Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout86-085 * -CITY OF LAKEVILLE RESOLUTION Date August 18, 1986 Resolution No. 86-85 Motion By Sindt Seconded By Harvey RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION REGARDING THE BRACKETT'S TOWNHOMES ENVIRONMENTAL. ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET WHEREAS, the City of Lakeville, as the responsible governmental unit, has directed the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet ("EAW") before acting upon requests for .final.. approval for the Brackett's Townhomes Planned Unit.-Development and final plat, and WHEREAS, .the City has received and reviewed .the EAW and has forwarded it'for comment to various groups, organizations, and individuals as required by law, :and WHEREAS, the Notice of Availability for Review :was published in the EQB Monitor on ,7une 11, 1986, and WHEREAS, the thirty-(30) day comment periodhas closed, and WHEREAS, the. City Council has received and considered letters and other..comments on the EAW. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Lakeville City. Council: The Findings of Fact ..and Conclusion attached hereto as Exhibit "A"-are adopted by the Lakeville City Council. Adopted by the Lakeville City Council this 18th day of August,...19.86. CITY O AKEVLLLE BY : AT ES Du ne R. Zuan, or atrck E._McGarve City Cl . FINDINGS OF FACT BRACKETT'S TOWNHOMES • ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. WORKSHEET PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project consists of aplanned unit development (PUD) which ..ultimately wily contain 228 residential units on a 245 acre site. The project area is the former Honeywell Country Club,:located on the western border of the City of Lakeville between 175th and 185th Streets. -The project will be developed in three phases..The phases may be combined. Phase l will consist of 86 townhouses located in the southwest corner of the site. adjacent to Judicial Road, as well as 3 single-family houses on the south side of 175th Street. The second phase will .consist of 36 single-family detached units in the northeast corner of the site adjacent tQ the .planned expansion of Lake Villa Golf Estates. Phase 3 will consist of 98 townhouses.- The three phases of residential development will occupy approximately 70 acres of the 245 acre site; the remaining 175 .acres will remain in use as golf course, driving range, clubhouse, and clubhouse parking lot and .appurtenant buildings. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET PREPARATION AND DISTRIBUTION The City of .Lakeville prepared. an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Brackett's Townhomes, pursuant to the rules of the Minnesota • Environmental. Review Program. The EAW was distributed to al l.. persons on the Minnesota. Environmental Review. Program distribution list, the notice. of availability. for review. ''was published in the EQB Monitor on June 16, 1986, and the RGU provided a press xelease to a local newspaper. The Natural Resources Committee conducted a public informational review of the EAW on July 1, 1986. The thirty (30) day comment period ended on July 16,.1986.. CRITERIA 1. Type, extent and reversability of environmental impacts: The EAW describes the project. and analyzes the possible environmental impacts associated. with the project. The. results of this analysis are that no irreversible adverse impacts will occur as a result of this. project. 2. Cumulative. potential effects of related or anticipated future projecis: No related projects are planned aspart of this project. 3. Extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory. authority:. -1- The City. of Lakeville, Department of Health., Minnesota Department of, Natural Resources, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency will maintain ongoing authority over the project as a result of permitapplications.. The City of Lakeville. requires that a performance bond be posted. to ensure compliance with erosion control.. requirements. 4. Extent to which environmental effects. can be anticipated and con- trolled as aresult of other environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, or of EIS's previously prepared on similar projects. No similar environmental studies have been undertaken in Lakeville. -2- COMMENTS Ten letters were. received in;comment to the EAW or the project. A. Minnesota Department of Transportation, July 14,.1986. This letter contained no comments or question requiring a response. B. Minnesota Historical Society, July 9, 1986. The Society was awaiting 'the results. of the archaeological supply when .this comment letter was written. The archaeological survey was subsequently completed.; no archaeological sites were found. The report has been .forwarded tothe Society and we anticipate that it will answer their concerns. C. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, July. 16, 1986. The MPCA requested additional information on`two issues, water .quality. and noise. The comments are addressed in the attached. letter. to Dan .Berg of the PCA. Briefly, the EAW's conclusion that no significant adverse impacts on Orchard ..Lake would occur has been confirmed. The noise impact question also has been. addressed in discussions with the MPCA. D. Metropolitan'Council, July 15, 1986. The Metropolitan Council recommended that additional' information be provided relative to "the nature and extent of the impacts of this .'development on Orchard Lake and the .measures to mitigate .these impacts". This comment is essentially the same as PCA's comment. Refer to the. attached letter to PCA for discussion of this issue. The Council also indicated that "the EAW should indicate that the proposed development is currently inconsistent .with the City's .adopted comprehensive plan and that a plan amendment is required to add .the project to the Gity's 1990 sewer service area . The statement is totally inaccurate. The EAW specifically states. and recognizes thata comprehensive plan amendment must be processed. Secondly, the project is not inconsistent, as the area in question is within the year -1- 2000 urban servic8 area and, as such, qualifiesfor inclusion in the 1990 urban service area as there is acreage available in the stipulated 1990 developable.: land bank. E. Minnesota Department of Natural ~2esources, July 15, 1986. 1. The first comment made .several suggestion regarding the retention of habitat, preservation of mature-.oaks, vegetative screening and landscaping.. These suggestions will be adopted by the developer.. 2. The DNR's second comment deals with endangered species. These comments were received from DNR too late to be included in the EAW. Regarding `the Blanding's Turtle, the DNR recommends . preservation of sand dunes and wetlands in and adjacent to the projectarea in order to preserve the 'locally abundant" turtles...These habitat areas will be preserved. The red-shouldered hawk was observed nesting in Murphy- Hannehan park several years ago; therefore, the DNR recommends preservation of woodland habitat. As noted in E.l (above), the project will retain trees to the maximum extent possible. In view of .the project area's current .usage (golf course), our ecological consultant is of the opinion. that red-shouldered hawks are not likely to nest on the project site because they are relatively intolerant of nearby human activity. .According to the DNR, no rare. plant species. are present on the site. Our ecological consultant recorded an observation of. the white baneberry during her visit..'. DNR notes that they maintain .data base records on .this species in a "watch" status.. However, since it is not lfisted as endangered, .rare or .threatened, it'spresence on the site is, not considered significant. F. Dakota Soil and Water Conservation District, July 15, 1986. The SWCD letter notes earlier concerns about erosion and sedimentation control concerns and states that the final EAW, as well as meetings with the developer and City staff, have. covered '.all of these concerns satisfactorily. An erosion and sedimentation control plan will be developed in accordance with the requirements of the.SWCD. The plan will be reviewed by the SWCD. A performance bond `will be posted by the developer. to ensure compliance with .the erosion and sedimentation control plan. . -2- G. Marilyn Larson, July 16, 1986. The letter. reiterates Ms. Carson's concern about possible: flooding of her .property. As noted in the EAW, high'water~ levels already are a problem on Ms. Carson's .property,. and the proposedprojectwould cause this prob em to be worsened slightly. It also should be noted than the watershed .tributary to this wetland has experienced little urban development; the current high water problem is due principally to the unusually high precipitation which has occurred in the last several years and which has caused .well-publicized problems with lake water levels. all over Minnesota and. throughout the Great Laken. In order to prevent the proposed project from aggravating this .existing problem, the City will install additional culvert capacity under 175th. Street. H. I,~etter and Accompanying Petition from Marion Freeman, June 17, 1986. The letter states that the residents are "apprehensive of the increased runoff effect on wetlands, the lake, and several homes". Flooding concerns were addressed in the EAW and in the response to Marilyn Carson's letter. Water quality impacts of the runoff were addressed in the EAW and in the. letter-to MPCA as described in the response C above.. Our analysis. indicates that impacts to Orchard Lake_ and to the wetlands. will be insignificant.. The. MPCA and Met Council concur with this conclusion. The letter also mentions the traffic concern.. This issue was discussed at length in the EAW and has .not been questioned by the review agencies. Furthermore, a major design change has been proposed which would move the Brackett's - 175th access to the east of 175th Street "narrows". We believe this major design change addresses the traffic concerns of the Orchard Lake residents. I. Letter from Stephen Johnson,_July 10, 1986. Several-comments were contained in this letter. 1. "There is no mention of the comparison to the community should this development remain zoned R-i." 3 Under the Environmental Quality Board rules, an EAW is not required to address alternatives to the proposed project. The EAW. worksheet does. not contain any questions pertaining to alternatives. Therefore, discussion of alternatives is outside the scope of an EAW...However, it'could be observed that development of the 245 acre. site in R-1 zoning. would :produce roughly twice the housing units contained in the proposed. project,` withcorresponding increases in traffic, runoff, etc. It is not clear how development of the 'site in R-1 zoning would address. the resident's stated concerns about traffic and environmental impact.. 2. "There is not mention of the potential tax revenue generated from quality single family homes. in comparison to these. compacted townhomes.° Again, comparison. of other alternatives is outside the. scope of an EAW. Presumably, .development of more expensive housing would generate greater tax revenues. However, it also would consume more land, cause more traffic and runoff, and entail other impacts as mentioned above. 3. "There is no mention of the impact...to the .major traffic arteries in Lakeville", i.e., I-35W, Minnreg, and T.H. 50". Study of ADT levels on I-35 supplied by MnDOT indicates that the Minnreg interchange handles just over half the traffic the I-3.5/50 interchange handles. Our estimates show that the distribution of traffic fromthe Brackett's development will be approximately 72 percent through the Minnreg Road interchange.. Thus, this concern has been addressed. With regard to the above interchanges and I-35 in general, we contacted Jerry. Skelton of MnDOT. He indicated that the peak hour. capacity of I-35 in Lakeville approaches 4,000 vehicles per hour. in each direction, while current peak hour volumes are .just 1,000 vehicles per hour. Brackett's addition to the interstate during peak will be less than .200 vehicles... ..per hour, still"fare below. capacity. In addition, he stated that with the. addition of an`additional lane over the Minnesota River bridge, and the aforementioned Cedar Avenue improvement, volumes will be below .capacity levels in those areas as well. -4- 4. "No road access should be granted tothe Orchard Lake area" Since the submission. of thee:EAW, a plan change has resulted which proposes to eliminate the initially suggested .routing onto 175th Street at the northwest corner of the project site. Anew route located further to the east has been defined, This connection between theproject and 175th Street is not anticipated to be completedfor some time, and .will be .dependent upon the owners of the land located between Brackett'sand 175th 'Street to- initiate resubdivision and development of their .land.. Additionally, the proposed new intersection with 175th is east of the "narrows" which was the major traffic capacity limitation on the north. access routing. The timing and location change are seen as major plan modifications which, for the foreseeable future eliminate .and in the long term eventually minimize the impact of the Brackett's development on 175th Street.. This connection is, .however, seen as advisable to. plan for and eventually accomplish on the basis of public safety access and response time and provision of reasonable access between otherwise isolated portions of thecommunity.. This-access is not to be completed until all other routes are open,. and will occur where volume capacities are highest along the street, not at the narrower areas where current .volumes and capacities are lower. Therefore, the impact, minimal as it is, will. occur where .existing roads arebest able to handle it. 5. "In the future, Cedar Avenue will be extended into .Lakeville but as we all :know their projects have the history of taking a long time..to be decidedon and. then... an even longer time to complete." Dakota County is presently planning to upgrade Cedar Avenue to a four. lane divided highway (not freeway) south to Dodd Boulevard in 1987. Although this will not directly affect the Brackett'sdevelopment, it may have an indirect effect on both the I-35/50 Interchange and -the'I-35W river bridge. This could occur by making Cedar Avenue a moreviable northbound route for north- central Lakeville residents, thereby relieving pressure on the interstate. route. 6. Comment regarding speculation'on potential development. This basis was used because the. impact of traffic on 175th Street must consider.. the total .potential traffic -5- on this route. This includes existing traffic generation, future development along the street and traffic generated from other areas,:: such as Brackett's. Although we are speculating-about the development, the result is not an unknown. It is based on hard data and well-documented studies such as the census, local survey data.,.and the ITE Traffic Generation Manual. 7. "Water, runoff, wetlands, So. Hennepin Park, wildlife, and the lake. According to the EAW all these areas will be effected in a-tremendous way". The EAW does not say that these will be affected in a tremendous way. To take-the. issues one at a time: o Water, xunoff: Water levels off-site will be controlled by the installation of. extra culvert capacity .under 175th Street... o Wetlands: 'The wetlands will be preserved in their present condition by means of dedicated permanent drainage. easements. No signifscant adverse impacts are anticipated. o South Henna Park: The EAW .identified no significant impacts on Murphy-Hanrehan Park. The Hennepin County. Park Reserve District, in conversations with Mr. Robinette, has concurred with this conclusion. o Wildlife:..A thoroughanalysis of this issue, including asite visit by an ecological specialist andconsultations with the DNR, has failed. to identify. any significant adverse impact on wildlife orendangered species. o The Lake: Impacts on the. lake have been analyzed in ~accordancewith procedures recommended by the MPCA. No significant. adverse impactshave been identified. The proposed project will produce little..or no increase in nutrients entering the sake. The MPCA has concurred with this conclusion. o General .comment concerning alleged incompleteness.of the. EAW. The EAW is far more thorough than typical for projects of this size.. The only area identified as incomplete by review agencies was the analyses `of lake impacts, This area. has. been supplemented by additional work which has been reviewed and concurred with by .the MPCA; the additional.,work -b- confirmed the. original conclusion that no significant adverse impacts would occur to the lake. J, Letter from Marilyn Larson, June 3.0, 1986. Three concerns were identified in this letter, as outlined below: 1. Flooding. This issue has been thoroughly discussed. in the .EAW and previously:. in this response (see paragraph G ..above). To respond to several specific comments: o "Fluctuation of wetland 387W has. increased .since grading was done for Lake Villa Golf. Estates and Orchard Lake Estates." As. mentioned previously, verylittle of these areas"drains to wetland 387W; they drain predominantly to .the system which discharges into Orchard lake on the east shore north of 172nd Street. The flooding issue has been carefully studied by qualified hydrologists in the EAW. The analysis has not been questioned by the qualified persons who have reviewed it at the Soil and Water Conservation District,. the`DNR, etc. The EAW .concluded that .the existing: flooding would be aggravated by the proposed project and recommended that a new culvert be installed to mitigate this problem. o Construction dewatering: Construction dewaterng will produce sustained .discharges to the lake but these discharges will be minor-in volume compared to runoff from rainfall. These discharges will not. significantly..raise the levels of off-site wetlands... o Erosion and sedimentation control: The City will enforce a bonding provision to ensure. compliance with the erosion and sedimentation plan. o Surface runoff: The .letter states that the wetland .does not represent any. potential increase in runoff. This is not true; standing water in a wetland is, hydrologically speaking, 100$.impervious, because. rainfall. cannot infiltrate into standing .water. as it can. into soil. All rain which falls on the wetland water surface must flow to the lake. o "The proposed six-inch rise in wetland lever". As stated in the EAW, the 6-inch figure is a worst-case analysis of on-site wetlands, not the wetland adjacent to Ms. Carson's residence (387W). Wetland i -7- • 387W would increase less than 6-inches, as stated in the EAW; and even this increase will be reduced or eliminated by the addition of extra culvert capacity under. 175th Street. o Nutrient Loading: This issue has. been studied additionally.. since the completion of the EAW. The response has been detailed above (in paragraph C) and in the attached letter to Dan Burg ofthe MPCA._ 2:. Road - 175th Street a. "traffic counters have been placed on this xoad on .various occasions, as recently as the spring of this year." Staff feels that this count was not characteristic of peak traffic volumes as it was taken in March. In addition, the. commentor is concerned about restricted traffic capacities along the narrow portion of 175th Street, yet this count was taken along the fully improved section, east of the '.narrows" portion. b. "The projection of traffic on 175th Street from a total of 87 homes. between Judicial Road and. 172nd Street is erroneous because most of this. traffic does not normally travel over the portion of 175th Street that is 20 feet wide.." The projection of traffic volumes is used to consider impact on all local streets, not just a" small section of 175th Street. At 172nd Street, the road is upgraded in status from local to collector, .therefore the..pro~ection ends at that point. c. "Calculations based on 87~homes and the street capacity of 2,500 ADT --.given the condition of the road and the. realities of the existing neighborhood. - are absurd." .Staff feels that 25 to 40 percent of typical local street capacities would be reasonable to expect as a result of the poor condition and narrow width of the road. Normal capacities can be expected to range from 6,000 to 10,000 ADT. Therefore, the 2,500 ADT fits well in this range. Additionally, as noted by the comment or, much of this .traffic is generated east of the narrow portion of 175th Street, .and with the redesign of the Brackett's connection to 175th Street, even less impact is foreseen over the narrow area. -8- • 3. Wildlife The question concerning endangered species has. been addressed inparagraph.E (above). "The EAW states that the project would remove about 5.5 acres of oak woods, yet page 4 says that 5.5 acres out of 12.5 acres will remain. after development, or a total of 7 acres destroyed." The data on page 4 is correct; 7 acres of wooded. area wily be changed to developed area. In view of the small acreage involved, the impacts on wildlife habitat are considered insignificant because the habitat. types and the. wildlife they support are very common in Minnesota. trans.memo • -9-