1999-09-10 EAW
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT
WORKSHEET
(EA W)
For:
KC LAND COMPANY
2191 SILVER LAKE ROAD
NEW BRIGHTON, MN
Pinnacle Engineering, Inc.
l1000-93rd Avenue North
Maple Grove, Minnesota 55369
1500 First Avenue Northeast
Rochester, Minnesota 55906
WRIGHT SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
306C Brighton Avenue
Buffalo, Minnesota 55313
Telephone (612) 682-1933
682-1970
Fax (612)682-0262
September 10, 1999
Pete Carlson, City Engineer
City of Albertvile
5975 Main Avenue NE
Albertville, MN 55301
Dear Mr. Carlson,
This letter is in response to the Environmental Assessment worksheet sent
out for review for the KC land Company Development (Albert Villa) located
in City of Albertville. The developer should be aware that if they intend
to release storm water to County Ditch 9 and or cross the Ditch as shown in
the plan they will have to approach the Wright County Board for approval.
They can contact the County Auditor, Doug Gruber to obtain the procedure
they need to follow. We have dealt with some of these in the past and it
has taken some time so they may want to approach the Board early in the
process.
As noted in the document a Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) permit will be
required for the proposed wetland fills. We have not done a thorough
investigation of the plan as yet and will wait for this WCA process to
address all our concerns when we can asses the reasoning of the developer.
One comment for now, relates to phase three and the fact the lots 6-11 seem
to be pinched between the wetland and the road. We are generally not in
favor of this type of arrangement because it leaves little buildable room
and invites violation during the construction process and as lot owners
attempt to fill for yards. By moving the road slightly to the north larger
buildable areas could be left for these lots.
We look forward to working with the city as we have in the past to resolve
the wetland and ditch issues and to garner the best possible development
plan for this parcel.
Sincerely, ~.
K~~
Kerry Saxton
Office Manager
11/04/99 16:15 FAX 320 253 1002
.
SEH.RC~ ST CLOUD
l4J DOl
I
i
i
I
MEMORANDUM
605 Franklin Avenue NE, P.O. Box 51, Sl. Cloud, MN 56302-0051
320.253.1 000
800.346.6138
. 20.253.1002 FAX
TO:
Linda Goeb
City Administrator
Albertville, Minnesota
FROM:
Peter J. Carlson, P.E.
City Engineer
DATE:
November 4, 1999
RE:
Preliminary Utility and Grading Plan Review
Albert Villas
Albertville, Minnesota
SEH No. A~ALBEV0002.0
I reviewed the referenced plans and have the following comments:
GRADING PLAN: I
1. Block l/Lots 6 - 10: These lots have 6% driveways with rear to front drainage of less than 2o/t~. These
lots should be raised to increase drainage. i
I
2. Block 3: There are a number of lots labeled "LO" with varying differences in elevation betwJ,en the
garage floor and the grade at the rear of the house. I
I
3. Block 4: The rear property line shared with Block 5 (west of pond 2) is very flat. The storm ~ewer
should be extended up the swale or the "LO" lots should be changed to "5" lots. !
4. Block 6/Lots 8 - 10: The rear yards are relatively flat; raise the homes or change lot types.
5. Block 6/Lots 13 - 19: The rear yards are less than 2% and the NSP easement area to the west h less
than 1 %; install drain tile or storm sewer in rear yards. i
6. Block 7/Lot 34: Drainage is poor; raise house.
i :
7. Block 7/Lots 35 - 38: These lots have 6% driveways with rear to front drainage at less than 2~. In
addition, the rear yard bennlknoll complicates the drainage. Raise lots to increase drainage. :
8. Block 7/Lot 56: Floor elevations do not match one another.
i
Raise lots tolincrease
i
!
9. Block 7/Lots 62 - 64: Rear yards are relatively flat and swale will likely be wet.
drainage.
10. Block 8/Lots 1 - 4: These lots have 6% driveways with rear to front drainage of less than 2o/t\. Raise
lots to increase drainage. .
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc.
Offices located throughout the Upper Midwest
We help you plan, design, and achieve
Equal Opportunity Employer
11/04/99 16:15 FAX 320 253 1002
.
SEll.RCM ST CLULD
l{!J UU.j
Linda Goeb
November 4, 1999
Page 2
11. Block 9ILots 1 - 5: These lots have 6% driveways with rear to front drainage of less than 2~r' Raise
lots to increase drainage. i
12. Block 10ILots I - 3: House drainage is directed onto proposed park property which have ve~ flat
grades. Park property is likely to be wet. !
I
Should the pipe directio~ be
13. Block 10: The plan shows the drainage ditch draining into Pond 5.
reversed?
i
I
14. A means to remove sump discharge needs to be shown on the plans. Lots draining to a ponj or
wetland should have a 4" draintile installed from the back of the house and daylighted near the ppnd.
Lots with rear to front drainage or long rear drainage swales need to have a network of 4" drain;~ie under
the swales to accept the discharge; the network would be connected to a catchbasin or daylighte4 to a
pond.
SANITARY SEWER
15. The proposed plan to serve the site with long, flat runs of 10" PVC sewer is unacceptable per the
MPCA and the Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities (Ten State Standards) reqUir~ment
that discharges be at least 2.0 fps. We are recommending a primary lift station be installed alon. CSAH
18 with the initial phase which will accept discharge from all phases of the proposed site, as wel as the
discharge from the Cedar Creek South townhome development to the east.
i
A second lift station would be required near the intersection of 47th Street and Kagan Avenue. fhiS lift
station would accept the majority of Phase 3 and the southwestern portion of Phase 2. The seco dary lift
station would force the discharge north into a gravity system draining to the primary lift station.
I
I
i
16. A 12" trunk watermain will need to be extended west from CSAH 19 under CSAH 18. The Itrunk
would be installed with the reconstruction of CSAH 18, currently planned in the year 2001. Unt)\ that
time, the site can be served by extending the 10" trunk watennain south from the Cedar Creek S~)Uth
development to the north. I
W A TERMAIN
I
17. The two 8" DIP watermain connections at CSAH 18 will need to be oversized to 10" DIP a~d
extended ,to serve the parcel to the west and to serve the southern portions ofthis plat. The deve10per
shall bear all costs associated with oversizing the watermain within the development. I
rg
c:
W:W-BEV\OOOlREVW.WPD
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
500 Lafayette Road
Sl. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4010
August 24, 1999
Pete Carlson, City Engineer
City of Albertville
5975 Main Avenue NE
Albertville, MN 55301
RE: KC Land Company Development (Albert Villa) - Single Family Residential
Development
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W)
City of Albertville, Wright County
Dear Mr. Carlson:
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the EA W for
KC Land Company Development (Albert Villa), which consists of 347 single family
lots on 235.17 acres. We offer the following comments for your consideration.
Figures showing the locations of wetlands do not appear to be consistent. For
example, the figure showing the layout for Phase 1 depicts a wetland area in Lots 1-3
as extending into the Phase 2 area. However, the figure for Phase 2 does not show this
wetland area which should appear in Lots 17-19. There is also a drainage way depicted
in the figure for Phase 1, but not in the figure for Phase 2.
The assessment of wetland impacts appears to be based solely on the road development
and does not factor in wetland fills necessary to develop some of the lots. In Phase 1,
some wetland fill may be necessary to develop lots numbered 1,2,3,6, and 12. In
Phase 2, lots numbered 10, 33, 34, 35, 53, and 54 appear to require wetland fill. In
Phase 3, lots 1 and 6 - 11 appear to require wetland fill. We recommend that the City
of Albertville require an estimate of the total wetland impacts likely to result from
residential lot development. This impact should be mitigated before construction by the
developer by creating an on-site wetland mitigation bank for use by lot owners. The
lots owners would have to go through the mitigation sequencing process before being
allowed to withdraw credits from the mitigation bank and the developer would have to
be responsible for assuring the successful creation of the replacement wetland.
Section 12 - Physical Impacts on Water Resources
The EA W indicates no impacts to Swamp Lake (Protected Water 86-14 P), yet there is a
storm water pond proposed in close proximity. The Ordinary High Water (OHW) level
for this lake is 952.50. Any work done below this elevation will require a DNR
Waters Permit. For additional information, please contact Larry Kramka, DNR Area
Hydrologist, at (320) 255-2976.
DNR Information: 651-296-6157 · 1-888-646-6367 · TTY: 651-296-5484 · 1-800-657-3929
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Who Values Diversity
{\ Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a
.~ Minimum of 10% Post-Consumer Waste
KC Land Development EA W
August 24, 1999
Page 2
Due to incomplete information about potential wetland impacts, we are unable to
determine if this project will cause significant environmental impacts. The EA W
should address how many acres of wetland are impacted by this project and how the
developer plans to mitigate the impacts. Please contact Michael North, Regional
Environmental Assessment Ecologist, at (218) 828-2433, to discuss wetland mitigation
procedures.
We recommend the record of decision be delaved until accurate information about
potential wetland impacts can be made available to reviewing agencies. Thank you for
the opportunity to review this project. We look forward to receiving your record of
decision and response to comments. Minnesota Rules part 4410 .1700, subparts 4 & 5,
require you to send us your Record of Decision within five days of deciding this action.
Please contact Gail Fox of my staff at (651) 296-0731 if you have questions regarding
this letter.
Sincerely,
~ry:~
Thomas W. Balcom, Supervisor
Environmental Planning and Review Section
Office of Management and Budget Services
c: C.B. Bylander
Con Christianson
Michael North
Joe Oschwald
Charles Kjos, USFWS
Jon Larsen, EQB
Keith Harstad - KC Land Company
#000018-01
FOX:ERI7:KCLANEA W.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
NOTE TO PREPARES
This worksheet is to be completed by the Responsible Government Unit (RGU) or its agents. The project proposer must supply
any reasonably accessible data necessary for the worksheet, but is not to compete the final worksheet itself. If a complete answer
does not fit in the spaced allotted, attach additional sheets as necessary.
For assistance with this worksheet contact the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) at (612) 296-8253 or (toll-free) 1-
800-652-9747 (ask operator for the EQB environmental review program) or consult "EA W Guidelines," a booklet available from
the EQB.
NOTE TO REVIEWERS
Comments must be submitted to the RGU (see item 3) during the 30-day comment period following notice of the EA W in the
EQB Monitor. (Contact the RGU or EQB to learn when the public comment period ends.) Comments should address the
accuracy and completeness of the information, potential impacts that may warrant further investigation, and the need for an EIS.
If the EA W has been prepared for the scoping of an EIS (see item 4), comments should address the accuracy and completeness of
the information and suggest issues for investigation in the EIS.
1. Project Title:
2. Proposer
Contact Person
Address
KC Land Company Development (Albert Villa)
KC Land Company
Keith Harstad
2191 Silver Lake Rd.
New Brighton, MN 551212
3. RGU
Contact Person
Title:
Address
City of Albertville
Pete Carlson
City Engineer
5975 Main Avenue NE
Albertville, MN 55301
612-497-3384
Phone:
612-636-3751
Phone
4. Reason for EA W Preparation
_ EIS Scoping, XX mandatory EA W, _ citizen petition, _RGU discretion,
_Proposer Volunteered.
If EA W or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category number(s) 4410.4300 Subp 19
5. Project Location
Ji. 1/2 of the Ji. 1/2 of Section 11 ,Township 120N Range 24W,
E 1/2 of the SW 1/4, SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 and the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 2 Township 120N Range 24W
County Wright Cityrrwp. Albertville
Attach copies of each of the following to the EA W:
a. a county map showing the general location of the project;
b. copy(ies) of USGS 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map (photocopy is OK) indicating the project boundaries;
c. a site plan showing all significant project and natural features.
d. Land use plan
e. drainage plan
Copies of the requested diagrams can be found in the 'Figures' section of this report.
Please refer to the index and the individual diagrams for additional information.
6. Description Give a complete description of the proposed project and ancillary facilities (attach additional
sheets as necessary). Emphasize construction and operation methods and features that will cause physical
manipulation of the environment or produce wastes. Include the timing and duration of construction activities.
See Attached
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.
Project Magnitude Data
Total Project Area (acres) 235.17 acres or Length (miles)
Number of Residential Units
Unattached ~ Attached ~
Commerciall IndustriallInstitutional Building Area (gross floor space)
Total ~ square feet;
Indicate area of specific uses:
Office 0 square feet Manufacturing 0 square feet
Retail 0 square feet Other Industrial 0 square feet
Warehouse 0 square feet Institutional 0 square feet
Light Industrial 0 square feet Agricultural 0 square feet
Other Commercial (specify) 0 square feet
Building Height(s) NA
8.
Permits and Approvals Required
required:
List all known local, state, and federal permits, approvals, and funding
Unit Of Government Type of Application Status
Wright Co. SWCD Wetland MitiO"ation Permit To be acquired
MN DeDt. of Nat. Resources Wetland Mitigation Permit To be acquired
Army Corp. of Engineers Wetland Mitigation Permit To be acquired
MN Pollution Control Agency Gen. Storm water Discharge Permit To be acquired
MN Pollution Control Agency Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit To be acquired
Joint Powers Water Board Water main Extension To be acquired
MN Dept. of Health Water main Extension To be acquired
City of Albertville Final Plat To be acquired
Wright County Final Plat To be acquired
City of Albertville Street and Utility Improvement To be acquired
Proiect
9. Land Use Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lands.
Discuss the compatibility of the project with the adjacent and nearby land uses; include whether any
potential conflicts involve environmental matters. Identify any potential environmental hazard due to
past land uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage tanks.
See Attached
10. Cover types Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development (before
and after totals should be equal):
See Attached
11. Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources
a. Describe fish and wildlife resources on or near the site and discuss how they would be affected by tne project. Describe
any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts.
b. Are there any state-listed endangered, threatened, or special-concern species; rare-plant communities; colonial waterbird
nesting colonies; native prairie or other rare habitat; or other sensitive ecological resources on or near the site?
_Yes XX No. If yes, describe the resource and how it would be affected by the project. Indicate if a site survey
of the resources was conducted. Describe measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts.
See Attached
PAGE 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
12. Physical Impacts on Water Resources Will the project involve the physical or hydrogeological alteration (dredging,
filling, stream diversion, outfall structure, diking, impoundment) of any surface water (lake, pond, wetland, stream, drainage
ditch)? XX Yes _No
If yes, identify the water resource to be affected and describe: the alteration, including the construction process; volumes of
dredged or fill material; area affected; length of stream di version; water surface area affected; timing and extent of fluctuations
in water surface elevations; spoils disposal sites; and proposed mitigation measures to minimize impacts.
See Attached
13. Water Use
a. Will the project involve the installation or abandonment of any wells?
XX Yes No
For abandoned wells give the location and Unique well number. For new wells, or other previously unpermitted wells,
give the location and purpose of the well and the unique well number (if known).
b. Will the project require an appropriation of ground or surface water (including dewatering)? _ Yes XX No
If yes, indicate the source, quantity, duration, purpose of the appropriation, and DNR water permit appropriation permit
number of any existing water appropriation. Discuss the impact of the appropriation on the ground water levels.
c. Will the project require connection to a public water supply? XX Y es ~No
If yes, identify the supply, the DNR water appropriation permit number of the supply, and the quantity to be used.
See Attached
14. Water-related Land Use Management Districts Does any part of the project site involve a shoreline-zoning district,
a delineated 100-year flood plain, or a state or federally designated wild or scenic river land use district? _ Yes XX No.
If yes, identify the district and discuss the compatibility of the project with the land use restrictions of the district.
15. Surface Water Use Will the project change the number or type of watercraft used on any water body? _ Yes XX No
If yes, indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss any potential overcrowding or conflicts with other users
or fish and wildlife resources.
16. Soils Approximate depth (in feet) to:
Groundwater: mlmmum 0 feet* average 50 feet
Bedrock: minimum unknown average 200 feet
*wetlands on site are most likely perched wetlands, soil borings indicate groundwater deeper than 15 feet. reference
materials indicate groundwater depth approximately 50 feet below grade and bedrock approximately 200 feet below grade.
Describe the soils on the site, giving SCS classifications if known. (SCS interpretations and soil boring logs need not be
attached. )
The United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service's Soil Survey of Wright County. Minnesota,
classified the soils at the Project site as Angus (1362B), Angus-Cordova (1094B) and Nesselloams, Cordova complex (1156),
Glencoe (114) and Klossner (539) clayey loams. These soils are listed as clayey and silt loams.
17. Erosion and Sedimentation Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to be moved:
acres 150 cubic yards 300.000. Describe any steep slopes and identify them on the site map.
Describe the erosion and sedimentation measures to be used during and after construction of the process.
Topography of the Project is relatively flat and contains few, if any, highly erodable soils. Grading of streets and lots within
the Project will be performed as necessary to develop lots, streets, and building pad elevations consistent with drainage design
criteria. Fill material, including granular soils and recycled tire engineered aggregate, will be supplied to enhance the road bed
as needed. The proposer's intent is to perform only the necessary grading and filling required for construction and drainage
purposes. Silt fences will be used to preclude erosion into downstream water ways or wetlands. All erosion control during
construction will be performed in accordance with the City and MPCA requirements. Detention/water quality ponds will be
in place during and after construction to retain storm water and serve as sedimentation basins prior to stormwater entering
existing wetlands.
PAGE 3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
18. Water Quality - Surface Water Runoff
a. Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe methods to be used to manage
and/or treat runoff.
b. Identify the route(s) and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site. Estimate the impact of the runoff on the quality
of the receiving waters. (If the runoff may affect a lake consult "EA W Guidelines" about whether a nutrient budget
analysis is needed.)
See Attached
19. Water Quality - Wastewaters
a. Describe sources, quantities, and composition (except for normal domestic sewage) of all sanitary and industrial
wastewaters produced or treated at the site.
b. Describe any waste treatment to be used and give estimates of composition after treatment, or if the project involves on-
site sewage systems, discuss the suitability of the site and conditions for such systems. Identify receiving waters
(including groundwater) and estimate the impact of the discharge on the quality of the receiving waters. (If the runoff may
affect a lake consult "EA W Guidelines" about whether a nutrient budget analysis is needed.)
c. If wastes will be discharged into a sewer system or pretreatment system, identify the system and discuss the ability of the
system to accept the volume and composition of the wastes. Identify any improvements which will be necessary.
See Attached
20. Groundwater - Potential for Contamination
a. Approximate depth (in feet) to groundwater:
minimum 0 feet* average 50 feet
*wetlands on site are most likely perched wetlands, groundwater was not encountered to depths of 17 feet. Reference
materials indicate groundwater depth approximately 50 feet below grade.
b. Describe any of the following site hazards to groundwater and also identify them on the site map: sinkholes; shallow
limestone formations/karst conditions; soils with high infiltration rates; abandoned or unused wells. Describe measures to
avoid or minimize environmental problems due to any of these hazards.
Any existing wells will be abandoned and sealed in accordance with applicable requirements of the Minnesota Department
of Health. No other hazardous have been identified on the site.
c. Identify any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or present on the project site and identify measures to be used to
prevent them from contaminating the groundwater.
No toxic or hazardous materials will be generated by the Project.
21. Solid Wastes; Hazardous Wastes; Storage Tanks
a. Describe the types, amounts, and compositions of solid or hazardous wastes being generated, including animal manure's,
sludge, and ashes. Identify the method and location of the disposal. For projects generating municipal solid waste
indicate if there will be a source separation plan; list type(s) and how the project will be modified to allow construction.
Typical residential waste will be generated by the Project and will be collected and disposed of in accordance with the
contracts the City of Albertville has for garbage pick up and recycling.
Waste generated during project construction will include typical construction debris. This waste will be disposed of in
accordance with applicable requirements. However, the exact location of disposal of construction materials is not known.
b. Indicate the number, location, size, and use of any above or below ground tanks to be used for storage of petroleum
products or other materials (except water).
No permanent above or below ground tanks for storage of petroleum products or other materials (except water) are
expected to exist on the Project site upon completion. During Project construction it is likely that mobile fuel tanks
will be on the property for the purpose of providing fuel to construction equipment.
22. Traffic Parking spaces added~. Existing spaces (if project involves expansion)
o
PAGE 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Estimated total Average Daily Traffic (ADT) generated
Estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated (if known) and its timing: unknown , unknown.
For each affected road indicate the ADT and the directional distribution of the traffic with and without the project. Provide an
estimate of the impact on traffic congestion on the affected roads and describe any traffic improvements which will be
necessary .
See Attached
23. Vehicle-related air emissions Provide an estimate of the effect of the project's traffic generation on air quality,
including carbon monoxide levels. Discuss the effect of traffic improvements or other mitigation measures on air quality
impacts. (If the project involves 500 or more parking spaces, consult "EA W Guidelines" about whether a detailed air quality
analysis is needed.)
Based on the traffic data contained in Section 22 the Project will not cause any significant decrease in air quality due to vehicle
related emissions.
24. Stationary source air emissions Will the project involve any stationary sources of air emissions (such as boilers or
exhaust stacks)? _ Yes XX No.
If yes, describe the sources, quantities, and composition of the emissions; the proposed air pollution control devices; the
quantities and composition of the emissions after treatment; and the effects on air quality.
25. Will the project generate dust, odors, or noise during construction and/or operation? XX Yes No
If yes, describe the sources, characteristics, duration, and quantities or intensity, and any proposed measures to mitigate
adverse impacts. Also identify the locations of sensitive receptors in the vicinity and estimate the impacts on these receptors.
During Project construction dust may be generated as a result of grading, utility installation, and street construction. The
significance of any dust will be minimal and can be mitigated by the use of water trucks when necessary. Dust generation
following streets paving should be negligible.
Noise generation will be typical of that associated with grading utility installation, street construction and home building and
will continue for the duration of project construction. No major noise source such as blasting will occur and especially
sensitive receptors such as hospitals are not located in the vicinity of the Project.
26. Are any of the following resources on or in close proximity to the site?
a. archaeological, historical, or architectural resources? _ Yes XX No
b. prime or unique farmlands? _ Yes XX No
c. designated parks, recreation areas, or trails? _ Y es ~ No
d scenic views and vistas? Yes XX No
e. other unique resources? _ Yes XX No
If any items are answered Yes, describe the resource and identify on the resource due to the project. Describe any measures to
be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts.
27. Will the project create adverse visual impacts? (Examples include: glare from intense lights; lights visible in wilderness areas;
and large visible plumes from cooling towers or exhaust stacks.) _ Yes XX No If yes, explain.
28. Compatibility with plans Is the project subject to an adopted local comprehensive land use plan or any other
applicable land use, water, or resource management plan of a local, regional, state, or federal agency?
_ Yes XX _ No. If yes, identify the applicable planes), discuss the compatibility of the project with the provisions
of the planes), and explain how any conflicts between the project and the planes) will be resolved. If no, explain.
The Project is not in conformance with the City Comprehensive Use Plan, dated December 11, 1996, However the City has
indicated their willingness to rezone the site to the appropriate designation, as this meets with long term City Land Use
Plans. See Figure D for most recent Land Use Plan.
29. Impact on Infrastructure and Public Services Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure, or public
services be required to serve the project? XX Yes _ No. If yes, describe the new or additional infrastructure/services
needed. (An)' infrastructure that is a "connected action" with respect to the project must be assessed in this EA W; see "EA W
Guidelines" for details.)
PAGE 5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
As stated in prior sections sanitary sewer and water utilities will be extended to serve the Project. Both the water supply
system and the wastewater treatment system have available capacity to accommodate the Project.
Roadways are in the process of improvement along the route the majority of traffic would use for commuting.
30. Related Developments; Cumulative Impacts
a. Are future stages of this development planned or likely? _ Yes XX No
If yes, briefly describe the future stages, their timing, and plans for environmental review.
b. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? _ Yes XX No
If yes, briefly describe the past development, its timing, and any past environmental review.
c. Is other development anticipated on the adjacent lands or outlots?~ Yes _ No
If yes, briefly describe the development and its relationship to the present project.
d. If a, b, or c were marked Yes, discuss any cumulative environmental impacts resulting from the project and the other
development.
Development is anticipated to the west and south of the Project on property that is located in St. Michael, however,
31. Other Potential Environmental Impacts If the project may cause any adverse environmental impacts which were not
addressed by items I to 28, identify and discuss them here, along with any proposed mitigation.
There are no other known adverse environmental impacts associated with the construction and use of the Site.
32. SUMMARY OF ISSUES (This section need not be completed if the EA W is being done for EIS scoping; instead, address
relevant issues in the draft Scoping Decision document which must accompany the EA W) List any impacts and issues
identified above that may require further investigation before the project is commenced. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative
measures that have been or may be considered for these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered
as permit conditions.
Further investigation of the site prior to beginning of construction is not recommend.
CERTIFICATIONS BY THE ROD (All 3 certifications must be signed for EQB acceptance of the EA W for publication of notice
in the EOB Monitor)
rmation in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge.
Signature
B. I hereby certify that the project described in this EA W is the complete project and there are no other projects, project stages,
or project components, other than those described in this document, which are related to the project as "connected actions" or
"phased actions," as defined, respectively, at Minn. Rules, pts. 4410.0200, subp. 9b and subp. 60.
Sign"u~~,v ~
C. I hereby certify that copies of the completed EA W are being sent to all points on the official EQB EA W distribution list.
Signature ~dCL ~
TiUoofSigno, {]d>-NA4~d7h Date ~~'1
PAGE 6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
KC Land Company Development (Albert Villa)
Explanation of Attached Sections
Section 6. PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ABSTRACT
Description: KC Land Company proposes to develop a 235.17 acre parcel from
agricultural land to 347 single family lots with a minimum size of 12,500 square feet,
in three phases over a five year period. All of the phases will be constructed within
the City of Albertville, Minnesota.
RGD: City of Albertville
Contact: Pete Carlson, City Engineer, 5975 Main Avenue NE, Albertville, MN
55301,612-497-3384.
The Project consists of developing a 235.17 acre parcel from agricultural fields,
wooded areas, wetlands and two farmsteads to residential property on in the City of
Albertville, Minnesota (Project). The planned development consists of three
phases.
Phase I will commence grading and preliminary construction as soon as possible
and is scheduled to be completed in 2000. Phase II is scheduled to begin construction
in 2000 to be completed in 2002, and Phase III is planned to be completed in 2004.
Phase I proposes developing 43 single family lots on approximately 43 acres in the
northwest portion of the proposed project area. Phase II proposes developing 146
single family lots on approximately 92 acres in the central portion of the proposed
project area. Phase III will be composed of 158 single family lots on approximately
100 acres in the portion south of County Ditch No.9 on the proposed project area.
Included in this property are areas of roads, parks, ditches, wetlands and utility
easements.
The City of Albertville is included in the Joint Powers Water Board System along
with the cities of Hanover and St. Michael. Domestic water and fire protection
service will be provided to the Project by the Joint Powers Board Water System.
The wastewater lines from the Project will be connected to existing main lines
located to the north and east that were installed in the Oaks Center development.
The sewer lines were designed to accommodate this expected Project and further
development of the property adjacent the Project. The wastewater will ultimately be
routed to the Albertville wastewater treatment facility that was upgraded in 1993
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
and is undergoing further expansion. The completed expansion of the wastewater
facility that is planned to be functional in 2001.
Sanitary sewer main lines installed through the Project will be designed to service
further development from the adjacent undeveloped properties to the west. It is
not known what type, timing, or extent of development will occur on properties
adjacent the Project.
Activities during Project construction will include typical earthwork associated with
grading for streets, and stormwater ponds, and installation of utilities including
municipal water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer lines. MPCA approved erosion
control methods such as silt fencing will be used to mitigate potential erosion onto
adjacent properties or into drainage ways and ditches.
The timing and duration of construction are not established, but the proposer
wishes to commence grading and preliminary construction as soon as possible. The
initiation of construction is contingent upon the receipt of approvals and the rate of
development is dependent on the need for housing.
Section 9. LAND USE
Current land use of the Project site is primarily agricultural, with portions of the
property existing as wetlands and wooded areas. In addition, two farmsteads are
located on the property. The estimated acreage of cover types before and after
development are identified in the following section. Adjacent land uses include
residential, agricultural, and recreational. The City of Albertville Comprehensive
Plan Development Framework is included as Figure D.
The proposed development is bordered on the south by residential development in
the City of St. Michael, on the west by agricultural land, on the north by CSAH 18
(beyond which is the golf course and residential development) and on the east by
Swamp Lake. Because adjacent land uses are consistent with the Project no
environmentally negative impacts are anticipated. The impact of the Project and
any potential conflicts with Swamp Lake and other wetlands on the Site will be
addressed in sections 11 and 12.
Due to the historical agricultural use of the Project site no environmental hazard
due to past land uses is likely.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 10. COVER TYPES
Total Project
Before After Before After
Tvoes 2 to 8 Wetlands 44 44 Urban/Suburban Lawn 3.5 90
W ooded/Forest 9 5 Landscaping 0 10
Brush/Grassland 6 38.9 Imoervious Surface 2.5 35.1
Crooland 170 0 Other (describe) 0 12
Other includes stormwater detention ponds
Section 11. FISH, WILDLIFE, AND ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE RESOURCES
Wildlife resources at the Project site and in adjacent areas include Swamp Lake,
County Ditch No.9 and associated drainage ditches, several wetlands, and
woodland areas.
a) The most significant wildlife resource adjacent to the Project site is Swamp
Lake, DNR protected wetland #14P, on the eastern border of the Project. No
construction activities are anticipated to impact Swamp lake. Impacts will be
minimized by the inclusion of a stormwater pond to detain and settle
stormwater prior to entering Swamp Lake. Also, a parkland buffer between
residential lots and the edge of the wetland is planned.
County Ditch No.9, nearly bisects the southern half of the Project site with an
arm extending northward to the northern border of the site. Recent
maintenance on County Ditch No.9 has removed many of the trees and
vegetation formerly lining the ditch bank. The Project will cross the County
Ditch No.9 and impact the Ditch banks. Efforts will be made to avoid, and
minimize impacts to the existing wetlands. Impacted wetland are limited to
less than 4% of the total on-site wetlands and will be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio
on-site. Further discussion of on-site wetlands is included in Section 12.
Existing patches of woodland will be converted to residential uses. However,
efforts will be made to incorporate as many of the existing trees as possible
into future residential lots.
The remainder of the Project site is currently agricultural. While agricultural
land does represent a wildlife resource, it is a more seasonal and less valuable
resource than wetlands. Furthermore, the conversion of agricultural land to
residential is compatible with many forms of wildlife.
The are no fish resources on or near the site that could be affected by the
Project.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
b.) The MNDNR search documentation can be found in Appendix A.
Section 12. PHYSICAL IMPACTS ON WATER RESOURCES
The residential development will be consistent with the existing wetlands and
current wetland regulations. The field drainage ditches that are part of the on-
site wetlands will be crossed at seven locations. Approximately 1.5 acres of Types
1 and 6 wetland of the existing 43.97 acres of on-site wetlands will be filled with
approximately 1750 cubic yards of native material. Minor alteration of four
existing drainage ditches located on the property will accommodate and enhance
the overall stormwater and water quality controls.
Wetland replacement will occur on-site at a ratio grater than the 2:1 ratio
described in current wetland mitigation laws. No physical or hydrological
alteration of the surface waters will occur outside the Project area.
Stormwater detention and water quality ponds will be constructed that will
control stormwater outflow rates and will be designed in accordance with
applicable stormwater quality criteria.
Section 13. WATER USE
a) No wells are listed on the Minnesota County Well Index on the Project site.
However, it is likely that wells dug prior to 1974 occur at each of the
farmsteads located on the Project site. If wells are encountered they will be
abandoned and sealed in accordance with Minnesota Department of Health
requirements.
c.) The Project will receive water for domestic and fire protection purposes from
the Joint Powers Board System for Albertville, St. Michael and Hanover. The
DNR water appropriation permit numbers for the supply are 146359 and
455787. Estimated daily water consumption for each Phase of the Project are
found in the following table.
Phase Number persons per Water Use rate Average Consumption
of Lots residence (per Capita) (gallons per day)
Phase I 43 2.7 100 11,610
Phase II 146 2.7 100 39,420
Phase III 158 2.7 100 42,660
Total 347 93,690
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The completed Project is 93,690 gallons per day based on an average of 2.7
persons per residence and typical water use rates of 100 gallons per capita per
day (gcd).
Section 18. WATER QUALITY - SURFACE WATER RUNOFF
a.) The quantity of runoff from the Project is not expected to increase from
present conditions nor is the quality expected to be adversely affected. These
estimates are based on standard runoff parameters for the soil cover
conditions that presently exist on the Project site and the soil cover conditions
and impervious areas that are expected to exist upon Project completion.
Water discharge quality is expected to improve upon Project completion and
construction because of the use of stormwater detention ponds. Surface
water runoff from storm events will discharge to County Ditch No.9, Swamp
Lake, and the southern wetland after being controlled for rates and quality by
means of control structures placed in existing ditches, stormwater detention
ponds, and grassy swales. None of the stormwater runoff from the Project
will be discharged directly into protected lakes, streams or County Ditch No.9.
b.) Runoff from storm events will be routed into stormwater detention/water
quality ponds and existing wetlands prior to controlled discharge into County
Ditch No.9, the Crow River, and downstream waters.
Phase I of the project calls for surface water runoff to enter existing ditches,
stormwater piping, constructed stormwater detention ponds, and enhanced
wetlands prior to entering the centrally located large wetland.
The second phase of the Project will make use of the existing ditches,
stormwater piping, and three stormwater drainage ponds to detain runoff
prior to entering the centrally located wetland. The water discharge rate from
the wetland to County Ditch No.9 will be controlled. Included in this Phase
are an additional two stormwater ponds designed to detain runoff prior to
overland discharge to County Ditch No.9.
The Phase III of the Project will make use of the stormwater piping, two
stormwater drainage ponds, and enhanced wetlands to detain runoff and
control the discharge rate into County Ditch No.9. Surface water runoff in
the eastern portion of the Project will be detained in two storm water ponds
prior to entering Swamp Lake. Surface water runoff from the most southern
lots will drain over the grassy lawns and swales into the southern wetland.
The rate of discharge into County Ditch No.9 will not increase as a result of
the Project. Stormwater from the Project enters the stormwater
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
detention/water quality ponds through storm sewer piping and overland
flow.
The Project is not expected to degrade stormwater quality when compared to
existing conditions. Currently, the majority of the Project site is utilized for
agriculture. Runoff from these areas are likely contains silt, pesticides and
nutrients used in fertilizers such as nitrogen and phosphorus. Runoff from
the completed Project may contain some pesticides and nutrients from lawn
fertilizers and may contain some sediments from streets and yards. However,
the detention/water quality ponds will provide a mechanism for sediment
deposition and the attenuation of nutrients. Thus, suspended solids and
nutrient inputs to County Ditch No.9 should be reduced by the construction
of the Project.
Section 19. WATER QUALITY - WASTEWATERS
a.) All wastewater from the Project will be domestic sewage. Project estimates for
wastewater generation can be found in the following table. The Average
Wastewater Generated gallons per day are based on an average of 2.7 persons
per residence and a flow rate of 100 gallons per day.
Phase Number persons per Wastewater Generated Average Wastewater
of Lots residence (per Capita) Generation (gallons per day)
Phase I 43 2.7 100 11,610
Phase II 146 2.7 100 39,420
Phase III 158 2.7 100 42,660
Total 347 93,690
The wastewater generated from the Project will not include any industrial
augmentation. The area to the south, once developed, can be expected to
generate a similar residential flow rates.
b.) No on-site wastewater treatment will be part of the Project. All of the Project
sewer lines will be connected to the Albertville Wastewater treatment facility.
The current facility consists of a pond system that provides secondary to
tertiary treatment to remove phosphorous prior to discharge to Mud Lake.
This facility is designed to treat 315,000 gallons per day with a CBOD loading
of 368 pounds per day.
Phase I of the project proposes an average daily wastewater of 11,610 gallons
per day. Therefore, the current wastewater facility has the capacity to
accommodate Phase I of the project. Phase II and Phase III wastewater flow
amounts will occur after the Albertville waste water treatment facility is
expanded.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c.) Currently the treatment facility averages 225,000 gallons per day and is
expanding their treatment capabilities. The expansion is in the design stage
with construction to begin in 2000 and additional capabilities are projected to
be functional in 2001. Currently the facility has the potential to accommodate
an additional 90,000 gallons per day and future plans, on file with the MPCA,
indicate the facility design can be modified to treat a significantly higher flow
rate and organic loading. It is estimated that the facility treatment can be
increased to accommodate an average daily flow of 1,373,000 gallons per day
with a CBOD loading of 2,380 pounds per day.
The Albertville waste water facility has the current capability and will have
the future capability to accommodate the additional wastewater flow from the
Project and adjacent areas.
Section 22. TRAFFIC
Estimated total Average Daily Traffic (ADT) generated see table
The following table express the projected average daily traffic on CSAH 118 from
this project through the proposed Phases. It is anticipated that the majority of
traffic will use CSAH 118 to access Interstate-94 to commute to the Twin Cities,
however, local traffic does not need to use this route to access the local
comm uni ties.
Phase Number Daily trips per Daily Use
of Lots residence
Phase I 43 10 430
Phase II 146 10 1,460
Phase III 158 10 1,580
Total 347 3,470
Section 30. RELATED DEVELOPMENTS; CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
c.) Development is anticipated on the adjacent property to the west and south of
the Project in St. Michael, Minnesota. However, the planning and schedule
for this development is unknown. The impact of these developments cannot
be determined at this time.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURES
Figure A - Wright County Map
Figure B - USGS Topographic Map
Figure Cl - Site Map - Phase I
Figure C2 - Site Map - Phase II
Figure C3 - Site Map - Phase 1111
Figure C4 - Site Map - Total
Figure D - Land Use Plan
Figure E - Drainage Map
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Base Map: Rand McNally Atlas, 1993
1
C
.'1.
1 inch = 5 miles
~ Pinnacle
II Engineering
Pinnacle Engineering, Inc.
11000 93rd Avenue North
Maple Grove, MN 55369
Phone: (612) 315-4501
Fax: (612) 315-4507
Figure A.
Wright County map
Albertvilla Residential Development
Albertville, Minnesota
C?
Date:
July 14, 1999
Prepared By:
S. Thelen
Scale:
1 inch = 5 miles
Reviewed By:
E. Hansen
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure B
USGS Topographic Map
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 inch = 24,000 inches
Figure B.
~ Pinnacle
M Engineering
Pinnacle Engineering, Inc.
11000 93rd Avenue North
Maple Grove, MN 55369
Phone: (612) 315-4501
Fax: (612) 315-4507
Site Location
Proposed Residential Development
Albertville, Minnesota
Date:
July 14, 1999
Prepared By:
S. Thelen
Scale:
1 = 24,000
Reviewed By:
E. Hansen
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure Cl
Site Map - Phase I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I __
t- -----
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11)
~
~
(i\
(f\
N
N
<<
-
U)
4-'
o
-l
f'I1
..;f-
II
-0
C
o
4-'
())
3:
/ "
;../
/ 1
/ /
,/ / ,/
/
Y
~
-
\ /
,/
\
Cl
-
~
Cl
..
U)
())
-+-'
o
C
())
o
-
-
i
~
I
...-
())
U)
o
..c
0....
ti\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure C2
Site Map - Phase II