Loading...
96-8341r 16 RESOLUTION NO. 8341 THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RECORD OF DECISION WHEREAS, TOLD Development Company, a Minnesota corporation ("TOLD") is the Proposer of a 9.5 acre office development comprised of two office buildings and two parking structures located between 77th Street and 78th Street and between Emerson Avenue and Girard Avenue in the City of Richfield ("Project"); and WHEREAS, the Project is proposed to include 435,700 gross square feet and total parking of 1,646 spaces; and WHEREAS, the Project falls within the mandatory environmental assessment worksheet ("EAW) category of Minn. Rules Part 4410.4300, subp. 14.B (3) because the Project involves the construction of an office facility in excess of 300,000 square feet in a city of the second class; and WHEREAS, the City is the Responsible Governmental Unit ("RGU") pursuant to Minn. Rules Part 4410.4300, subp. 14 (1995) ; and WHEREAS, an EAW was prepared by the City with assistance from the Proposer, who submitted completed data portions of the EA'vV to the City consistent with Minn. Rules Part 4410.1400 (1995); and WHEREAS, the EAW was prepared using the form approved by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board ("MEQB") for EAWs in accordance with Minn. Rules Part 4410.1300 (1995); and WHEREAS, the City issued the EAW on.February 8,1996, and provided a copy to the MEQB on the same day; and WHEREAS, the City with assistance from the Proposer has prepared a proposed Record of Decision on the EAW for the Project for consideration by the City Council ("Record of Decision"), which is attached hereto as (Exhibit A); and WHEREAS, the City staff has reviewed the proposed Record of Decision and has found the Record of Decision to be consistent with the evidence submitted to the City and the applicable statutes and regulations, to the best of their knowledge, and has recommended that the City Council approve the Record of Decision and determine that no environmental impact statement ("EIS") is necessary, reasonable or warranted with respect to the Project under the circumstances; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to make the Findings of Fact and Conclusions which are contained within the Record of Decision and to conclude that no EIS is required with respect to the Project ("Negative Declaration"). Resolution No. 8341 -2- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the'City Council does hereby: 1. Adopt and approve the Record of Decision on the Meridian Crossings Environmental Assessment Worksheet in the form which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and hereby makes the Findings of Fact and Conclusions which are contained therein; and 2. Find and determine that, based upon the Record of Decision, no environmental impact statement is required for the Project pursuant to the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act or Minnesota Rules Parts 4410.0200 to 4410.06500 (1993). Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of April, 1996. ATTEST: ~ f?~J Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk Resolution No. 8341 EXHIBIT A RECORD OF DECISION ON THE MERIDIAN CROSSINGS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET The Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) for Meridian Crossings (Project) is before the City Council of the City of Richfield to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required for the Project. The City Council has reviewed the record in this matter, including the EAW, comments from governmental agencies and a citizen, reports of meetings between its staff and governmental agencies, and proposed responses to comments. Based on this review the City Council makes the following findings of fact and conclusions. FINDINGS OF FACT A. Compliance With Procedures Of The Minnesota Environmental Policy Act And Minnesota Rules Parts 4410.0200 to 4410.6500 (1993) 1. The proposer of the Project is TOLD Development Company, a Minnesota Corporation (TOLD). ") The Project is a 9.5 acre office development comprised of two office buildings and two parking structures. The total office development will be 434,700 gross square feet. Total parking provided will be 1,646 spaces. The Project is located on 77th Street in Richfield, Minnesota, in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Interstate 494 (1-494) and Interstate 35W (I-35W). 3. The Project falls within the mandatory EA W category of Minn. Rules Part 4410.4300, subp. 14.B.(3) because the Project involves the construction of an office facility in excess of 300,000 square feet in a city of the second class. 4. The Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) is the local governmental unit, the City of Richfield (City). Minn. Rules Part 4410.4300, subp. 14 (1995). 5. An EA W was prepared by the City with assistance from the proposer, who submitted completed data portions of the EAW to the RGU. Minn. Rules Part 4410.1400 (1995). 6. The EA W was prepared using the form approved by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (MEQB) for EAWs. Minn. Rules Part 4410.1300 (1995). 7. The City issued the EAW on February 8, 1996, and provided a copy to the MEQB on the same day. 8. On February 9, 1996, the City mailed one copy of the EAW to all agencies listed on the official MEQB mailing list. 9. On February 9, 1995, the City provided a press release to the Sun-Current, which contained a notice of availability of the EA W for public review. The press release also included the name and location of the Project, a brief description of the Project, the location at which copies of the EA W were available for review, the date the comment period would expire, and the procedures for commenting. 10. Notice of availability of the EA W was published in the EQB Monitor on February 12, 1996. II. The 30 day comment period on the EA W began on February 13, 1996, and ended at 4:30 p.m. on March 13, 1996. Minn. Rules Pt. 4410.2100, subp. 3 (I995). 12. The Sun-Current published the notice of availability in its Wednesday, February 14, 1996, edition. 13. During the 30 day comment period, copies of the EAW were available for public review at Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue, and at the Augsburg Branch of the Hennepin County Library, 7100 Nicollet Avenue, both in Richfield, Minnesota. 14. During the 30 day comment period, the following written comments were submitted: a. Metropolitan Council letter dated March 7, 1996. b. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) letter dated March 7, 1996. c. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) letter dated March 12, 1996. 2 Res. 8341 Exhibit A d. Larry W ozniczka letter dated March 12, 1996. e. Larry Wozniczka letter dated March 13, 1996. 15. After the close of the 30 comment period, the following written comment was received: a. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) letter dated March 25, 1966. B. Responses To Comments 1. Metropolitan Council. The Metropolitan Council letter stated that the Council's transportation staff found the EA W to be adequate. Three issues were raised on which further analysis was recommended. a. Comment: Council staff noted that the addition of north and southbound left turn lanes from Lyndale Avenue onto the 1-494 ramps (which would require widening of the Lyndale Avenue bridge over 1- 494) is unlikely to occur by 2001 as assumed in the EAW. The staff suggested further analysis to determine the impact of the Project if the left turn lanes were not built by 2001. Response: The City and TOLD have conducted further traffic and air quality analyses of these intersections assuming full development of the Project in 200 I and no left turn lanes at the 1-494 ramp intersections. The traffic analYSIS shows that the Lyndale Avenue/South 1-494 ramp intersection would operate at Level Of Service D and the Lyndale Avenue/North 1-494 ramp intersection would operate at Level Of Service F. The air quality analysis shows that despite the poor Level Of ServIce at both IntersectIons, carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations would increase only slightly and would remain well below the applicable state I-hour and 8-hour CO standards. (See also CommentlResponse S.h.) b. Comment: Council staff recommended that the Project encourage transit and carpoolIng. Response: The City will request that Metropolitan Council Transit Operations move bus service from 76th Street to 77th Street to serve the Project and other commercial developments along 77th Street. TOLD will provide a location in each office building for posting transit and 3 carpooling notices, designate a transit and carpooling contact person within its property management staff, and provide transit and carpooling infonnation to new tenants. In addition, TOLD will set aside parking spaces in each ramp for carpooling. c. Comment: Council staff recommended a site-specific survey to detennine the presence or absence of ecologically sensitive resources if earlier developments or environmental reviews had not done so. Response: The City has reviewed the I-35W Draft Environmental Impact Statement and determined that ecological analysis was performed on all properties within the I-35W corridor including the Project site. No ecologically sensitive resources were discovered on the Project site or in its vicinity. 2. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. The MDNR letter addressed wetlands mitigation, stormwater runoff, and project related dewatering. a. Comment: The MDNR letter stated that if wetland mitigation at Legion Lake involved excavation below the ordinary high water mark, a MDNR permit would be required. The letter also noted that no ordinary high water mark determination has been made for Legion Lake by the MDNR and suggested coordination with the MDNR Regional Hydrologist. Response: The City concurs that any excavation below the ordinary high water mark in Legion Lake would require a permit for work in the bed of public waters. The City has submitted a Wetland Replacement Plan and will coordinate with the MDNR Regional Hydrologist. b. Comment: With respect to the proposed regional water quality basin which would receive storm water runoff from the Project, the MDNR noted that it was unclear whether Project-related construction would begin prior to completIOn of the regional pond and recommended a temporary on-site pond in the interim. Response: The City Council approved construction of this regional water quality basin on May 8, 1995. MNDOT awarded the construction bid on June 19, 1995. Completion is anticipated in August 1996. The pond will likely be available to receive stormwater runoff prior to project-related construction. 4 Res. No. 8341 Exhibit A c. Comment: MDNR suggested that stormwater runoff generated from adjacent development also be routed to the regional treatment basin. Response: This comment pertains to adjacent development, not the Project addressed in the EAW. The City has directed the comment to the City Engineer for consideration. d. Comment: The MDNR letter noted that any construction dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or 1,000,000 gallons per year would require a MDNR water appropriation permit. Response: TOLD does not anticipate any construction related dewatering for the Project. If dewatering becomes necessary at levels above the cited thresholds, TOLD will apply for the appropriate permit. 3. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The MPCA letter discussed Indirect Source Permit (ISP) requirements and the timing of traffic improvements. a. Comment: The MPCA states that an Indirect Source Permit (ISP) is required for the Project, since the proposed parking spaces exceed the required ISP threshold. Response: The City concurs that an ISP is required for the Project. TOLD and the City will prepare and submit an ISP application in the near future. b. Comment: The MPCA notes that three intersections along Lyndale Avenue will operate at "unacceptable levels of service" by the year 200 I with completion of Phases I and II of the Project and recommends that the improvements assumed in the EA W should be implemented "when necessary to improve traffic within the vicinity of the site." Response: The City concurs with the necessity to implement intersection improvements when necessary. The City intends to install the traffic light at the Project entrance on 77th Street, the eastbound right turn lane at the 77th StreetILyndale Avenue intersection, and the southbound right turn lane at the Lyndale A venue/North 1-494 ramp intersection before Phase I of the Project opens. c. Comment: The MPCA letter states that the EA W uses outdated air quality monitoring background values and recommends new air quality monitoring for the ISP application. 5 d. Response: TOLD is arranging for InterpoIl Laboratories, Inc. to conduct air quality monitoring at a site approved by the MPCA for use in the ISP application. 4. Larry Wozniczka. Mr. Wozniczka's letters addressed economic impacts, compatibility with freeway plans, wetlands, and urban forest preservation. a. Comment: Mr. W ozniczka asks that the cost of additional City services be addressed in the EA W including fire fighting equipment, additional public safety staffing, traffic signals, and other public services. Response:, Economic issues including public costs are not addressed in environmental assessment worksheets. Question 29, however, does require that any new or expanded public services be identified. The answer to Question 29 in the EA W does not indicate that any new or expanded City services will be required for the Project. As to Mr. Wozniczka's specific concerns: (1) the buildings will be sprinklered so no new fire fighting equipment will be required~ (2) no additional public safety staffing is required; (3) maintenance required for the new traffic signal will be done by existing personnel~ and (4) no public services beyond those identified in Question 29 are anticipated. b. Comment: Mr. W ozniczka asks that the cost of additional City infrastructure including extension of water, sewer, and street utilities and additional capacity investments be specified in the EA W. Response: Again, economic issues including public costs are not addressed in environmental assessment worksheets. Question 29, however, does require that any new or expanded public infrastructure be identified. The answer to Question 29 in the EA W describes the traffic and street improvements required for the Project and notes that existing utilities will be sufficient to handle Project demands. As to Mr. W ozniczka' s specific concerns: (1) no extension of public water or sewer hnes will be required; and (2) no street extensions are required. c. Comment: Mr. W ozniczka asks that the writedown in the land cost, tax increment contributions, and fiscal disparities contributions all be included in the EA W. Response: Again, economic issues such as land writedowns, tax increment financing, and fiscal disparities are not addressed in environmental assessment worksheets. Mr. W ozniczka can find the answers to his questions in the Development Agreement between the 6 Res. No. 8341 Exhi bit A City and TOLD approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Or, he is welcome to call Mr. Bruce Palmborg, Director of Community Development, who will respond to these questions. d. Comment: Mr. W ozniczka states in his letter that reconstruction plans for 1-494 and 1-35W contemplate a frontage road crossing of the interstate highways. He suggests the need to analyze the compatibility of the Project with the reconstruction plans and the frontage road crossmg. Response: First, TOLD's architect used MNDOT's latest reconstruction plans in developing the Project's site plan just to aVOId conflicts should reconstruction proceed. Second, the Metropolitan Council found no conflict with interstate reconstruction plans in its letter. Finally, MNDOT did not identify any significant conflicts between the Project and its reconstruction plans. e. Comment: Mr. Wozniczka raises the concern that the wetland to be filled on the Project site may be needed in this area for stormwater ponding. Response: While the wetland will be eliminated, on-site ponding will still occur just north of the Project entrance onto Girard Avenue. The combination of this pond and off-site ponding provide sufficient ponding capacity for the anticipated stormwater runoff. f. Comment: Mr. Wozniczka asks for an explanation of how additional wetland will be created elsewhere in the City and at whose cost. Response: Question 12 in the EA W states that the replacement wetland will be located east of the Richfield Water Treatment Plant and adjacent to Legion Lake. The Wetland Replacement Plan indicates the lime sludge lagoon at this location, which is no longer needed, will be removed and a wetland created. This will be a project cost. g. Comment: After noting that the City's Housing & Redevelopment Authority intends to transfer parcels with mature oak trees to TOLD, Mr. W ozniczka suggests that "assurance is needed that preservation of trees will be honored on a permanent basis." Response: The City and its Housing & Redevelopment Authority have both taken steps to assure the parcels intended for tree preservation will continue to be used for that purpose. The Housing & Redevelopment 7 Authority has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with TOLD dated March 18, 1996, which addresses tree preservation. The City Council has provided protection through the Landscape Plan approved as part of the Planned Unit Development. 5. Minnesota Department of Transportation. The MNDOT letter addressed future property takings, frontage road access, traffic analysis issues, traffic improvements, and required MNDOT permits. a. Comment: Referring to future plans to reconstruct the I-35W/I-494 interchange, MNDOT noted the proposed buildings or parking lots would not be affected but that some property might be required by MNDOT along the south and west edges of the Project site. Response: TOLD's architect used MNDOT's latest reconstruction plans in developing the Project's site plan in order to avoid significant conflicts with the potential future reconstruction of the I-35W/I-494 interchange. Any questions of future property taking should be addressed when the reconstruction project is funded. b. Comment: The I-35W/I-494 interchange reconstruction plans also call for one-way frontage roads between Lyndale Avenue and Penn Avenue with limited access from other streets. MNDOT notes that the secondary Project entrances onto the frontage road may have to be closed in conjunction with the interchange replacement. Response: Frontage road access will finally be addressed when the reconstruction project is funded. Meanwhile, the City is working with TOLD and adjacent property owners to consider various solutions to frontage road access if the interchange were reconstructed. c. Comment: MNDOT expressed concern that the projected level of service in the traffic analysis may be optimistic given the current traffic volumes in the area. Response: The traffic analysis used current traffic levels as a base for projecting future traffic demand. Further, the analysis used traffic signal timing parameters that are the same or very similar to the existing timing settings for the signals. The City believes the expected levels of service are accurate. 8 Resolution No. 8341 Exhibit A d. Comment: MNDOT noted that the analysis seems to be based on studies of individual intersections and suggested that a study of the intersections in series would be necessary. Response: MNDOT's comment regarding the importance of studying intersections in a series is correct. MNDOT is incorrect, however, in suggesting that the EA W analysis is based only on studies of individual intersections. Consideration has been given to maintaining progressive traffic flow through the multiple, signalized intersections in the area. The traffic signals on Lyndale Avenue and on 77th Street are included in a current traffic management project that is applying state-of-the-art computer equipment to expedite traffic flow. e. Comment: MNDOT states that dual left turn lanes are warranted at both Lyndale Avenue/I-494 ramp intersections (rather than the single left turn lanes suggested as mitigation measures in the EAW). f. Response: The City does not agree that dual left turn lanes are needed. The traffic analysis shows that in the year 2001 with full Project development and single left turn lanes, the Lyndale Avenue /South 1- 494 ramp intersection would operate at Level Of Service C and the Lyndale Avenue/North 1-494 ramp intersection would operate at Level Of Service B. These are fully adequate levels of service. g. Comment: MNDOT also states that the 76th Street/Girard Avenue intersection will warrant dual left turn lanes from eastbound 76th Street to northbound 1-35W. Response: Again, the City disagrees. The traffic analysis shows that in the year 200 I with full Project development and a single left turn lane for eastbound traffic, the 76th Street/Girard Avenue intersection will operate at Level Of Service B. This is a high quality level of service. h. Comment: MNDOT notes that the addition of dual left turn lanes may require bridge widening, and this should be coordinated with bridge reconstruction. MNDOT recommends that other traffic improvements should be in place on the day the development opens and notes that transportation improvements "necessitated by local development are the financial responsibility of the developer, the local government, or both." Response: The City recognizes that the addition of left turn lanes on the Lyndale Avenue bridge over 1-494 will require bridge widening. The City would be pleased to coordinate with MNDQT when MNDOT 9 schedules bridge reconstruction. Through the ISP process, the MPCA will provide assurance that any traffic improvements required to meet applicable noise and air quality standards will be implemented as needed. The City and TOLD understand who is responsible for the costs of the traffic improvements. 1. Comment: MNDOT notes that MNDOT stormwater drainage is required for the Project and a permit would be required if any work occurred within MNDOT's right of way. Response: TOLD will secure all appropriate MNDOT permits. CONCLUSIONS 1. The EA W was prepared in compliance with the procedures of the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act and Minn. Rules Parts 4410.0200 to 4410.6500 (1995). 2. The EAW took into account all cumulative effects of the Project's two phases and other development under way in the immediate vicinity. 3. Substantive comments received during and after the comment period have been responded to by the City and TOLD. 4. The type and extent of the environmental impacts described in the EA W and in the comments are minimal. 5. The potential environmental impacts which do occur, such as increased stormwater runoff, traffic, traffic related air emissions, tree removal, etc., are mitigated by the Project design and subject to control through state permits and regulations and City ordinances. 10