III for copy ofproposer's Form NA-02620-02. I Representative of EA W Petitioners David Rosedahl, Representative of Nine Mile Cove Homeowners Association, 859 Nine Mile Cove, Hopkins, MN 55343. Summary of Petition Requirements This petition for an EA W must be approved by the Responsible Governmental Unit where the petition presents evidence that the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects. Minnesota Rules, Rule 4410.1100, see Bolander v. City of Minneapolis, 502 N.W.2d 203,207 (Minn. 1993). Analysis Process This petition is written and submitted without final plans from the proposer as those plans have not become publicly available. Therefore the significant effects are analyzed by first looking at proposer's permit application as submitted to the Corps of Engineers for permitting, and second, under the conditions as set forth by the NMCWD. Under both scenarios there "may be the potential for significant environmental effects" which surpass the level required to compel an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. The goal and requirement of the petition is not to allege all potential environmental effects, instead this petition identifies material items that must be further investigated through the formal EA W process. s See Appendix Section IV. Letter from Harry Summit of Liesch Associates, Inc. pages 1 and 2 addressing the past agreement between Minneapolis Employees Retirement Fund and the NMCWD, about purchasing the property for fill rights. 2 Potential Environmental Effects Which May Result From the Project Flooding This project is sited in an area that is already prone to flooding, and apparently has already been designated as compensation for another fill site.6 Despite this, the proposer has plans for, and permits to construct a berm that will isolate and remove 0.33 acres of flood plain area. The 1990 Declaration between Minneapolis Employees Retirement Fund and NMCWD appears to allow additional capacity to fill the flood plain area, but there is a question as to the amount of area that proposer has available for fill. There appears to be a calculation error in the Declaration which resulted in the belief that there are 0.42 acres available for fill whereas there appears to be only 0.42 acre-feet for storage.7 Simply, there is a question as to whether the amount of fill proposed is in excess of what is allowed in the Declaration. If the allowable measurement is in acre-feet then proposer may be exceeding the acceptable volume. Proposer must establish that, under the Declaration, the site has the capacity to handle the amount of fill proposed.8 Either way this proposal represents a significant removal of flood plain, and such removal will result in increased flooding problems affecting the surrounding environment. When looked at as a cumulative effect on the watershed, the impact of this proposal aggregated with other sites, will result in significant detrimental effects on the environment. Due to the proposed changes on the property, the existing wetland complex will have less capacity to attenuate flood peaks, and 6 Id at page 2. 7 Id. According to Mr. Summit, the 1990 Declaration which compensated for an overfilling of another site allows for 0.42 acres of addition at fill in the flood plain. However, there appears to be a miscalculation in this estimate as the 3.14 acres of flood plain in question were purchased to compensate for 2.51 acre-feet offill in a different flood plain area. This indicates that the site has 0.42 acre-feet of flood plain storage NOT 0.42 acres of flood plain fill available for additional development. This means that there was originally 0.42 acre-feet of flood plain storage NOT that there is 0.42 acres available for fill. 8 Id. 3 less ability to reduce quantities of water flow exiting the system.9 This will affect all connected riparian areas through increased flow velocities, and increased water quantities which will degrade downstream areas. Further, the reduced ability of the system to naturally attenuate flow will result in additional problems downstream.10 The destructive nature of annual flooding will increase as wetlands are removed from the system. Increased flow velocities and quantities of water will increase sediment transport and load in the affected watershed. This will degrade critical habitat and implicate the survival of species. Through the EA W process proposer must identify what effect his development will have on the downstream environment. This includes the cumulative nature ofthe project. If the NMCWD's conditionsll are implemented on the project there is still the potential for significant environmental effects due to flooding. A primary function of wetlands is flood peak attenuation.12 This function is directly related to the amount of surface area of wetlands in a watershed.13 As the amount of surface area wetland decreases the recurrence interval of flood peaks increase.l4 Under the NMCWD permit the amount of contiguous wetland in the existing complex will be reduced by development directly in the wetland, and due to the indirect loss through hydrologic isolation of the wetland north of the proposed driveway. The northern section would be completely isolated from the southern section by an elevated driveway. This destroys 9 KENNETHN. BROOKS ET AL. HYDROLOGY AND THE MANAGEMENT OF WATERSHEDS 236-238 (3"'. Ed Iowa State University Press, 2003). Explaining that the drainage and alteration of wetlands "can increase streamflow discharge and, importantly, peak flow discharge associated with the 1.4-1.6 yr recurrence interval." 10 Id at 364. The Minnesota River and Mississippi River have been historically experiencing more frequent and more destructive flood events as wetlands in the watershed are increasingly drained. Further, reoccurrence periods are decreasing for historically low probability events as natural attenuation systems are increasingly disrupted. "See Appendix V. Letter from NMCWD to proposer laying out conditions of permit. 12 See BROOKS ET AL., supra note 9 at 359. Wetland, due to their flat topography act as simple reservoirs. 13 Id at 361. Figure 14.9. 14 Id. 4 the surface connectivity of wetlands north of the access driveway. is The separation will dramatically reduce the area of wetlands available to attenuate flood peaks and, by elevating the driveway, the function of all up-stream wetlands may also be compromised.16 This reduction of total wetland surface area available to attenuate flood peaks creates the potential for significant environmental effects. Decreased ability of the wetland to attenuate flood peaks will result in increased sediment load and deposition downstream, increased stream bank erosion, resulting in increased phosphorous load, and further impairment to an already impaired waterway. 17 This proposal needs an EA W process to investigate the immediate, future and cumulative effects of this proposal on flooding. Impact from Access Driveway Mr. Sanders of Liesch Associates Inc. observed that the proposed access drive's initial design accomplished a low area in the center of the driveway allowing surface water to collect. This water will flow directly into the wetland during storm events. IS The proposal envisions more than 2.5 acres of impervious surfaces, all the precipitation that falls on these surfaces needs to flow somewhere. That somewhere apparently is an untreated outfall that flows directly into the wetland.19 A rough calculation concludes that in a storm event producing 2 inches ofrain in one hour, could result in more than 126 cubic feet of runoff per hour flowing over the low spot in IS See Appendix V, supra note II. The NMCWD conditions include a superficial hydrologic connection in the form of a culvert, which as explained later may increase the potential for significant environmental effects. 16 See BROOKS Er AL., supra note 9 at 359. As a simple reservoir, a wetland's flat topography creates a unique hydrology where excess water flows into the system slowly raising the water level ofthe contiguous complex. By ptacing a structure through the system this hydrologic trait is altered and the capacity to attenuate large amounts of runoff (which will also increase due to the increase in impervious surfaces) is significantly degraded. 17 Supra note 2. 18 Liesch Associates is an environmental firm with a long history, has been retained by petitioners to expertly assess the effects of proposer's project. The statement by Mr. Sanders is included in Appendix VI. 19Id. 5 the driveway, and at destructively-unnatural high velocities, into the wetland.2o This is an extremely poor design that will result in a driveway that is underwater during most rain events, covered by ice in late fall, winter, and early spring, and will be impassable in a 50 to 100 year flood event.21 While this may be seen simply as an inconvenience arising out of poor planning, significant environmental effects are inevitable when runoff is altered in such a reckless fashion. Both the water quality and the quantity of water flowing off the proposed project will significantly impact the heath of the surrounding environment, and have the potential to further degrade the already impaired Nine Mile Creek, Minnesota River, and ultimately the Mississippi River watershed. The NMCWD permit requires that the access driveway be elevated with a culvert running under it. Assuming the permit is followed, the driveway now isolates a significant portion of the wetland from its connection to the Nine Mile Creak. This condition will not reduce the potential for significant environmental effects and may even increase those effects. This specific complex is not an isolated wetland. This means water travels through it at very slow velocities, eventually flowing into a ditch, and discharging into the Nine Mile Creak. The proposed access driveway if elevated will completely alter the unique hydrology of the complex. This has the potential to ".. .intercept and divert subsurface flows; initiating and accelerating erosion of wetland soils; causing or contributing to channel incision; reducing overbank flooding and groundwater recharge; and indirectly converting wetland vegetation from wetland to upland types.',zz 20 See BROOKS ET AL., supra note 9 at 440. For reasoning behind calculation. 2 inches of precipitation * 2.5 acres of impervious surface (converted to cubic feet) yields => 126 cubic feet 21 See generally, supra notes 5 and 11. Addressing poor ptanning and investigation of other options. 22 See BROOKS ET AL., supra note 9 at 365. 6 The culvert itself poses the potential for significant environmental effects. In the natural system the flow of water through the wetland is distributed across a large area as it moves toward its outflow into the Nine Mile Creek. The proposed culvert will restrict all the flow coming from up-watershed into a narrow channel. This "channelization" of a slow and deliberate wetland flow will degrade this ecosystem. This loss of wetland function due to the access driveway needs to be addressed cumulatively within this watershed landscape to ascertain the long term environmental effect. Such evaluation is best addressed through the EA W process. Replacement Considerations Proposer's plan to replace the property's existing wetland with wetlands of different character or unassociated with the same watershed must be further investigated. The ability of proposer to significantly impact and degrade a wetland eithin the Lower Minnesota River Basin (which already has over 80% of its presettlement wetlands drained and is a significantly impaired watershed23) and "replace" the wetland with the purchase of less than half of one acre of bank wetlands that are of entirely different importance and character is unacceptable. Proposer must show that there are no other prudent and feasible or practicable alternatives, economic considerations aside, to developing the parcel that do not affect the wetland before "replacement" is acceptable.24 This includes a determination that the impacts from the access driveway and building are unavoidable and no prudent and feasible alternatives 23 BROOKS ET AL., supra note 9 at 363. See Appendix Section II and Appendix Section III for EPA impairment information. 24 MN Stat ~I03A.201 subd. 2(b)(4). Replacement is a last option, and is allowed only "...where avoidance of activity is not feasible and prudent." Economic considerations alone are not determinative. 7 exist,25 Requiring an EA W is a first step in determining that there are no other prudent and feasible alternatives to building an access driveway that may have less potential for such significant environmental effects. Water Quality The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ("MPCA") Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas and the NMCWD require that new developments provide water quality provisions to surface water runoff prior to discharge.26 Assuming that the conditions at set forth by NMCWD are not implemented, approximately 2/3 of the surface water runoff from the proposed project is routed to the infiltration area, with 1/3 of the surface water runoff discharged directly to the wetlands or existing ditches with no water quality improvements?7 Surface water runoff flowing directly into the wetland will carry with it heavy loads of contaminants including all the contaminants that are deposited on the parking surfaces by automobiles.28 The runoff will also carry de-icing chemicals used to keep impervious surfaces dry. These chemicals have the potential to create an ecosystem that is toxic to native organisms. Not only will the surface water runoff be carrying with it more pollutants, it will travel at unrestricted velocities as it flows over smooth impervious surfaces. This high velocity generates 25 In the Matter of the Commissioner's Order Denying Permit Application #91-6034 to Construct a Driveway Across Wetland 2-61W, 1995 WL 351652 (Minn.App.,). This is an unpublished opinion, but it speaks to Minnesota's stated goal to "limit the placement of anyflll material into protected waters." Minn. R. 6115.0190, subpt. I (1993). The wetland in question is a Type III wetland and as such is a protected water (see note I). 26 Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas Manual, MPCA BMP guidelines, and telephonic conversation with Larry Zdon of the MPCA. 27Id. 28 Gasoline, diesel fuet, antifreeze, etc. 8 energy capable of moving large quantities of sediment, resulting in rapid eutrophication and sedimentation of the wetland complex.29 The NMCWD placed a condition on proposer requiring him to install two grit/oil separator manholes. This condition has the potential to address a portion of the problem. But, construction of such treating facilities is incapable of addressing all water quality problems that may arise out of the proposed development. The separator has the potential to concentrate the outflow of storm water which will result in increased velocities and degrade down stream channels.30 Instillation of the piece of equipment will itself pose the potential for significant environmental effects due to the amount of earth that must be displaced, which further increases the need for a heightened investigation process. While attempting to address the problem of water quality, the NMCWD may have inadvertently created new problems, the potential for environmentally destructive effects remains. Therefore an EA W is necessary to determine the scope and seriousness of these problems. Water Quantity The Minnesota Urban Small Sites Best Management Practices Manual and the NMCWD require that new projects have no increase from pre-developed rates to post-developed rates of runoff for the lOO year frequency storm event. The proposer has not addressed these rates, and they are not considered in the proposer's calculations for water detention. Such lack of consideration will significantly affect the wetland and the downstream environment. 29 BROOKS Er AL., supra note 9 at 238 and 366. As wetlands are degraded they loose their ability to store and slowdown runoff. As energy in the runoff is carried through the wetland that was once able to dissipate it, soil and sediment is carried from the wetland into the stream. This sediment is then deposited and continues to degrade the natural stability of the waterbody. 30 htto://www.cdstech.comlCDStechlus/index.aso. After analyzing of separator designs it is apparent that stormflow must be concentrated into the manhole which will result in a high-vetocity, high-quantity outflow. This outflow will carry tremendous energy. 9 When surface water runoff is allowed to flow unimpeded over smooth impervious surfaces, and is focused to flow into a riparian area, it carries with it the energy necessary to do tremendously destructive work,31 Wetlands are characterized by two simple traits; they form where there is an excess of water, AND where the water travels at very low velocities.32 Even with implementation of the NMCWD conditions, water flowing off the impervious surfaces will have velocity magnitudes higher than what the wetland has evolved to handle. Following every rainfall event, the wetland will be further degraded, resulting in erosion and eventually gully formation. The amount of water that proposer is directing to the riparian area will far surpass the attenuation capabilities of the wetland. The power that is associated with increased quantities and velocities of flow has the potential to "blowout" the complex altogether. This has the potential to completely (therefore significantly) degrade the wetland system (environment). Such degradation does not stop at the immediate wetland. As upstream systems are lost, the watershed loses its ability to filter out pollution, attenuate flows, and maintain its stasis. Water Velocities In a watershed, any changes in water velocities carry with them the potential for significant environmental effects. There are multiple locations within the proposal that will result is dramatic changes in water velocities. First, on the east side ofthe property there is a proposed wall placed directly in the existing wetland. This wall will channelize runoff against its smooth surface resulting in increased flow velocity, which increases the erosive power of the runoff, which will result in gully formation, erosion, increased sediment load, and ultimately increasing turbidity within the 31 Id at 364. Box 14.3. 32 Id at 349 10 watershed.33 This wall has the potential to create a channel and connect with the ditch on the south border of the property, which then flows directly into Nine Mile Creek. If a channel is formed where a wetland once existed, the function of that wetland is lost.34 Second, on the south side of the property there is a drainage ditch that will experience degradation and increased channelization. The southern edge of the proposed development is placed in the wetland and directly borders a drainage ditch that flows into the Nine Mile Creek. This wall has the potential to increase velocities in that ditch resulting in destructive erosive forces having the potential to significantly impact the environment. Finally, the access driveway will completely alter the water velocity characteristics of the wetland complex. Water now flows at low velocities through the wetland, to the drainage ditch on the southern side of proposer's property, to the Nine Mile Creek, then to the Minnesota River, and fmally to the Mississippi. If the proposed access driveway is elevated, as the NMCWD requested, the natural hydrologic connection is severed. The natural flow is now restricted within a culvert where the velocity will indisputably be accelerated.35 This acceleration increase the hydrologic power of the flow, increasing its ability to carry sediment and further degrade the watershed.36 The individual effect of such significant alteration in the velocity of waterflow must be investigated in regard to the effect on the surrounding environment. This investigation needs to extend to the cumulative effect of disrupted hydrologic regimes within the watershed, as these alterations pose the potential of significant environmental effects. 33 Supra note 2. J4 BROOKS Er AL., supra note 9 at 359-361. Function includes; filtration, perculation, reduction of water velocities, flood peak attenuation, nitrogen uptake, sediment interception, and habitat for wildlife. 3S Id at 212-215. As the surface that water is flowing through is smoothed and the amount of surface area it is in contact with is reduced the velocity ofthat flow increases. 36 Id. 11 An EA W Must be Required of Proposer The expected effects of proposer's project include, but are not limited to, increased pollution, increased water velocities, increased sedimentation, decreased water quality, increased water quantity, increased degradation, increased stresses on species survival, higher flood peaks and further impairment of already impaired watersheds. Where development will directly impact watersheds that are statutorily impaired and are governed by TMDL's, the preswnption must be that such development will have a negative effect on the water bodies, and that effect will be significant on the environment. Following the precautionary principle, proposer has the burden to show that the development will not add to the impairment, or make restoration more difficult and expensive, of the affected watersheds. Such burden can begin to be addressed, and may only be overcome, through the completion of an EA W by the proposer. There may be the potential here for significant environmental affects of the development, . this project surpasses the threshold at which an EA W is necessary. 12 Appendix Section I "..... ".,-"<-"." - 1"~6.C.e. w:~~"t\~~ .... z. .. '0 L7..QA g.~O~' ,,,'.. ~O \(.1 .. % % ... ... 1'\''''' CD 7," ;:'(;' ! so v _J ttfinnt:f r. .. . . r 61 ill, \ "-1.<..1I~ J.... .. \.lit"" \ ,,"" Appendix Section II U.S. Environmental Pl'otection Agency Recent Additions I Contact Us Search: EPA Home> Water> Wetlands Oceans & Watersheds> TMDLs > TMDL Reports Listed Water Information CYCLE : 2002 Click here to see metadata for this report. Cycle: 2002 State: MN List ID: MN07020012-518 Waterbody Name: NINEMILE CREEK; HEADWATERS TO MINNESOTA R State Basin Name: MINNESOTA RIVER LIsted Water Map Link: No Spatial Data State List IDs: ICycle I State List ID 12002 107020012-518. State Impairments: i State ! Impairment ITURBIDITY Parent Impairment Ipriority IRank 1.11 Targeted Flag Anticipated TMDL Submittal Potential Sources of Impairement: There were no potential sources reported to EPA by the state. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Information: There were no TMDLs reported to EPA by the state. Watershed Information: I Watershed Name IWatershed States ILOWER MINNESOTAIMINNESOTA AUID Seg Miles Reach Name Reach Description 0702001251870114.26 Nine Mile Cr Headwaters to Minnesota R Aquatic life--preliminary assessment _NS_ Final assessment _NS Based on Biota, chloride AQL assessment quality (Excellent, good, fair, poor)_ Good Factors used, please describe A. Timing of exceedances B. Magnitude of exceedances C. Seasonality of exceedances D. Naturally occurring conditions E. Combination of narrative and numeric standards F. Known point and nonpoint influences in the watershed G. Additional data Aquatic recreation use--preliminary assessment _NA _ Final assessment _NA_ AR assessment quality (Excellent, good, fair, poor) Fish consumption use NA 1998 TMDL listing (Y IN) _ N _ Which pollutants 2002 TMDL listing (YIN) _Y_ Which pollutants_Turbidity 2004 Impairment (4 or 5) (YINL Y_ Which pollutants_Turbidity, impaired biota, ch,loride Delisting status (if applicable) IAR category _5 Additional Comments: MCES turbidity data is not reflected in preliminary assessment due to workload, but was considered by PJG during review. In 2002, MCES analysis * results in 32% exceedances, confirming non-support. * MCES analysis gives different weights to event and grab samples. MDOT is starting a 2-yr study for chloride to supplement MCES monitoring. u.s~ Environmenta' Protection Agency Recent Additions I Contact Us Search: EPA Home> Water> Wetlands. Oceans & Watersheds >. TMDLs > TMDL Reports Listed Water Information CYCLE : 2002 Click here to see metadata for this report. Cycle: 2002 State: MN List 10: MN07020012-505 Waterbody Name: MINNESOTA RIVER; RM 22 TO MISSISSIPPI R State Basin Name: MINNESOTA RIVER Listed Water Map Link: No Spatial Data State List IDs: ICycle 1 State List ID 12002 107020012-505 State Impairments: I State Impairment I Parent Impairment IPriority IRank ITargeted Flag IAnticipated TMDL Subm IMERCURY IMETALS I II I ITURBIDITY I I II I IFCA (MERCURY) IFISH CONSUMPTION ADVIS. I II I IFCA (PCBS) IFISH CONSUMPTION ADVIS. I II I IFECAL COLIFORM IPATHOGENS . I II I ILOW OXYGEN IORGANIC ENRICHMENT/LOW DO III I Potential Sources of Impairement: There were no potential sources reported to EPA by the state. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Information: I I TMDL I Document . Name Note: Click on the underlinded TMDL Document Name for a detailed TMDL Document Report. I Actual TMDL TMDL ,--- Status Establishment Pollutant TMDL Pollutant State Impai Date Description Type Impairment Cy , APPROVED/ESTABLlSHED:1 SEP-28-2004 MINNESOTA ~ ,RIVER, POINT/NONPOINT RM22 TO PHOSPHORUS LOW MISSISSIPPI SOURCE OXYGEN ,RIVER Watershed Information: I Watershed NamelWatershed States' ILOWER MINNESOTA[MINNESOTA Appendix Section III rt-& q\;'~ (OIl' NA-02620-02 (V.l.OlforMS WORD) 2.16.01 . histWt?'tw;l,v~fi._t."4$@ittt~_1I.I*:tl.lli*l.i4~~'fJYD'f;tt11iriT .-- PART 1: BASIC APPLICATION "See HELP" directs you to important additional information and assistance in Instructions, page I. 1. APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION (See HELP 1): Name: Mr. Jim Parker. Advance Develooment. LLC 1A. AUTHORIZED-AGENT-(See HELP-1A). (Only if applicable; an agent is required) Complete mailing address: 5300 Hiahwav 101 Minnetonka. MN 55345 Name: Robert Merila Title: Senior Aauatic Ecoloaist Residential Phone: ( Mailing address: 2116 Marauis Rd. Golden Vallev. MN 55427 Business Phone' (952) 474-7964 Residential Phone: ( ) Fax (if available): ( E-mail (if available): Business Phone: (763) 545-0912 2. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (if applicable): Fax (ifavailable): (763)545-0912 E-mail (if available):_ Nine Mile Marsh 3. NAME OR I.D. # OF WATER BODY(S) IMPACTED" (if applicable; ifknown): Date 4a. ANY WETLANDS IMPACTED? ~Yes DNo 4c. If YES, indicate size of entire wetland (check one): 4b. If YES, what type (ifknown; check all that apply): ~ Less than 10 acres (indicate size: o 10 to 40 acres o Greater than 40 acres ) DIDILD2~3D4D5D6D7D8DRDoomo= 5. PROJECT LOCATION" (information can be found on property tax statement, property title or title insurance): Y. Section: SE Section: 25 Township: T 117 N Range: R 22 W County: Henneoin Lot#: Block: Subdivision: 6. ADDITIONAL LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS" (if applicable; ifknown): Parcel ID #/Geocode: VTM Coordinates: easterly Northerly Project street address: Fire #: UFor multiple water bodies or locations, attach additional sheets labeled ADDITIONAL WATER BODIES IMPACTED, ADDITIONAL PROJECT LOCATIONS, or ADDITIONAL LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS. 1 1. HOW TO GET TO THE SITE: Attach a simple site locator map. If needed, include on the map written directions to the site from a known location or landmark. Include highway and street names and numbers. Also provide distances from known locations and any information that would assist in locating the site. . Label the sheet SITE LOCATOR MAP. .' 8. PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT: What do you propose to do, and why is jtneeded? Please be brief (See HELP 8 before completing this section.) This project provides office condominiums in relatively close access to Highway 169. 9. PROPOSED TIMELlNE: Approximate project start date: 8/1/04 Projected end date: 11/15/07 10. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Describe in detail what you plan to do and how you plan to do it. This is the mostimportantpart of your applU:ation. See HELP 10 before completing this section; see also What To Include on Plans (Instructions. page 2). If space below is not adequate. attach separate sheet labeled PROJECT DESCRIPTION. The proposed project is for the office, parking lot, and access driveway. Typical construction equipment are proposed to be used on the project and Best Management Practices will be empoloyed in the proposed construction. No structures such as wingwalls or dikes, etc. are proposed. No structures on fill, pilings, or floats'is proposed on this project. Temporary placement offill in wetlands outside of the fill area is not planned. Any organic material excavated from the fill area is planned to be used topsoil on residential yard or nearby upland areas. 11. FOOTPRINT OF IMPACT (if applicable): Indicate total am01lllt (in acres or square feet) ofwetland(s) or water body area(s) to be filled, drained, in1llldated, or excavated; andlor indicate length of stream or river affected (in linear feet). 0.192 acres or 8.364 square feet andlor - linear feet 12. TYPE AND ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF MATERIAL(S) TO BE PLACED INTO OR EXCAVATED FROM THE WETLAND OR WATER BODY if applicable): List each type of material (such as rock, sand. clay. concrete) to be filled or excavated. and estimate the amount in cubic yards. ~ FILLING o EXCAVATlNG Typers) of material Estimated amount in cubic yards Type(s) of material Roadway base material and i 670 culverts I I I ! i Estimated amount in cubic yards 13. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: (for detennination of DNRfees only. which are based on total project cost) 2 14. SEQUENCING CONSIDERATIONS: What alternatives to this proposed project have you considered that could have avoided or minimized impacts to wetlands or water? -List.at least two alternatives (one of which may be "no build" or "do nothing'), and explain why you chose to pW'sue the option ctescribed in this application over these alternatives. Alternative 1: A driveway access along City property south of the site property was examined. Upon discussions with City representatives, it was determined that this alternative (that would result in less wetland impact) would not be feasible for various reasons. Alternative 2: A previous design had a 24 foot wide driveway at the same location as the proposed design. The current design has a 16 foot wide road. This narrowing of the driveway has reduced wetland impact bty 2,400 square feet.. 15. PORTION OF WORK ALREADY COMPLETED: Is any portion of the work already completed? 0 Yes ~ No. Jiyes. describe the completed work on a separate sheet of paper labeled WORK ALREADY COMPLETED. (See HELP 15 before completing tbis section.) 16. ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS: For projects that impact more than 10,000 square feet of water or wetlands, list below complete names and mailing addresses of adjacent property owners whose property also adjoins the wetland or water body where the work is being proposed. (See HELP 16. Jinecessary, attach a separate sheet labeled ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS.) Complele name(s) Complele mailing address (including s/reel address, city, slale, zip code) 17. STATUS OF OTHER APPROVALS: List any other permits, reviews or approvals related to this proposed project that are eIther pending or have already beeD approved or denied. See HELP 17. If already applied for Agency Type of Approval ID Number Dale applledfor Dale approved Dale denied 18. I am applying for state and local authorization to conduct the work described in this application. I am familiar with the information contained in this . 'on. To the best of my knowledge and belief, all information in Part I is true, complete, and accW'ate. I possess the au rity to unde e the work described. or I am acting as the duly authorized agent of the applicant. 7 (2-~/Q4 nnlP OR Sic:mnturp. of flppnf ...~ -' c> nati> This bl ck must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (the applicanl in Section I) or by the applic t's duly authorized agenl (if the boxed Section IA has been filled out and signed by the applicant.) Federal authorization: Generally, in addition to state authorization, projects in wetland or water areas also require Federal authorization from the COJ1lS of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. To apply to the COJ1lS using this application package, the applicant/agent must complete the modified one-page Federal Application form on page 4 and mail it to the Corps (address on Instructions, page 4) with a copy of the state application. Applicants may, if they wish, apply only for COJ1lS authorization by using the unmodified federai application form that is available from COJ1ls offices or via the internet at www.mvo.usace.annv.mil. 3 APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT (33 CFR325) OMB APPROVAL NO. (RENEWAL PENDING) The publIc burden for this callcel.iOD ofinformation is estimated to average 10 houtS per response. although the majority ofapplications should require 5 hours or less nus includes the tune for fCVlewmg InStructiOns, searching existing data sources. gathering and maintainingthe data needed, and completing and reviewillg the collection ofinfonnation. Send comments regar<hngthis burden , estimate or any other aspect of this collection ofmformation, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department ofDcfense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate offnfonnatlOn Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204. Arlington, VA 222024302; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710.0003~ Washmgton, DC 20503. Respondents should be aware tbatnotwithstaoding any pther provision oflaw. no person shall be subject to anypenalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if It does not display a cwrently valid 01.1B control number. Please DO NOT RElURN' your form to either of these addresses. Completed applications must be subInlnerl to the Ihstrict engineer havmg iurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. PRIVACY Act STATEMENT: Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10,33 use 403; Clean Water Act, Section 404. 33 use 1344; Manne Protection. Research and Sancwanes Act. 33 use 1413, Section 103. PrinCipal pwpose: Information provided on this form will be used In evaluating the application for a pc:rm.il Routme uses: This information may bemarcd with the Department of Justice and other Federal. state, and local government agencies. Submission ofrequestcd infonnation is voluntaIy, however, ifinformatlon is not provided, the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit be issued. ITEMS 1 TIJROUGH 4 TO BE FILLED IN BY TIlE CORPS l. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED YOU DO NOT NEED TO COMPLETE THE SHADED AREAS. -t All applicants need to complete non-.haded items 5 and 26. If an agent is to be used, also complete items 8 and II. f- This optional Federal form is valid for use onTf when included as part of this entire state application packet. 5. APPLICANT'S NAME Mr. Jim Parker, Advance Development, LLC 8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE (an agent is not required) Rob Meola, Aquatic EcoSolutions. Inc. t~;~~~~~1~itiT~~t4~llttNt,~[l~ft~{_~~~~w..ti1-1l1~;iltjfilr~&t~#~~~~I~lit#~%~J~1tt{t1~f K~it~.~IIrt~Jll~tM1jt . 11 ~lrt.:.I...ltfllfi(*}rrri1i{&1~*~ffi~1~kt~.\\11ftll!11g1 11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION (ifapplicable; complete only lfauthorizmg an agent) I hereby authorize to act on my behaIfas my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this permit application. APPLICANTS SIGNATURE: DATE: ~7}~~~i~m~t;H.ilii~~~~l~1ti~lJi.t.!f~li~li1\li.it~i!r~~~~~1Iw~lifi;t~~t~~itt~~#~!f~~0Jt~:ffi..i}?i~~~ 11~1!M4&~~;~~~~~~I:Jilg. '~~~', ~'~4.f:'~~~!~tl~_11IgIIJ.1flll1j~~~1rtt\1~1f%l~ti~Htti~JG11!~~ffft~ Mt~I~milllllll:!*ll~'~. ' ;f~~lfi~ljiffl'R'~1!iif~~ft;IJ1t%\f.1i~t~I~ill~~~j~~~t~~~f.fli~~fl\w~;1~~:[t~;&t}4m:lt~~~~ - ~i{=\=i;:;=;i==~;:;ilt~jiJ~~fj;i;i.iMfiiif:~t~~11:~iii~~i ~~)i:~~~~:q_i~_~'.\iM.Wf;~\.liiiKaiitttMlt1~f1jtf.1f1~~i~jgl&#l~TI1~tl~iihK$fi~~~\1Jffi~i1i!i~[.@~*)j 26.Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certifY that the information in this application is co e e curate. I further certifY that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly auth rized agent the applicant. I 7/27/0i re of applicant Date' I Signature of agent (if any) Date The app 'cation must be signed by the person who desi.resto undertake the proposed activity (applicant), or it may be signed by a duly authorized agent if the statement in has been filled out and signed. 18 D.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States owingIy and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up with any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent st.a:tements or r ntations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any faIse, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both. ' ENG FORM 4345, Jnl 97 EDITION OF FEB 94 IS OBSOLETE. (proponent: CECW-OR) A. PART 2: REPLACEMENT PLAN SUPPLEMENT For assistance in completing Part 2, contact your LGU or a professional consultant. 19. DESCRIPTION OF WETLAND IMPACTS: Complete the chart below: I)Use one row of boxes for each wetland impact. 2)If your project has more than one wetland impac~ reference your overhead view (part of Section 10) to this chart by identifYing and labeling ''first impact" and "second impact" on your overhead view. 3)Ifyou are identifYing only one wetland type within a given wetland impact area, use the first dotted line and leave the others blank. 4)Ifyou have chosen to identifY more than one wetland type within a given wetland impact area, use the extra dolled lines to indicate each separate wetland type, and identify predominant vegetation and size of impacted area for each separate wetland type within that impact area. 5)Ifyou do not have access to some of the information, call your LGU or SWCD office for assistance. (photocopy chartfor more impacts, ifneeded.) DESCRIPTION OF WETLAND IMPACTS Wetland Watershed Is site within Wetland type 1 Predominant size of area Existing land use in project impact (as name or 1000 ft of a vegetation in impacted area (check all that apply) noted on number (if lake or 300 ft impacted (in acres or overhead known) of a river? wetland area square feet) view) (YES or NO) Minnesota no 3 reed canary 8,364 Sq. Ft o hOUSing River grass, some o commercial First (Shako pee) -----------.-.----- _coman .catttaL ---------------- o industrial impact #33 o parks/recreation areas o highways and --------.---------- -------------.--- ---------------- associated rights-<lf-way o forested o farmsteads/agricultural IZI vacant lands o public and semi-public (schools/gov't facilities) Second ------------------- ----------------- ---------------- o airports impact o extractive (gravel pits/quarries) ------------------- ----------------~ --------------- o other: Ilfyou are ldentifymg only one wetland type within a given wetland impact area. use the first dotted line and leave the others blank. lfyou have chosen to identify more than one wetland type witlun a given wetland unpact area.. use the extra doned lines to indicate each sepanlte wetland type. and identitY predommant vegetation and size of impacted area for each separate wetland type within thatimpactare4a. TOTALS OF AREA(S) IMPACTED FOR EACH WETLAND TYPE ON CHART (indicate acres 0 or square feet IZI) Type: 1:_ IL: 2: 3: 8.364 4: 5: 6: 7: 8: R: Ii 20. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Are you aware of any special considerations that apply to either impact the site(s) or the replacement of siteCs)? 0 Yes i:8J No (Examples: the presence of endangered species, special fish and wildlife resources, sensitive surface waters, or waste disposal sites) If YES, list and describe briefly. 21. ARCHEOLOGICAL OR CULTURAL RESOURCE DETERMINATIONS: Are you aware of any archeological or cultural resource deten:ninations or surveys completed concerning the project or replacement site by the State Historical Society Preservation Office (SHPO) or others? 0 Yes l:8J No If yes. please explain below or attach a copy of any determinations or surveys. 22. HOW PROPOSED REPLACEMENT WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED: Indicate how proposed replacement will be accomplished (check only one box below and continue as indicated): 181 A. Wetland banking only . Complete Application for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits Fonn and include with your application. Copies of this form are available from your LGU, or download a copy from www.bwsr.state.mn.us . Skip to Section 27, page 8. (You do not need to complete Sections 23-26.) o B. Project-specific replacement only . Continue with Section 23 below. o C. A combination of wetland banking and project-specific replacement . Complete Application for Withdrawal afWetland Credits Fonn and include with your application. Copies of this form are available from your LGU, or download a copy from wwwbwsr.state.mn.us . Continue with Section 23 below. 23. DESCRIPTION OF REPLACEMENT WETLAND{S) CONSTRUCTION (Complete this section only if you marked Box B or Box C in Section 22 above): Describe in detail how replacement wetland(s) will be constructed. If several methods will be used, describe each method. Details should include the following: 1) type of construction (such as excavated in upland, restored by tile break, restored by ditch block or revegetated); 2) type, size and specifications of outlet structures; 3) elevations relative to Mean Sea Level or established benchmarks or key features (such as sill, emergency overflow or structure height); 4) what best management practices will be implemented to prevent erosion or site degradation; 5) proposed timetable for starting and ending the project; and 6) a vegetation management plan. Write this description on a separate sheet of paper labeled DESCRIPTION OF REPLACEMENT WETLAND CONSTRUCTION 24. SURPLUS WETLAND CREDITS: Ifusingproject-specific replacement (Box B or Box C in Section 22 above), will the replacement result in any surplus wetland credits that you wish to have deposited in the State Wetland Bank for future use? o YES l:8J NO. If yes, submlt a Wetland Banking Application directly to your LGU. Copies are available from your LGU, or download a copy from www.bwsr.state.mn.us 6 r 25. DESCRIPTION OF REPLACEMENT WETLANDS Complete the chart below: I) Use one row of boxes for each wetland replacement site. 2) !fyour project has more than one wetland replacement site, reference your overhead view (part of Section 26) to this . chart by identifYing and labeling "first replac~ent site" and "second replacement site" on your overhead view" 3) !fyou are identifying only Olle wetland type within a given replacement site, use the first dotted line(s) and leave the others blank. 4) If you have chosen to identifY more than one wetland type in a given replacement site. use the extra dotted lines to indicate each separate wetland type, and identifY type(s) of replacement credits and "restored or created" for each separate wetland type within that replacement site. 5) If you do not have access to some of the information, or if you do not know your replacement ratio, call your LGU or SWCD office for assistance. (photocopy chart for more wetland replacements, if needed.) Wetland Watershed County Topo- Wetland Type(s) of replacement credits Restored replacement name or graphic Type2 (in acres or square feet) or site number setting' created? (as noted on (if known) New Wetland Public Value Indicate overhead view) Credits (NWC) Credits (PVC) RorC First replacement -----------. ---------------------- --------.--------------- _.---- ------- site -----.------------------ ____u.______ ------------ ---_._-------------.-- Second replacement ------------ ---------------------- ------------------------ ____n_______ site ------------- -------.---- ---------------------- ---.------------.----.-- 'Ttopographic setting typ~: Indicate S for Shoreland; R for Riverine; F for Floodplain; IT for F1ow.through; T for Tributary; and I for Isolated. TOTAL NWC TOTAL PVC lOcular 39 wetland types: Indicate!, lL, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. 8, R. or U. If you are REQUIRED REPLACEMENT RATIO: identifying only one wetland type within a given wetland impact area, use the first dotted line and leave the others blank. If you have chosen to identify more than one wetland type (lfknown) 2:1 within a given wetland impact area. use the extra dotted lines to indicate each separate wetland type, and identify predominant vegetation and size of impacted area for each separate wetland type within that impact area. DESCRIPTION OF REPLACEMENT WETLANDS 26. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR PROJECT -SPECIFIC REPLACEMENT (Required only if you marked Box B or Box C in Section 22): For projects involving at least some project-specific replacement, include the following additional information: o Two drawings to scale of the replacement wetland. Include both overhead view and prome (side view or cross-sectional view). See What To Include onP/an. (Instructions, page 2) for a detailed description of what should be included in these drawings. Without drawings, your application will be considered incomplete. o For created replacement wetlands, include additional soils information (if available) that indicates the capability of the site to produce and maintain wetland characteristics. . Note 1: For replacement wetlands located on pipeline easements, you need to receive endorsement of your project from both the easement holder and the Minnesota Department of Public Safety's Office of Pipeline Safety. Before start of construction, the owner of any utilities involved must be notified. The landowner or contractor is responsible for giving this notice by calling "Gopher State One-Call" at 651-454-0002 (Twin Cities Metro Area) or 1-800-252-1166 (all other locations). . Note 2: For extensive or complex projects supplementary information may be requested at a later date from one or more of the responding agencies. Such information may include (but not be limited to) the following: topographic map, water table map, soil borings, depth soundings. aerial photographs, environmental assessment and/or engineering reports. 7 27. SIGNED AFFIRMATIONS: Sign and date either Box 27a or Box 27b below. If your project involves replacement by wetland banking only, sign Box 27a. For all other projects, read Box 27b, check appropriate boxes in Part B, and sign. 27a. For projects involving replacement by wetland banking only: To the best of my knowledge and belief, all infonnati will be replaced via withclra om an account in 7 (21! (j ~ Date 27b. For projects involvin . her project-specific replacement only or a combination of wetland banking and project-specific replacement: Part A: The replacement wetland (affirm all statements): . Was not previously restored or created under a prior approved replacement plan or pernnt, AND . Was not drained or filled under an exemption during the previous 10 years; AND . Was not restored with financial assistance from public conservation progr!lll)S; AND . Was not restored using private funds, other than those of the landowner, unless the funds are paid back with interest to the individual or organization that funded the restoration; and the individual or organization notifies the local government unit in writing that the restored wetland may be considered for replacement. Part B: Additional assurances (check all that apply): D The wetland will be replaced before or concurrent with the actual draining or filling of a wetland. D An irrevocable bank letter of credit, performance bond, or other acceptable security has been provided to guarantee the successful completion of the wetland replacement. [gJ The wetland losses will be replaced via withdrawal from an account in the State Wetland Bank. Part C: For projects involving any project-specific replacement: Within 30 days of either receiving approval of this application or beginning work on the project, I will record the Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants on the deed for the property on which the replacement wetland(s) will be located; and I will at the same lime submit proof of such recording to the LGU. To the best of my knowledge and belief, all infonnation in Part 2 is true. complete and accurate; and I affirm all statements in Parts A and C, as well as checked assurance(s) in Part B. Signature of applicant or agent Date R Appendix Section IV ~ =- Lli~CH HYDROGEOLOGISTS . ENGINEERS . ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS . October I, 2004 mrgcgJEJlW~ffi\ OQT 0 4 iUlfJ4 & .3:60 d JIll!\. ~._-< Nancy Anderson, City Planner City of Hopkins 1010 First Street South Hopkins, MN 55343 RE: Hwy 1 69/2nd Avenue Office Condo Site, Hopkins, MN Dear Ms. Anderson: Liesch Associates, Inc. (Liesch) had been requested by the Nine Mile Cove Association to review the environmental issues concerning the proposed multitenat office development at 2nd Avenue South in Hopkins proposed by Advance Development, LLC. Liesch has reviewed the facts of the project, has spoken with Mr. Bob Obermeyer, engineer for' the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and have several concerns relative to its potential environmental impact to the site and the surrounding community. We believe the facts warrant that this project be further scrutinized via a formal environmental review process in the form of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. As you mow the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District requires two permits for this project - a wetland replacement permit and a grading permit. The grading permit includes requirements for conformance with district water quality and flood protection standards. The wetland pennit application has been submitted, but is incomplete. The grading permit application has not been submitted. There are questions and concerns regarding the IOO-year floodplain elevation at the site and the floodplain fill rights transferred from the site to another site in 1990. According to MR. Obermayer, the laO-year floodplain at the culvert draining under Trunk Highway 169 is 878. The laO-year flood elevation of the remainder of the site (locations where fill is proposed) will be something higher than that. In addition, questions need to be addressed about the transfer of flood rights for this project and their effect. The Advance proposal computes its floodplain encroachment using a lOa-year floodplain elevation of 877. The actua1100-year floodplain elevation is greater than 878. A December 10, 1997 letter from a listing realtor, referring to infonnation provided by City of Hopkins and a representative of Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, says 94% of the land is considered at or below the 100-year floodplain elevation of 879. The project would need more fill than proposed to assure the first floor elevations of all structures are at least 2 feet above the 100-year flood elevation, and the project would certainly have more floodplain encroachment than indicated on the preliminary plans submitted to the City for approval. A December 15, 1987 memorandum to the Minneapolis Employee Retirement Fund (MERF - the prior landowner) from their consulting engineer assesses the feasibility of MERF purchasing the . www.liesch.com ~ lJESCH AsSOCIATES, INC. . 13400 15TH AVENUE NORTH . MINNEAPOUS, MN 55441 . 763/489-3100 . FAX: 763/489-310 I Page 2 October I, 2004 property to use floodplain fill rights to compensate for over-filling another site. [The property purchase and floodplain fill rights transfer was subsequently done.] This memorandum states: The parcel in question has an area of about 5.5 acres. Five of these acres lie below elevation 878 which is the projected 100-year flood elevation for Nine Mile Creek at this location. According to existing NMCWD standards, the owner of floodplain acreage may fill 20 percent on an area basis of floodplain property. Thus, 0.2 x 5 acres = 1 acre of land that could be filled. During a telephone conversation with the Nine Mile District Engineer, Mr. Obermeyer, he indicated that conceptually the fill could be placed anywhere on the site and still meet District standards. He did note that as a practical matter other regulatory agencies would enter in when a project was actually proposed. Thus, a conceptual one acre development pad placed at the southern end of the site would maximize the volume available for floodplain transfer. Based upon a review of existing City topographical maps, it is my [MERF consulting engineer] opinion that adequate floodplain encroachment rights exist on the tax-forfeit project and could be transferred to the Peace Valley Townhome site to offset the floodplain volume sought by the NMCWD. This memorandum raises the question of whether there is' an error in the 1990 Declaration between the MERF and NMCWD on how much floodplain fill is available to be used. A copy of the supporting documentation has been attached. As noted above, the NMCWD standards allowed that approximately I acre of the site could be filled. The MERF consulting engineer believed that, by selecting an acre that would maximize the volume of fill m the floodplain, enough floodplain encroachment rights could be generated to offset the floodplain volume sought by the NMCWD. In this discussion, both the floodplain storage deficit being mitigated and the floodplain encroachment rights being transferred to mitigate the deficit are volume measurements. The 1990 Declaration between MERF and NMCWD transfers 3.14 acres of floodplain fill rights to compensate for 2.51 acre-feet of excess fill in the floodplain at the other site. It indicates that there is the potential to fill another 0.42 acres of floodplain. If these figures are correct, they indicate 3.56 acres of this approximately 5.5 acre site could have been filled (-65%). As noted above, the NMCWD standards were 20% of the floodplain portion of a site. It appears there was an error in the Declaration whereby a smaller area (say,-l acre) could be filled which would allow up to 3.56 acre-feet (-3.5 feet of fill) below the 100-year floodplain elevation. If there is a misprint in the document and it was intended to transfer volume rather than area, the site would have 0.42 acre-feet (678 CY) of floodplain storage, not 0.42 acres of floodplain fill, available for use. Regarding NMCWD permits, the preliminary drawings provided shows the proposal includes wetland and floodplain fill. The runoff from the access road appears to drain directly to the wetland. The drainage from the office building and parking area appears to drain directly to the floodplain contiguous to the wetland. Importantly, the information presented by Advance did not address run-off rate control, water quality control or wetland mitigation all significant factors considering the proximity to the wetland and the site development plans. As noted above, it is clear that Advance Development has. not fully taken into account the floodplain, wetland and surface water issues at this site. These concerns' should not be cursorily waived. The wetland, floodplain and surface water quality issues represent concerns which require , www.Uesch.com ~ THE LIeSCH COMPANIES . MINNEAPOUS, MINNESOTA . MADISON, WISCONSIN . PHOENIX, ARIZONA Page 3 October 1, 2004 further and in depth environmental analysis. It is clear that this development does not meet the EAW exemption criteria as outlined in part 4410.4600, subpart 10. The EAW process truly represents the best and most prudent mechanism to assess the wetland, floodplain, surface water quality and other associated issues in. order for the City and its constituency to better understand what kind of impact this development would truly have on the area. We appreciate your consideration of these important issues. Please contact us at (763) 489-3100 should you have any questions or comments. Thank you and best regards. Sincerely, LIESCH ASSOCIATES, INC. !~~tt:;-~ Principal DanaI. Wagner, CHMM Principal Nine Mile Cove Association l\granitelpIj$lgolformsltemplatelletter.dot . www.liesch.com ~ THE LIESCH COMPANIES . MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA . MADISON, WISCONSIN . PHOENIX, ARIZONA Appendix Section V 9i>':]Mile C.eek (, (,/ (,?'-;~i7-r ',77T?7'77;rifTd'('i"""i!(rF7T(h"zrT7Ti ';-.(7-(1177', ''''-r7'77((7\'i 1''';7,' i;;-' if i/ . ~~.IA 1_1.;":'-' L..:. /_.J.'I.~ 1-:. J.-:..fm\'L~ ,~'J_l./-" /...:J -,-1 J...J.'I..~'...) :_J. 1.1 li-.'.],'j.;;.. J~:" I..:.),'/_J. 1_'.:. 1-' WATERSHED DISTRICT Engineering Advisor: Barr Engineering Co. 4700 West 77th Street Sune 200 Minneapolis, MN 55435 Ph. 952-832-2600 Communication Consultant: Lexicon Communications 15246 65th Place North Maple Grove, MN 55311 Ph. 763-557-5244 Legal Advisor: Krebsbach & Haik 225 South Sixth Street Suite 4320 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Ph. 612-333-7400 January 19, 2005 Mr. James Parker Advance Development LLC 5300 Highway 101 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Re: Permit #2005-01: Hopkins Office Condo Project: Hopkins Dear Mr. Parker: The Board of Managers of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District has reviewed the plans and grading and land alteration permit application as submitted to the District for the Hopkins Office Condo project located along Second Avenue South in Hopkins. The plans indicate that the project proposes an encroachment into the 100-year frequency floodplain of Nine Mile Creek. The 100-year frequency flood elevation, as shown in the Engineer's Report Hopkins Culvert Improvement Project, July 1993 and the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Water Management Plan, May 1996 is 877 M.S.L. There is a previous restrictive covenant on the title to this property permitting 0.42 acres of encroachment into the floodplain of the creek. A stormwater management basin is proposed to be constructed on the west side of the proposed development area. The top of the berm around the basin is shown to be constructed at elevation 877 M.S.L. The proposed berm should be lowered to a maximum elevation of 876.5 M.S.L. which will pennit a "sheet-flow" condition of water backing-up into the basin at flood stage. This modification results in an encroachment into the floodplain ofless than 0.42 acres, thereby meeting the requirements of the restrictive covenant. The Technical Evaluation Panel, TEP, in their November 15,2004 recommendation to the Board of Managers recommended that the outlet from this basin be directed westerly to the existing wetland west of the basin. The basin outlet should be a 12-inch outlet pipe with a 6-inch orifice installed at the upstream end of the outlet. With an outlet elevation of 876 M.S.L., our calculations indicate an outflow discharge of less than 1 cfs from the basin with the storage provided for the 1 DO-year frequency storm event. With the outlet from the basin constructed at 876 M.s.L. and the basin being excavated to an elevation of 875 M.S.L., sufficient "dead-storage" volume is provided to meet the District's water quality criteria. The Managers approve of the grading and land alteration pennit subject to the following conditions: I. All conditions as outlined in the attached General Provisions are applicable. 2. The existing restrictive covenant on the title to the property must be amended to state that no further fill or encroachment into the floodplain of Nine Mile Creek will be allowed on this site. A copy of the covenant must be submitted to the District legal advisor for review and approval prior to filing the amendment. Web Site: 'NWW.ninemHecreek.org Board of Managers LuAnn Tolliver ~ Minnetonka Corrine Lynch - Eden Prairie Bob Kojetin - Edina FIDydLaumann~Broommgron Geoffrey Nash - Edina Mr. James Parker January 19, 2005 Page 2 3. The elevation of the berm adjacent to the proposed onsite ponding basin must be lowered to a maximum elevation of876.5 M.S.L. This will allow for a sheet-flow condition of water backing-up into the basin at flood stage. The basin outlet must be relocated to discharge westerly to the existing wetland west of the basin. The upstream invert elevation should be constructed at elevation 876 M.S.L. with a 6-inch orifice plate to restrict the outflow discharge. A design detail must be submitted to the District engineering advisor fo! review and approval prior to the commencement of construction. 4. All conditions as outlined in the TEP November IS, 2004 recommendation to the Board of Managers regarding wetland impacts proposed remain applicable. 5. The District will require that water quality treatment manholes, Stormceptor or equal, be installed within the two proposed discharge points into the T.R. 169 drainage system. 6. To more efficiently and effectively handle drainage from the north to the south crossing, the proposed driveway, the drive should be raised from that shown on the plan and a cross culvert installed beneath the driveway. A copy ofthe !evised plan must be submitted to the District's engineering advisor forreview and approval. If you have any questions regarding the conditions of the District's permit, please call us at 952-832-2600. ~::-~~~ "." Cfrt~~~ermeyiJ BARR ENGINEERING CO. Engineers for the District Approved by the Board of Managers NINE MILE CREEK W ATERSI:!ED DISTRICT du~ 13_/~ President Date: i -{ q -OS Enclosure c: Paul Haiky'"' Steve Stadler Nancy Anderson David Rosedahl ::ODMA IPCDOCSIDOCS\245272\1 Permit: Project Name: Approval Date: #2005-01 Hookins Office Condo Prolect: HODkins Januarv 19. 2005 General Provisions I. All erosion control measures shown on the plans must be installed prior to commencement of grading operations and be maintained until an areas altered on the site have been restored. If silt fence is used, the bottom flap must be buried and the maximum allowable spacing between posts is 4-foot on center. All posts must be either 2-inch x 2-inch pine, hardwood, or steel fence posts. If hay bales are used, all bales must be staked in place and reinforced on the downstream side with snow fence. 2. All areas altered because of construction must be restored with seed and disced mulch, sod, wood fiber blanket, or be hard surfaced within two weeks after completion of construction or no later than October 15, 2005. 3. Upon completion of construction and restoration of areas disturbed, the permit applicant is responsible for the removal of all erosion control measures installed throughout the project site. 4. At the entryway onto the site, a rock filter dike being a minimum of two feet in height and having maximum side slopes of 4: I must be constructed. This rock filter dike will enable construction traffic to enter the site and also provide an erosion control facility. 5. A detailed storm sewer plan must be submitted to the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District (NMCWD) for review and approval. 6. The NMCWD must be notified a minimum of 48 hours prior to commencement of construction. 7. The NMCWD, its officers, employees and agents review, comment upon, and approve plans and specifications prepared by permit applicants and their consultants for the limited administrative purpose of determining whether there is reasonable assurance that the proposed project will comply with the regulations and criteria of the NMCWD and other state and federal agencies. The determination of the NMCWD that issuance of this permit is appropriate was made in reliance on the information provided by the applicant. 8. The grant of this permit shall not in any way relieve the permittee, its engineer, or other professional' consultants of responsibility, nor shall it make the NMCWD responsible for the technical adequacy of the engineer's or consultant's work. The grant of this permit shall not relieve the permittee from complying with all conditions and requirements of the permit which shall be retained by the permittee with the permit. 9. The issue of this permit does not convey any property rights in either real or personal property, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to private property or any invasion of personal rights, nor any infringement of federal, state, or local laws or regulations. 10. This permit is permissive only. No liability shall be imposed upon the NMCWD or any of its officers, agents or employees, officially or personally, on account of the granting of this permit or on ::ODMA IPCDOCSIDOCS\245272\! I account of any damage to any person or property resulting from any act or omission of the permittee or any of its agents, employees, or contractors. 11. In all cases where the doing by the permittee of anything authorized by this permit shall involve the taking, using, or damaging of any property, rights or interests of any other person or persons, or of any publicly-owned lands or improvements or interests, the permittee, before proceeding therewith, shall obtain the written consent of all persons, agencies, or authorities concerned, and shall acquire all necessary property, rights, and interest. 12. This permit is not transferable. The permittee shall make no changes, without written permission previously obtained from the NMCWD, in the dimensions, capacity, or location of any items of work authorized by this permit. 13. The permittee shall grant access to the site at all reasonable times during and after construction to authorized representatives of the NMCWD for inspection of the work authorized by this permit. 14. This permit may be terminated by the NMCWD at any time deemed necessary in the interest of public health and welfare, or for violation of any of the provisions of this permit, unless otherwise provided in the special provisions. 15. Construction work authorized under this permit shall be completed on or before date specified above. The permittee may, in writing, request that the NMCWD extend the time to complete the project and shall state the reason for any requested extension. 16. If dewatering is required and sump pumps are used, all pumped water must be discharged through an erosion control facility prior to leaving the construction site. Proper energy dissipation must be provided at the outlet of the pump system. ::ODMA IPCDOCSIDOCS\245272\! 2 , Ja~ 07 05 11:41a James H. Parker 3619492499 p.2 Please Send Applicatlon to: Barr Engineering Company 4700 West 77th Street Minneapolis, MN 55435 Phone; (952) 832-2600 Fax: (952) 832-2601 P.A. # 2005-01 NINE MILE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT GRADING AND EARTHMOVING PERMIT Application for pennjt. permit status. notification of comp~tion and certification of completion The top portion of the appflC3tion must be complete before the District will consider the application Name of Applicant Jampc; t::L-Po..rk'pr Acl.WHlf'P_ Develoomenf ~:::::f~~:()~~;~;'IA~,;11~' \-.';.~j:~t>11&. .5"'~5TelePhone '952474 location of Work At".l _ fl.l:) S~c'""... A Po.ve ~') \-\ (') j>K'>'\C,. MtJ Municipality \-\ (\ P ~ '''' <; IV\ , '" V\ e '" 0 -'r 0.. Projected duration of work ~()r>c:; C <'>In c,ttoC:+ i "~~ ~~ Procedures to be used to control erosion and sedimentation S e. .... '" LLC 7'3t;4 ~~~~p~(,l~ "Vl ? Legal Owner of Property; p....-\"f'l V'iC.e 'iJ-<evelC'\l('VYIe.V\T LLC Lega' Description of Property (if available): Se e p\;T'tn, C III e A. <;; \neE''\: Property Identification Number. -2. '" 1\"1:?? 4 \ tJC')l\~ c\ \ /. 12.001:5 Date &'ff11iA 't1.Q" ~ Applicant ----------------------------------------------------------------------- All work shall be completed by the collateral required is none 15th day of day of January October .20 05, Permit application received by the District on the 7th ,20~. The amount and nature of This permit application is hereby~ I approved) by the Board of Managers of the Watershed District this 19th day of January , 20~, subject to the conditions contained in the attached correspondence dated January 19~ 2005 This permit Is permissive only and does not release the permittee from any liability or obligation imposed by Minnesota Statutes, Federal Law, or local ordinances. ..... rlu~ ~~T~ President of Board of Managers ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Notice of. completion of work authorized 0: expiration of grading permit O. is hereby given to the District on this day 01 20_. Permittee ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Certification of the satisfactory completion of work authorized is hereby made on the 20_. dayo! Inspector ::CJI:W\ 1FCOOCS1OOCS1214318\1 Appendix Section VI January 18,2005 City Council City of Hopkins 1010 First Street South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 RE: Proposed Advanced Development Dear City Council, City of Hopkins: Liesch Associates, Inc. (Liesch) has been requested by the Nine Mile Cove Association to review the environmental and construction issues concerning the proposed office condominiums by Advanced Development, LLC. Liesch has reviewed the proposed plans for the project and have several concerns related to its potential environmental and construction design impacts to the site: I. Access Driveway The proposed access drive has been revised so there is a low area in the center of the driveway for surface water to flow over during storm events. There is 1.6 acres of area from this site plus over I acre area from the adjacent parking lot which will provide surface water over this driveway during a storm event. This is an extremely poor design as the drive way will be under water during most rain events and unusable for foot traffic, it will be covered with ice in late fall, winter and early spring and will be impassable in a SO to 100 year flood with one to two feet of water over the surface. The sub-base for the driveway will be in a saturated condition all the time and this will lead to breakup and failure of the asphalt surface and a very high maintenance cost. It is our position that this is both a dangerous situation and an unnecessary burden to the proposed owners. 2. Flood Plain The 1990 Declaration between MERF and NMCWD stated that there was only 0.42 acres of flood plain area remaining for possible fill on this property. The developer originally was showing 0.371 acres of flood plain area being filled, he now plans to construct a berm around the infiltration area which will isolate and remove an additional 0.33 acres of flood plain area, for a total of 0.70 I acres removed for the development in an area that already experiences flooding problems. 3. Water Quality The MPCA Protecting Water Quality in Urban Area and the NMCWD require that new developments provide water quality provisions to surface water prior to discharge to Protected Waters. Approximately 2/3 of the surface water from the development is routed to the infiltration area, with 1/3 of the surface water discharged directly to the wetlands or existing ditches with no water quality improvements. 4. Water Quantity The Minnesota Urban Small Sites BMP Manual and NMCWD require that new developments have no increase from predeveloped rates to the post developed rates of runoff for the critical 100 year frequency storm event. The proposed development does not meet these water quantity standards and based upon conversations with the NMCWD while they encourage infiltration areas, they do not consider them in their calculations for storm water detention. We recognize that some of these issues would fall under the NMCWD Land Alteration Permit, but it is clear that this development does not meet the minimum standards for storm water quality or quantity and there are design issues that are potentially hazardous to the public that the City should take into consideration before approving this project. We appreciate your consideration of these important issues. Please contact us at (763) 489-3100 should you have any questions or comments. Thank you and best regards. Sincerely, Liesch Associates, Inc. John Lichter, PE Principal Glen A. Sanders Senior Project Manager Nine Mile Cove Association Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet Date a/I//t5 Name (Please sign AND print) /1/;c.-h4~ I JJj~k; !liiJJIJdI Name (please sign AND print) Re.~ec..(..CL K.,..CL~""""..o Address (please include zipcode) ~ l/;}.,~ h.I"r;"Trm ~;r Rosev~lIe. I nfAJ 55""113 Address (please include zipcode) zq2.0 Deo.."", f'><.....,::\ ..1tllo Y'lplS. M N 55oo1f-ll., Name Address (Please sign AND print), () (please include zipcode) n IU ~fs#1/~ S 'n",; k L/I1lf'l' ,7!l7,u UfO'" {jeee h 5sfs Name (please sign AND print) ~&c~d' Address (please include zipcode) 3f3tJ LUI IfdCl!/ #t~ /II/'J1lt.1dfoliJr/W# $/6 Page # / Telephone Number (please include area code G fA -;)..0-:;:- 3J.SO Telephone Number (please include area code Co,,,. "I '2.10' 0 I 52 Telephone Number (please include area code y43- r,a.:f?.;1-J Telephone Number (please include area code ~/cJ 3'/0/606 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet Date~ /1/ /0) , I Name (please sign AND print) ~~ -- -venmFcv H 14YlSO'l " Name P)J;:Z j:'ITf.I lfUr"'-lE:..Ck( , Name ;z;r~ bAv'ib hJ~~ Page # A Telephone Number (Please include area code io\2 -o~'-\- Q2.85 Address (please include zipcode) \300 "Jette Place...> ItlLi9 lV\mntupollS i MN 55'-103 Address (please include zipcode) 1201../ H ....("W\.cn'\ ?1 Mpls MtJ 5SE{()'$ Telephone Number (please include area code biZ. '1.5J; 'Z.4sD Address (please include zipcode) Telephone Number (please include area code -z.t{Z-J' P412-f2,11J6 TOt""; Q..iCL '~CCAh. \, \-L '\A" '" ~{\"""'J GP-<-I//- 7J'70 Address (please include zipcode) Telephone Number (please include area code 17 5s M A-I25L111-Uh ~ SA-II\JT ~ /v1.tIJ "75t{)C/ I 6IZ-36C;-~ Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet Date d;/ I! / ()) Name (please sign AND print) -:> oM t' "'-'-I N),) Gi'-~ JUl,ni AA6 Name (please sign AND print) Jel\-~ Md~U- ~p-- Name (please sign AND print) ;(Jtc/u,(qft. j ~~4 It// / ~ Name (please sign AND print) jL{,~ha.e1 /farrd,dYi ~-flf1~ Address (please include zipcode) 1'('1"1 Co \.f' Pnc. 4-1 ~5 Mf"'S I"" 'S'r'1 ~[( Address (please include zipcode) 1--0 3 () Q y(.V\ /tyt.S'. Wt'\.l'I.V-fU\Ca, MN S S 'to ~ Address (please include zipcode) Page # 3 Telephone Number (please include area code <-- l"l.- 1-<:> i'" z. ,it "'\ Telephone Number (please include area code ~ l2- b1'fl-OCOlfp Telephone Number (please include area code {, ~S~ 'fLf7'- 3 4" f"3 Api {02.. t(}1OO 1Il""'f'>~'~ 4 5. B~-~">'l /~J.; ~S~/3$ Address (please include zipcode) 15'15' ::3frl<'-<... ft.. #$05 Mrls.1 Jv1 tJ ';'5103 Telephone Number (please include area code &/ z. Zrg-o ,go.2..1 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet Date~/ Q.. JO) , , Name (please sign AND print) ~~ fJi~ tl-tFi>Y>re.- Name (please sign AND print) )(~;f~ K~,.;-.. rfJ1Jon Name (please sign AND print) \<:v'-s l-e I G (<<l//~~ Name (please sign AND print) ~~ L~~ ~~~ Address (please include zipcode) \ (0 vJ' G,r-AA"\-St; .fl=.IOL M.I VlV1=f'o lis I MN 5<;''103 Address , (please include zipcode) er,cB j2..,-v<-y $1, rr> I r.r. e "'-P' .1J:; J ,.,...,r./ SS"-/o I Address (please include zipcode) u/J{ Str fL1MY\. f)-, -I' z.. e, Z. Il/l)Y\AllP-~}1 fV1 (IJ C]5/.1/L.t Address (please include zipcode) 217 }oJ vJ It IkJ.~ <S-t I . p~ J v'Vv1J S '5: I i:Y'1 Page # q Telephone Number (please include area code (<Ol'2-)343-5Sq~ Telephone Number (please include area code &12 - '2 '-1=1 - '5>1D. <13 Telephone Number (please include area code &~I-vS3 -3L-jll> Telephone Number (please include area code ~ bt1b~ Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet Date ;}...//J.. / () S- o I Name (please sign AND print) G~f!;Al.,J:> -h:.2A)W Lb M~ Name (please sign AND print) G'eor.J~ VV Orn:v ~~p~ Address (please include zipcode) 1(0 ~. G,e-f.".oJ"5T; # ~K.. t'ft;<>veAfbl.i-;(' A.1'N ~9f6 3. Address (please include zipcode) /? 7' WIY':'/S()Y'" '-'nc /II,...., /.3r'7/,-toJ.? /1111 O'S' //;z Page # s- Telephone Number (please include area code (b/~) g ~?-o3s8 Telephone Number (please include area code C.sj-t33- '7l.f'fy. Name Address Telephone Number (please sign AND print) (Please include zipcode) (please include area code At{ t ~o(IJ tyl, W/C1lZt:! Vli!-t f'1f't-?/;U6 77J;J t:R-- v11,1 r7 ~_ ~57- 39f- 31cz:/' ~I'n,~ l~ev/4E:,/41AJ b~0 """ Name (please sign AND print) Address (please include zipcode) COLLEEN M, Lv I E'('E~Kr ~1~\0'~ Telephone Number (please include area code d-V J... <6 Fft-P.p.,r!OC"IoN Ll R.c:lE RDSeUIGCt:; MrU S~ II ?? G::$7 - L/S/- 7 $''10 Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet Date:2/ /L//O<) Name (please sign AND print) CMrl-e. AtJer9Y\ ~~ Name (please sign AND print) d'rtc L 1?~kCV\ ifp.t~~> Name (please sign AND print) ~.ar~ COve.. Lohse ~i~rFj -r.L,Vv N~r ~~IP vJ.,.~ Address (please include zipcode) ~H55 ~~,LWe J'J' 1='~ ~ IVl N 55tj~ /..g Address (please include zipcode) Page # ~ Telephone Number (please include area code l'ft3 ,'{-=f t. 31-+0 Telephone Number (please include area code 330 lJIit-h'[jQ-V1 S-t l.c61 -l-,JL{-ID(t s'-t /1uJ I IVtIJ 55rD), Address (please include zipcode) loe;; {tJv,fJiy f2d P #;J/r /Vet.; !3rilifC..-, )..1/j/ b5//~ Address (please include zipcode) ;o.99?ct:~wo~ ~ve, sS1.., ~IJ ~5/1h Telephone Number (please include area code 0'S-I-P7'7-Cill/ Telephone Number (please include area code g/%/~09J I Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet Date :;).. J I L{ J oS- , I Name (please sign AND print) ~wriv Name (please sign AND print) " , wI ~e.V\1 -?-f!fr--b Name (please sign AND print) - ,j A-Mr>-J,M~It('" ~"tr://4(/ Name (please sign AND print) ~.&\~\ ~.~.\4:- ~~~,\~ Address (please include zipcode) I~ /oJ, I"\;} '* .it o.1l. ~\II'I 65'tv~ Page # ::;- Telephone Number (please include area code i., i 2- ?'Y1-1./it-.'Y' Address Telephone Number (please include zipcode) (please include area code 70".; &er(.VI-;~/II\Ave. ~if2 t,;rz..'Z...~7-S~SS S-"';iM 'JJdU"'() rvtfJ Address (Please include zipcode) 5"0" c.. ic."-ott\",J. .4."" S iiaos- S-\-.l'e"",\, /,,,,It-J SYIl"-I,^,,,J... Address (please include zipcode) T ~~. ~ '.~ ~""<Joo. ~\"0- ~\- ~ 'oJ\ - l~\Q\(. Telephone Number (please include area code &'s-/- C,qq-b'Fo'l Telephone Number (please include area code Lr\ - (;~b -,. b~ '2- Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet Date J../ I'I/O~ I ' Name (please sign AND prin~ ~~ 6i2IW "ct-:le€,.Q\-.J \ Name (please sign AND print) tnf"- T {fn"Sf ~~f- df- Name (please sign AND print) IIJ\~~ ~vr~ Name (please sign AND print) ~b;;Jt"b Address (please include zipcode) \~Ob ' 6Y"<! ~~ \..J is Ml"t S. ,(Vi;J S::;:+\ b Address (please include zipcode) ~ Zb- Q,..''O cf-ired' Ax. m(nI1e~f'L{5 iVlIV b71,/;j Page # ? Telephone Number (please include area code ll! [z..."l8B 'Lj,-') ~8 Telephone Number (please include area code ttbt /;2-(5 -i/3u Address Telephone Number (please include zipcode) (Please include area code IOi{ /I C-erNM-- U'llce &(~1f13 (1iJ'S )25 ') -()LfI~ MIIItI'\&'M'iA rwv :S':f3'D <; Address (please include zipcode) \ 10 ()..o. (,."'-1110<4 <,.\- A(T!:.' bV:> .J1.1O I." /lA,/V f ':i\,i../O~ Telephone Number (please include area code (,{}- Iof&-'l-'?,?c; . Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet Date:2./11/()<) Name . (p~ase sign AND print) Vrf55r[' (1IJ&lJ ~ - Name (please sign AND print) Name (please sign AND print) Name (please sign AND print) Address (please include zipcode) ID~S ~'i/')".{.L,WI;; YIlt/if it61'~J /1.J J.5J 'I} Address (please include zipcode) Address (please include zipcode) Address (Please include zipcode) Page # 1 Telephone Number (please include area code q51-~I)-'S6t Telephone Number (please include area code Telephone Number (please include area code Telephone Number (please include area code I I IMemorandum To: Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council From: Chief Craig A, Reid Date: 4/13/2005 Re: Annual Report of Police Activity On March 19th, 2005 the department annual report for 2004 was completed and forwarded to you, During the Council Meeting on April 6th I will present a short slide show highlighting areas of interest from the report. I will be available for any questions you may have at the conclusion of the presentation, MEMO To: City Council From: Nancy Anderson Date: April 15, 2005 Subject: Second Reading for Ordinance 05-947 Attached is Ordinance 05-947 for second reading, This ordinance will allow transient merchants in the B-3 zoning district. The Citv Council's action is to approve the ordinance for second readinq and order the ordinance published, CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota ORDINANCE NO, 2005-947 THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOPKINS DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: That Section 535 of Hopkins Code of Ordinances be the same and are hereby amended by adding the following section: 535,01 PERMITTED USES B-3 106, Transient Merchants X Other uses listed in Sections 535 are to be renumbered accordingly First Reading: April 5,2005 Second Reading: April 19, 2005 Date of Publication: April 28, 2005 Date Ordinance Takes Effect: April 28, 2005 Eugene J, Maxwell, Mayor ATTEST: Terry Obermaier, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: City Attorney Signature Date