Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 08May 16, 2011 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND ISSUING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF NEED FOR THE PROPOSED AIRLAKE 70 INDUSTRIAL PARK DEVELOPMENT Proposed Action Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move to adopt the attached resolution making findings of fact and issuing the negative declaration for the proposed Airlake 70 Industrial Park Development. Passage of this motion will result in the City notifying the State Environmental Quality Board (EQB) and the review agencies that the City has provided a negative declaration on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Airlake 70 Development. Overview Airlake Development is proposing to develop a 66 acre parcel they own east of Cedar Avenue. This proposed development will require the extension of 215 Street (CSAH 70) east of Cedar Avenue. Airlake Development is proposing to develop up to 916,000 square feet of light industrial / warehouse development on this property. The City Council approved the distribution of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) at the March 7 meeting. The comments that were received and the City's response memo are attached. Staff recommends that the Council approve the resolution making the findings of fact and issuing a negative declaration and that notice of this decision be forwarded to the EQB. Primary Issues to Consider Item No. • Were there any significant environmental issues identified as a result of the proposed Airlake 70 Development? • There is a delineated wetland on the site. Prior to any development on that portion of the site, all necessary permits from the local, state, and federal level will have to be approved. Supporting Information • Comments received on the Airlake 70 EAW and the City's responses • Resolution approving the Findings of Fact and issuing a Negative Declaration of Need David L. Olson Community and Economic Development Director Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N Source: Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): Notes: CITY OF LAKEVILLE RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ISSUING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF NEED WHEREAS, the preparation of the Airlake 70 Industrial Park EAW and comments received on the EAW have generated information adequate to determine whether the proposed project has the potential for significant environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, the EAW has identified areas where the potential for environmental effects exist, but appropriate measures have or will be incorporated into the project plan and/or permits to reasonably mitigate these impacts; and WHEREAS, the Airlake 70 Industrial Park project is expected to comply with all the City of Lakeville and review agency standards; and WHEREAS, based on the criteria established in Minnesota R. 4410.1700, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects; and WHEREAS, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental impacts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City of Lakeville has determined that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. DATED this day of , 2011. ATTEST: Charlene Friedges, City Clerk Mark Bellows, Mayor G:IDave OlsonlAilake 70 EAWIResolution Neg Dec.5.16.11.doc STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( CITY OF LAKEVILLE ) I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. is a true and correct copy of the resolution presented to and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lakeville at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the day of , 2011, as shown by the minutes of said meeting in my possession. Charlene Friedges, City Clerk (SEAL) G: (Dave OlsontAilake 70 EAWIResolution Neg Dec.5.16.11.doc To: Jim Larsen, Metropolitan Council Phyllis Hanson, Metropolitan Council Lynn Thompson, Dakota County Keith Parker, Department of Natural Resources Sarah Wingert, US Corps of Engineers Tamara Cameron, US Corps of Engineers Bridget Rief, Metropolitan Airports Commission Karen Kromar, Pollution Control Agency From: David Olson, City of Lakeville Copy: Steve Schwanke, RLK Date: May 11, 2011 Re: Airlake 70 Industrial Park — Environmental Assessment Worksheet Responses to Comments Please find below responses to comments received as part of the public review of the Airlake 70 Industrial Park EAW. Comments were received from the agencies listed above within the comment period which ended on April 20, 2011. The Metropolitan Airports Commission comments were received on April 25, 2011, but are still included in these responses. Responses to comments are outlined below and refer to the original comment letters, which are attached to this memo. Comments from Metropolitan Council: Response to Comment #1: Item 17 — Water Quality. The storm water management plan for the proposed project includes the use of infiltration areas. The design of any infiltration areas will take into consideration the guidance from the Minnesota Department of Health to prevent the potential for surface water contaminants entering the groundwater. Response to Comment #2: Item 25 — Nearby Resources. As noted in the EAW, the project will not interfere with or change any of the existing or planned parks, recreational areas, or trails. The City anticipates coordinating with the County on regional trails as part of potential City park and trail development north of the site. Comments from Dakota County Response to Comment #1: Item 21 — Traffic. The County has noted that as part of County planning efforts, a future east -west connection may affect the Airlake 70 project, future right -of -way needs, and setbacks. The City of Lakeville and the City of Farmington have incorporated this planning effort as part of the approved Transportation Plans that were part of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan updates for both cities. The City and developer anticipate coordinating with the County during the development plan approval process. Also, the City will review the development prior to approval to ensure that the project meets the City's requirements, such as setbacks and road design. City of Lakeville • 20195 Holyoke Ave. • Lakeville, MN 55044 952 -985 -4400 • fax 952 -985 -4499 • www.lakevillernn.gov • Southern gateway to the Twin C � ason • ��� 051111.doc May 11, 2011 Page 2 of 3 Response to Comment #2: Item 25 — Nearby Resources. As noted in response to comment #2 from the Metropolitan Council, the City anticipates coordinating with the County on regional trails as part of the potential city park and trail development north of the site. Response to Comment #3: Item 13 — Wells. As noted in the EAW and verified by the County comment, no wells are known to exist within the project site. If wells are encountered during the construction of the project, they will be sealed by a licensed well contractor and a permit obtained from the County. Response to Comment #4: As noted in the EAW and verified by the County comment, there are no known historic land uses that pose a significant environmental concern. If construction activities encounter potential contamination, the County and State will be contacted. The EAW and County comments note that the project is located near designated trout streams. The storm water management on the site will be in conformance with State and City requirements to protect these resources. The design of any infiltration areas will take into consideration the guidance from the Minnesota Department of Health to prevent the potential for surface water contaminants entering the groundwater. Any fill that is brought onto the site during construction activities will be required to meet local and state requirements. This information has been provided to the developer. Comments from Department of Natural Resources Response to Comment #1: To address storm water management for the project due to its proximity to designated trout streams, the EAW identifies that storm water management will be required to meet the City's requirements. The City will take under advisement additional storm water management considerations provided by the DNR. Additionally, if a dewatering permit is needed, the developer will contact the DNR. Comments from Pollution Control Agency No specific comments were provided by the MPCA. Comment from the US Corps of Engineers Response to Comments: Prior to any construction activity to impact, alter, or change a designated wetland all permits from the local, state, and federal level will be prepared, processed, and approved, including a Section 404 Permit according to the Corps of Engineers regulation. The EAW review is the initial step in the process of potential land development for proposals which exceed thresholds as mandated by the State of Minnesota. The EAW has to be complete prior to addressing any additional permits according to MN Rules 4410.3100. A Section 404 Permit is identified in Section 8 of the EAW to be sought pending a final decision on the EAW by the regulatory government unit. Provided the project moves forward the developer will fully address the permit application requirements for the US Corps of Engineers Section 404 guidelines for avoidance, minimization of impact and mitigation in the proper sequence. Wetland review, analysis, permitting, and mitigation will focus on the subject property under control of Airlake and the right of way of 215 Street. G:IDave OlsonlAilake 70 EAWIMEMO- Comment Responses - 051111.doc May 11, 2011 Page 3 of 3 Comments from the Metropolitan Airports Commission Response to Comment #1: The City notes that the MAC has completed the environmental scoping document for runway expansion at Airlake Airport, but has not yet proceeded with the Environmental Impact Statement at this time. Response to Comment #2: The design of the storm water management system will take into account the required storm water management needed to meet state and local requirements as well as address storm water runoff to nearby trout streams. The design will also take into account's MAC's concerns about attracting waterfowl near airports as a safety concern. The City intends to coordinate with MAC on during the plan review phases of the project. This concludes the City's response to comments on the EAW. If you have questions, please feel free to call me at (952) 985 -4421. G: (Dave OlsontAilake 70 EAWIMEMO- Comment Responses - 051111.doc METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION °+ i5 s4 Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport F + 6040 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, MN 55450 -2799 z Phone (612) 726 -8100 t 0 o_ IVINV t o F 9H 41RPORt� April 25, 2011 Mr. David Olson Community & Economic Development Director City of Lakeville 20195 Holyoke Avenue Lakeville, MN 55044 Re: Environmental Assessment Worksheet Airlake 70 Industrial Park Dear Mr. Olson: The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) has reviewed the EAW document prepared for the Airlake 70 Industrial Park. MAC has no significant comments on the document. We would, however, like to clarify one item within the text about future development and pose a question about the storm water management. Future Development. Page 7 of the EAW indicates that MAC is planning a runway extension at the Airlake Airport. It goes on to say that MAC is currently in the planning and environmental review stages. We would like to clarify that MAC completed an environmental scoping document, but is not currently proceeding with the full state environmental impact statement (EIS) that is required for the proposed runway extension. A timeline for the EIS has not yet been set, and will be dependent upon the project schedule and funding, once they are determined. Storm Water Management. Vegetated infiltration basins are described on page 16 of the document. MAC appreciates the acknowledgement and importance of designing infiltration basins within the vicinity of the airport due to the hazardous combination of waterfowl and aircraft. However, the text also describes treatment basins which will be designed with a permanent pool. Please clarify if these areas will indeed have a permanent pool (if not permanent, for how long after certain rain storm intensities will they retain water), and what methods will be used to prevent the use of the open water ponds by waterfowl. Thank you for the opportunity to review the EAW. If you have any questions, and to respond to our inquiry, please contact me at 612- 725 -8371 or via e -mail at bridget.riefmspmac.orq. Sincerely, Bridget Rief, P.E. Assistant Director — Airside Development The Metropolitan Airports Commission is an affirmative action employer. www.mspairport.com Reliever Airports: AIRLAKE • ANOKA COUNTY /BLAINE • CRYSTAL • FLYING CLOUD . LAKE ELMO • SAINT PAUL DOWNTOWN Minnesota Pollution Control Agency April 20, 2011 Mr. David Olson Community & Economic Development Director City of Lakeville 20195 Holyoke Avenue Lakeville, MN 55044 Re: Airlake 70 Industrial Park Environmental Assessment Worksheet Dear Mr. Olson: 520 Lafayette Road North I St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 -4194 1 651-296-6300 800 -657 -3864 1 651- 282 -5332 TTY 1 www.pca.state.mn.us 1 Equal Opportunity Employer Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Airlake 70 Industrial Park project (Project) in Lakeville, Minnesota. The Project consists of an industrial /warehouse development. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff has reviewed the EAW and have no comments at this time. Please be aware that this letter does not constitute approval by the MPCA of any or all elements of the Project for the purpose of pending or future permit action(s) by the MPCA. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the Project proposer to secure any required permits and to comply with any requisite permit conditions. If you have any questions concerning our review of this EAW, please contact me at 651 - 757 -2508. Sincerely, Karen Kromar Planner Principal Environmental Review and Feedlot Section Regional Division KK:mbo cc: Craig Affeldt, MPCA, St. Paul Doug Wetzstein, MPCA, St. Paul REPLY TO ATTENTION Operations Regulatory (2009- 02974 -SEW) Mr. David Olson City of Lakeville 20195 Holyoke Avenue Lakeville, Minnesota 55044 Dear Mr. Olson: DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ST. PAUL DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 180 FIFTH STREET EAST, SUITE 700 ST. PAUL MINNESOTA 55101 -1678 APR 202011 We have received the document entitled "Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Airlake 70 Industrial Park" dated February 11, 2011, and we offer the following comments for your consideration. As noted in the EAW, the Corps has determined that two of the wetlands on the Airlake Development property delineated by Kjolhaug Environmental are waters of the United States, as documented in an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) dated March 8, 2010. The two streams near and/or within the project area, South Creek and the South Branch of South Creek, are also waters of the United States and were included in the approved JD. The EAW states that the proposed project would involve a discharge of fill material in one of the jurisdictional wetlands; thus, this project would be subject to the Corps of Engineers' jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA Section 404). Waters of the United States include navigable waters, their tributaries, and adjacent wetlands (33 CFR § 328.3). CWA Section 301(a) prohibits discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, unless the work has been authorized by a Department of the Army permit under Section 404. Information about the Corps permitting process can be obtained online at http: / /www.mvp.usace.army.mil /regulatory. The Corps' evaluation of a Section 404 permit application involves multiple analyses, including (1) evaluating the proposal's impacts in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (33 CFR part 325), (2) determining whether the proposal is contrary to the public interest (33 CFR § 320.4), and (3) determining whether the proposal complies with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (Guidelines) (40 CFR part 230). The Guidelines specifically require that "no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences" (40 CFR § 230.10(a)). Time and money spent on the proposal prior to applying for a Section 404 permit cannot be factored into the Corps' decision whether there is a less damaging practicable alternative to the proposal. The Guidelines also require that when a project is not "water dependent," that is, it does not need to be located in or near wetlands to serve its basic purpose, it is presumed that there are alternative upland sites available and that the use of the upland sites would be less environmentally damaging than would be the proposed alteration of the wetland. The Airlake 70 Industrial Park Operations 2 Regulatory (2009- 02974 -SEW) project does not require access to, or proximity to, or siting within a wetland to fulfill its purpose. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the project proposer to clearly rebut the presumption that upland sites are available and that the use of upland sites would be less environmentally damaging than the proposal. The fact that the project proposer may not own the upland site is not, by itself, sufficient to rebut this presumption as long as upland property is available at a reasonable cost. We note that the project proposer intends to avoid and minimize impacts to the waters of the United States within the project area, and that a detailed alternatives analysis will be submitted to us with the Section 404 permit application. The EAW indicates that three alternatives have been considered: the no -build alternative, an alternative that would reduce the development in the northeast corner of the parcel, and the preferred alternative that would involve the complete filling of Wetland 1 (1.2 acres) on the property. The alternatives analysis should include both on -site and off - site alternatives and a discussion of why these alternatives are or are not practicable in light of the overall project purpose. Potential on -site alternatives may include re- configurations of the proposed development and reduced project footprints. Potential off-site alternatives should include use of other property owned by Airlake Development, Incorporated within the City of Lakeville, among any other sites that may be suitable for development. The preferred alternative should be the alternative that avoids and minimizes impacts to waters of the United States to the maximum extent practicable, while still achieving the overall project purpose. In addition to direct impacts, the application should include consideration of secondary and cumulative impacts to waters of the United States that may be caused by this proposal. This may include potential additional impacts to wetlands due to the initial extension of 215 Street, and the future expansion of 215 Street, as well as the potential for secondary impacts on the two trout streams (South Creek and the South Branch of South Creek). You or Mr. Dan Regan may request a pre - application consultation meeting with the Corps if either of you wish to discuss the data, studies or other information that will be necessary for the permit evaluation process. For further information or to request a meeting, please contact Sarah Wingert, the Corps project manager for Dakota County, at 651- 290 -5358. Copy furnished: Dan Regan — Airlake Development, Inc. Sincerely, Tamara E. Cameron Chief, Regulatory Branch Minnesota Department of Natural Resources April 18, 2011 Division of Ecological and Water Resources 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, MN 55106 651 - 259 -5738 David Olson, Community and Economic Dev. Director City of Lakeville 20195 Holyoke Avenue Lakeville, Minnesota 55044 dolson @ci.lakeville.mn.us Transmitted Via E -mail RE: Airlake 70 Industrial Park Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Dear Mr. Olson: www.mndnr.gov AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CONTAINING A MINIMUM OF 10% POST- CONSUMER WASTE The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Central Region has reviewed the EAW for the Airlake 70 Industrial Park project in the City of Lakeville. From a natural resources perspective, the document appears to be complete and accurate and does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). However, the following comments are for your consideration. The EAW correctly identifies that the South Creek and the South Branch of South Creek as designated trout streams which are located north and south of the proposed project area, respectively. The current and proposed stormwater runoff flows to both of these water resources which may be detrimental to trout. The document does a good job of presenting this information and the potential for impacts from the proposed project as well as the implementation of existing management plans for the South Creek watershed. The management plans address the more stringent guidelines as necessary for the protection of trout streams from adjacent land use. The DNR encourages that in addition to the measures discussed in the EAW, the proposer contact Brian Nerbonne, DNR Fisheries Specialist at brian.nerbonnestate.mn.us or at 651- 259 -5786, in planning discussions. As the proposed project may require a DNR Dewatering Permit, please include Area Hydrologist, Craig Wills in the discussions as well. Craig can be reached at craiq.willsra'�,state.mn.us or at 651- 259 -5757. Thank you for the opportunity to review this project and the EAW. We look forward to receiving your record of decision and responses to comments at the conclusion of environmental review. Minnesota Rules part 4410.1700, subparts 4 and 5, require you to send us your Record of Decision within five days of deciding on this action. If you have any questions about these comments, please call Melissa Doperalski, Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist, at 651- 259 -5738, or by e -mail at melissa.doperalski(&state.mn.us. Airlake 70 Industrial Park EAW DNR Comments April 18, 2011 Keith Parker Regional Director /f,_ CC: Steve Colvin, Bernice Cramblit, Melissa Doperalski, Robert Fashingbauer, Gerald Johnson, Craig Wills, Brian Nerbonne, Krista Larson, Lisa Joyal, REAT (DNR) Nick Rowse (USFWS) Jon Larsen (EQB) LV11 Airlake 70 Industrial Park EAW.doc ERDB#20090670 ;;A Metropolitan Council A/ April 12, 2011 Mr. David Olson Community and Economic Development Director City of Lakeville 20195 Holyoke Avenue Lakeville, MN 55044 RE: Environmental Assessment Worksheet Airlake 70 Industrial Park Metropolitan Council District 16 Metropolitan Council Review File No. 20848 - Dear Mr. Olson: Metropolitan Council staff has reviewed the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed Airlake 70 Industrial Park in the City of Lakeville. Staff finds that the project raises no major issues of consistency with Council policies and an Environmental Impact Statement should not be necessary for regional purposes, but the following comments are offered relative to the proposed project that should be addressed in the project's Record of Decision Document. Item 17 — Water Quality: Surface Water Runoff The EAW notes several times that the proposed site development includes a stormwater management area that will include infiltration basins. While not located in a drinking water supply management area (DWSMA), the site is located directly between the highly vulnerable Farmington Central DWSMA and the low vulnerability Lakeville Southeast DWSMA as identified in the figure below. Under developed conditions, runoff from the site could contain fertilizer and other pollutants from streets, buildings, and parking areas. The design of infiltration basins should consider guidelines developed by the Minnesota Department of Health for stormwater infiltration in vulnerable DWSMAs to prevent the migration of surface contaminants into the groundwater system. www.metrocouncil.org 390 Robert Street North • St. Paul, MN 55101 -1805 • (651) 602 -1000 • Fax (651) 602 -1550 • TTY (651) 291 -0904 An Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. David Olson April 12, 2011 Page 2 Item 25 – Nearby Resources — Designated Parks, Recreation Areas, or Trails. The 2030 Regional Parks Policy Plan identifies a regional trail search corridor in the vicinity of the EAW site. This regional trail search corridor will connect Murphy Hanrehan Park Reserve to future regional trails in Farmington, and will generally follow South Creek. Dakota County's 2030 Comprehensive Plan refers to this regional trail search corridor as the Lake Marion Greenway Regional Trail. Although the alignment of the trail has not yet been determined, it may be planned in conjunction with the proposed city park and trails north of the EAW site. This will conclude the Metropolitan Council's review of the EAW. Please note that the Council will take no formal action on the document. Please contact Jim Larsen PE, principal reviewer, at 651- 602 -1159 with any questions. Sincerely, Phyllis Han Local Plann , Manager g Assistance cc: Wendy Wulff, Metropolitan Council District 16 Patrick Boylan, Sector Representative Judy Sventek, Water Resources Assessment Manager Cheryl Olsen, Reviews Coordinator fJrrt ,1, _tI €'ornjxzrit.csVi k eE4W7.do( Physical Development Division Lynn Thompson, Director Dakota County Western Service Center 14955 Galaxie Avenue Apple Valley, MN 55124 -8579 952.891.7000 Fax 952.891.7031 www.dakotacounty.us Environmental Mgmt. Department Office of GIS Parks and Open Space Department Surveyor's Office Transit Office Transportation Department Water Resources Department 0 Printed on recycled paper wah 30% post- consumer waste AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER April 14, 2011 Sincerely, Lynn Thompson, Director Physical Development Division David Olson Community and Economic Development Director City of Lakeville 20195 Holyoke Avenue Lakeville, MN 55044 RE: Airlake 70 Industrial Park EAW Dear Mr. Olson: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Environmental Assessment Worksheet document for the Airlake 70 Industrial Park. We found this proposed project to be interesting, in part because there has been so little development activity lately. We hope this proposal signals a return to a healthy economy and renewed development activity in Dakota County's cities. However, we have an important concern regarding this project. As you are aware from having participated in the study several years ago to identify a traffic corridor for an east to west route through Lakeville and Farmington, part of this site is critical for alignment of one of the preferred routes. Please see the attached comments from Dakota County staff for more details. Another point for discussion is that the northern boundary of the site, along the South Creek tributary, is part of a regional greenway that is identified in Dakota County's current Comprehensive Plan. The attached comments provide more information about this point. My staff will be happy to provide additional data, information, or maps, as needed. We look forward to continuing to work collaboratively with you and the developer as the project moves ahead. If you have any questions or concerns, please call me at (952) 891 -7007 or Planning Supervisor Kurt Chatfield at 952 - 891 -7022. cc: Commissioner Paul J. Krause (District 6) Commissioner Joseph A. Harris (District 1) Brandt Richardson, County Administrator Dakota County Staff Comments Airlake 70 industrial Park April 14, 2011 Description Airlake Development, Inc. proposes an industrial /warehouse development (with new construction of four buildings with potentially 900,000+ square feet of warehouse and office space) on a 66 -acre site in the southeast part of Lakeville that is currently in agricultural use. The project is likely to begin in 2011 and be phased in over several years, depending on market conditions. The proposal includes 1,000 parking spaces, utilities improvements and storm water infrastucture. The site is east and south of the intersection of Cedar Avenue and County Road 70. Access to the development would require extending County Road 70 (215 Street) %2 mile east to the border with the City of Farmington, along the northern boundary of the site. The site is northeast of Airlake Airport and abuts the City of Farmington. Transportation issues In 2003, Dakota County, the City of Lakeville and the City of Farmington conducted a study assessing the transportation system needs in the Lakeville and Farmington area (Dakota County East -West Corridor Preservation Study: Identification of Preferred System Plan, June 2003). As noted in the Airlake 70 EAW, the study addressed east -west transportation system deficiencies (that is, the lack of a single, direct route of several miles through the area that will be needed to efficiently move traffic when population growth occurs) and identified corridors for future east -west roadway connections, so they could be protected from future development. Five arterial preservation corridors were identified between 1 -35 on the west and Highway 3 on the east, and were adopted by the affected communities. One of the preferred alignments, known as Alignment E, is directly affected by the proposed Airlake 70 Industrial Park development. The Study identified Alignment E, a future connection from County State Aid Highway (CSAH 70 at CSAH 23 to CSAH 74 at CSAH 31), as a future four -lane arterial roadway. The future Alignment E corridor may also be considered as a future principal arterial highway candidate for the southern edge of the metropolitan area based on planning guidelines of three- to six -mile spacing between principal arterials in developed areas. This future highway alignment was chosen so as to avoid extensive Vermillion River tributary mitigation and to avoid affecting the floodplain. This alignment also requires very little grade separation or bridges. The future alignment includes a half -mile diagonal connection just east of CSAH 23 to avoid extensive mitigation to tributaries of the Vermillion River, and to provide sufficient spacing from CSAH 50 to the north. The Airlake 70 Industrial Park development will need to be closely coordinated with the future alignment needs for Alignment E, especially the potential for curving to the south on the east side of the site. To allow for the proper development of Alignment E over time, the County would like to work directly with the developer and with the cities of Lakeville and Farmington to design an alignment that meets the goals of the original Dakota County Staff Comments Airlake 70 industrial Park April 14, 2011 east -west corridor study, including avoiding environmental impacts to the greatest extent possible. The partners will also need to consider local street system needs to ensure appropriate support for the full roadway system needs in the long term. In addition to working together to define the specific alignment for future CSAH 70, these issues should be considered as the proposed development moves forward: • Future right -of -way needs. Figures within the EAW depict future right -of -way to allow for a four -lane divided highway along the 215 Street extension. The County's study identifies the need for a 150 -foot width to accommodate four lanes. However, several street right -of -way and storm water management area easements of record exist within the proposed 215 Street location. Additional investigation and identification of these easements and right -of -way needs should occur prior to roadway location conclusions. • Roadway lanes. The EAW identifies that 215 Street will be designed and constructed as a rural two -lane road. However, this road is forecasted to be widened to four lanes in the future. The two -lane roadway design should consider the long -term need for widening to four lanes. • Building setbacks. Figures within the EAW depict development of the northernmost two lanes of the future four lanes of 215 Street as occurring first. The concern is whether the proposed buildings and associated parking areas will still meet the city's setback requirements when the road is widened to four lanes. Park and Greenway Issues The South Creek tributary on the north edge of this property has been identified as a regional greenway in Dakota County's (2030) Comprehensive Plan and the 2007 Park System Plan. The regional greenway connects Murphy Hanrehan Regional Park (at the western Dakota County border with Scott County) to the Vermillion River, and once developed, will be a real amenity to the residents of Lakeville, Farmington, and Dakota County. The functions of this greenway corridor are to provide high quality trail -based recreation, improve water quality, and provide wildlife habitat. The Airlake 70 Industrial Park concept plans shown in the EAW do not show any park dedication or stormwater ponding adjacent to the greenway. If park dedication, and /or stormwater ponding, could be located on the north side of the site, the greenway could be widened and enhanced, providing a benefit to residents in the area and region. Office of Water Resources: Groundwater Protection and Contaminated Sites issues Wells The state Health Department has delegated its authority to Dakota County to regulate wells within the County. County records show no known or suspected wells on this site that are either unused or unsealed. If any wells are encountered in the course of this project, they will Dakota County Staff Comments Airlake 70 industrial Park April 14, 2011 need to be sealed by a licensed well contractor and a permit issued by Dakota County. Please contact Jeff Luehrs (952 -891- 7553) in the County's Water Resources Office for more information. Further information about Dakota County's well sealing program can be found on our website at this link: http: / /www.co. dakota. mn. us /EnvironmentRoads /EnvirProtect /Water /SealWells.htm Environmental concerns County staff reviewed the current and historic land uses at the proposed warehouse development site and found no significant environmental concerns requiring follow -up. It is possible that the former operation of a gravel pit in the northwest corner of the site, or standard agricultural practices on the site, could have created adverse environmental conditions that could be discovered during development. If so, please contact us. The proposed Airlake 70 site is located near South Creek and the South Branch of South Creek. Both water bodies are designated trout streams. Storm water runoff from the site could affect these water bodies. In addition, the water table at the site is persistently shallow, which increases the risk of groundwater contamination from the site during construction and after it is developed. Because of these two factors, the use, handling, management, storage and transfer of chemicals or materials that could potentially harm human or ecologic health must be conducted with a high level of care. Activities at the site must adhere to best management practices that have been established to protect and properly manage stormwater, surface water and groundwater. The proposed development includes extensive filling with imported granular material to bring the site to the required elevation. All imported soils used for fill must meet the definition of "Clean Fill" as described in Dakota County Ordinance No. 110: "uncontaminated natural earthen material such as soil, sand and gravel ". To comply with this requirement, the site developer will need to disclose information regarding the source and nature of the imported soils used for fill, including chemical testing. Dakota County ordinances 110, 111 and 114 affect issues discussed in this section. All of them can be found on Dakota County's website at this link: http:/ /www.co.dakota.mn.us /LawJustice /Ordinances /default.htm In the matter of the Decision on the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Airlake 70 Industrial Park in Lakeville, MN CITY OF LAKEVILLE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The City of Lakeville has prepared an EAW for an industrial /warehouse development on a 66 acre agricultural parcel in the southeast corner of the City of Lakeville. Development in this area has the potential to provide up to 916,000 square feet of industrial /warehouse space. Pursuant to Minnesota R. 4410.4300, subp. 14, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) has been prepared for this proposed project. As to the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the project and based on the record in this matter, including the EAW and written comments received, the City of Lakeville makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Project The proposed project involves grading up to 66 acres to construct streets, utilities, buildings, and storm water management features. Construction of the extension of 215th Street to serve the development is also proposed. II. PROJECT HISTORY A. The project was subject to the mandatory preparation of an EAW under Minnesota R. 4410.4300 subp. 14. May 11, 2011 Page 1 of 6 B. Project Site The project is located east of the intersection of Cedar Avenue (CSAH 23) and 215th Street (CSAH 70). The site currently is agricultural land and has been in agricultural production since 1937. The site contains approximately 1.2 acres of regulated wetland, 1.5 acres of exempt wetland, 2.0 acres of wooded /gravel pit ponds, and 61.4 acres of cropland. B. This EAW dated February 22, 2011 was prepared for the proposed project and distributed to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parties on March 14, 2011. G: lDave OlsonlAilake 70 EAWIFOF - 051111.doc III. CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS. May 11, 2011 Page 2 of 6 C. A public notice containing information about the availability of the EAW for public review was published in Thisweek - Farmington- Lakeville on March 24,2011. D. The EAW was noticed in the March 21, 2011 EQB Monitor. The public comment period ended April 20, 2011. Comments were received from the Metropolitan Council, Dakota County, Department of Natural Resources, Pollution Control Agency, US Corps of Engineers, and Metropolitan Airports Commission. Copies of these letters are hereby incorporated by reference. Responses to the comments are also incorporated by reference. Minnesota R. 4410.1700, subp. 1 states "an EIS shall be ordered for projects that have the potential for significant environmental affects." In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental affects, the City of Lakeville must consider the four factors set out in Minnesota R. 4410.1700, subp. 7. With respect to each of these factors, the City finds as follows: A. TYPE, EXTENT, AND REVERSIBILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The first factor that the City must consider is "type, extent and reversibility of environmental effects ", Minnesota R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.A. The City's findings with respect to each of these issues are set forth below. 1. The type of environmental impacts and mitigation efforts anticipated as part of this project include: a. Water Consumption: This development is anticipated to use approximately 39,423 GPD of water upon full development. The City has sufficient water system supply to accommodate this development. b. Wastewater Generation: This development is anticipated to generate approximately 39,423 GPD of wastewater upon full development. All wastewater generated from this site will be conveyed via the City's sanitary sewer system to the MCES Empire Treatment Plan. This system has the capacity to treat this wastewater. G: (Dave OlsonlAilake 70 EAWIFOF - 051111.doc May 11, 2011 Page 3 of 6 c. Storm Water: The project is anticipated to generate additional storm water runoff. This runoff will be treated within a series of on -site facilities. The design of the on -site storm water management system is required to meet the City's requirements in the Water Resource Management Plan, the City's South Creek Management Plan, and MPCA's requirements per the NPDES permit. d. Wetlands: Approximately 1.5 acres of wetland impacts are proposed with the construction of this project. Wetland permitting will address wetland impact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation. e. Traffic: The development will generate additional traffic in the area. Based on the traffic study, additional improvements are proposed to provide mitigation for traffic impacts. 2. The extent and reversibility of environmental impacts are consistent with those of light industrial and warehouse uses. B. CUMULATIVE POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF RELATED OR ANTICIPATED FUTURE PROJECTS The second factor that the City must consider is the "cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects ", Minnesota R. 4410.1700 subp.7.B. The City's findings with respect to this factor are set forth below. 1. The area surrounding the Airlake 70 Industrial Park includes agricultural uses and industrial uses. The project area and the nearby surroundings are designated as Industrial in the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan and is zoned I -2, General Industrial District. 2. The City has anticipated and planned for industrial and warehouse development to occur in the area and the surrounding area. The City's Comprehensive Planning process has taken potential infrastructure impacts into account and provided plans to accommodate this type of development. Future projects are anticipated near the project area as part of the City's general planning efforts, but no specific projects have been proposed at this time. G :IDave OlsonlAilake 70 EAWIFOF- 05111I.doc Unit of Type of Application Status Government Obstruction Evaluation / Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration 7460 -1 Pending Application Federal Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Army Corps of En:ineers Section 404 Permit - Wetland Permit Pending Application Federal Emergency Management A:enc FEMA State Minnesota Department of Health MDH Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) Watermain Extension Permit Pending Application Pending Application Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit s Pending Application Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit Pending A s s lication Minnesota Department of Natural Resources DNR County Dakota County Regional Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Dewatering Permit Plat Approval Pending Application Pending A Access Permit Pending Application Work In Right -Of -Way Sanitary Sewer Extension Review Pending Application Pending Application Mid - American Pipeline Encroachment A:reement Pendin May 11, 2011 Page 4 of 6 C. THE EXTENT TO WHICH ENVIRONMENTAL AFFECTS ARE SUBJECT TO MITIGATION BY ONGOING PUBLIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY 1. The following permits or approvals will be required for the project, if needed: G:IDave OlsonlAilake 70EAWIFOF- 051111.doc May 11, 2011 Page 5 of 6 2. The City finds that the potential environmental impacts of the project are subject to mitigation by ongoing regulatory authorities such that an EIS need not be prepared. D. THE EXTENT TO WHICH ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS CAN BE ANTICIPATED AND CONTROLLED AS A RESULT OF OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES UNDERTAKEN BY PUBLIC AGENCIES OR THE PROJECT PROPOSER, INCLUDING OTHER EIS's. The fourth factor that the City must consider is "the extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EIS's" Minnesota R. 4700.1700, subp. 7.D. The City's findings with respect to this factor are set forth below: The proposed project is subject to the following plans prepared by the City: • City of Lakeville Comprehensive Plan • City of Lakeville Comprehensive Water Supply Plan G: (Dave OlsonlAilake 70 EAWIFOF- 051111.doc As •lication Vermillion River Joint Powers Or:anization City City of Lakeville Project Review Environmental Assessment Worksheet Pending A. lication Under review Sketch Plan Review Under review Preliminary and Final Plat Pending A • .lication Development Agreement Pending A • .lication Construction Permits Pending A..lication Building Permits Pending A. • lication Stormwater Management Plan Pending A. •lication Conditional Use - Shoreland District Pending A • • lication Wetland Conservation Act Approval Pending A • • lication May 11, 2011 Page 5 of 6 2. The City finds that the potential environmental impacts of the project are subject to mitigation by ongoing regulatory authorities such that an EIS need not be prepared. D. THE EXTENT TO WHICH ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS CAN BE ANTICIPATED AND CONTROLLED AS A RESULT OF OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES UNDERTAKEN BY PUBLIC AGENCIES OR THE PROJECT PROPOSER, INCLUDING OTHER EIS's. The fourth factor that the City must consider is "the extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EIS's" Minnesota R. 4700.1700, subp. 7.D. The City's findings with respect to this factor are set forth below: The proposed project is subject to the following plans prepared by the City: • City of Lakeville Comprehensive Plan • City of Lakeville Comprehensive Water Supply Plan G: (Dave OlsonlAilake 70 EAWIFOF- 051111.doc • City of Lakeville Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan • City of Lakeville Water Resource Management Plan • City of Lakeville Transportation Plan • City of Lakeville Wetland Management Plan • South Creek Management Plan • Vermillion River Joint Powers Organization Standards The City finds that the environmental effects of the project can be anticipated and controlled as a result of the environmental review, planning, and permitting processes. CONCLUSIONS The preparation of the Airlake 70 Industrial Park EAW and comments received on the EAW have generated information adequate to determine whether the proposed facility has the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW has identified areas where the potential for environmental effects exist, but appropriate measures have or will be incorporated into the project plan and /or permits to mitigate these effects. The project is anticipated to comply with all City of Lakeville standards and review agency standards. Based on the criteria established in Minnesota R. 4410.1700, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental impacts. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required. May 11, 2011 Page 6 of 6 G: \Dave OlsonlAilake 70 EAWIFOF - 051111.doc