HomeMy WebLinkAbout9C - Deerfield EAW
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
JANUARY 20, 2004
9C
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
AGENDA ITEM:
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION MAKING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON THE NEED FOR AN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE
DEERFIELD INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
DISCUSSION:
History: Deerfield Development, Inc. has applied for approval of a
preliminary plat for the property located south and west of CSAH 21,
west ofCSAH 87, and immediately to the east of the Deerfield
residential development. The proposed development consists of 60.93
acres to be subdivided into 10 lots for future industrial, commercial
and residential development.
The potential square footage of commercial and industrial uses
triggered the need for a mandatory Environment Assessment
Worksheet (EAW) under Minnesota Rules 4410.4300, subp. 14.
Under Minnesota Rules, the City Council is designated as the
Regulatory Governmental Unit (RGU) charged with preparing and
making the decisions on the EA W.
The City hired MFRA to prepare the EA W on its behalf. The EA W
was completed in November and distributed to the Environmental
Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parties on
November 18, 2003. Notice ofthe EAW was also sent to the Prior
Lake American on November 25, 2003, and published in the EQB
Monitor on November 24,2003. The comment period on the EA W
expired on December 24,2003.
Comment letters were received from the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources, the Scott County Highway Department, the Scott
County Community Development Natural Resources Department, the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Metropolitan Council and
the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Copies of the letters and
the responses to these comments are attached to this report.
Current Circumstances: Minnesota Rules 4400.1700, subp. 2,
requires a decision on the need for an EIS be made within 30 days of
www.cityofpriorlake.com
J. \93 6Ie!\93 Mdi. i!i81\~93 I',eli1'ft I'lllf.deerfield ill.dliS I'8fir,\ell.. \ee fel'eFt.Elee
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
Pagel
_.1 .
the expiration of the comment period. The decision must be based on
the following criteria:
a) The type, extent and reversibility of environmental effects;
b) The cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future
projects;
c) The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to
mitigation by an ongoing public regulatory authority;
d) The extent to which the environmental effects can be anticipated
and controlled as a result of other environmental studies
undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, or ofEIS's
previously prepared on similar projects.
Each ofthese criteria is discussed in detail in the attached Exhibit A
labeled "Findings of Fact and Conclusions."
The Issues: The major issues identified in the EA Wand in the
comments submitted pertain to the runoff generated by this
development, specifically, the impact on Markley Lake, and the
impacts ofthe traffic generated by the development.
The infrastructure needs, storm water management needs and wetland
mitigation were all analyzed and determined based on the maximum
build-out of the site, per the City of Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance.
Any further subdividing ofthe project site would not create any
additional infrastructure needs, impervious surfaces or additional
storm water management needs. Therefore, all cumulative impacts
have been analyzed.
The storm water management of the project site has been designed to
hold any runoffto levels consistent with predevelopment. The storm
water management plan and the site drainage plan for the site meet or
exceed the requirements of the City of Prior Lake including:
. Storage capacity to accommodate all runoff from the I-year, 24-
hour rainfall event and have capacity to infiltrate all runoff from
said event within 72 hours.
. No increase in runoff volume from the site for the IOO-year event.
. All runoff treated prior to discharge into infiltration area.
. Utilize conservation infiltration rates in the design that will reflect
infiltration rate reductions over the lifetime of the basin.
. The Developer and City will enter into a monitoring agreement and
implement a monitoring program to demonstrate that the
infiltration basins continue to provide adequate infiltration capacity
in the future, monitoring results will be submitted and reviewed
annually by the City, and the Developer will enter into a
maintenance agreement with the City that outlines their
1:\03 files\03 subdivisions\03 prelim plat\deerfield indus park\eaw\cc report. doc
Page 2
III, .
FISCAL IMPACT:
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
responsibilities for monitoring and maintenance with regard to the
operation of the stonn water management system.
These provisions are required of all development within the Markley
Lake drainage area.
The other major issue identified by the EA W is the impact ofthe
traffic generated by the development. The EA W has detennined the
potential traffic generated as a result ofthis development will impact
the turning movements on CSAH 21. In order to mitigate this impact,
the developer will be required to escrow funds for the construction of
left-turn lane at CSAH 21 and CSAH 87. When Scott County
detennines the left-turn lane is needed, these funds will be utilized for
that construction. The funds will be collected as part ofthe final plat
approval process.
This project is also subject to permit review and approval from several
other agencies, including the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
Scott County Highway Department and the Minnesota Department of
Health. These permits will assess the impacts ofthe project based on
current statutes. These permits will only be issued after a negative
declaration on the EA W, and after City approval of the development.
Conclusion: All comments from the state and local agencies note an
EIS is not necessary for this development. The environmental impacts
ofthis project will be addressed through the standard permitting
process. The staff therefore recommends the City Council make a
negative declaration on the need for an EIS.
Budf{et Impact: There is no budget impact as a result ofthis action.
The City Council has two alternatives:
1. Adopt a resolution making a negative declaration on the need for an
EIS for this project.
2. Determine there is a need for further environmental review of this
project. In this case, the Council must direct the staff to prepare a
resolution declaring the need for an EIS based on specific findings
of fact.
The staff recommends Alternative #1. A motion and second approving
a resolution mak' g a negative declaration on the need for an EIS is
aroare.
Frank B y s,
1:\03 flles\03 subdivisions\03 prelim plat\deerfield indus park\eaw\cc report. doc
. i I
Page 3
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EA W)
RESOLUTION 04-XX
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL ORDERING NEGATIVE DECLARATION
REGARDING DEERFIELD INDUSTRIAL PARK ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
(EA W)
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
WHEREAS: Deerfield Development, Inc, the applicant, has made application for consideration of a
Preliminary Plat related to the Deerfield Industrial Park; and
WHEREAS: The project requires preparation of a mandatory EA W pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410.4300
Subpart 14; and
WHEREAS: The EA W was approved for distribution and was published in the Environmental Quality Board
Monitor on November 24,2003. The 30 day comment period ended December 24,2003; and
WHEREAS: The City Council is required to base its decision on the need for an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) and the proposed scope of an EIS on the information gathered during the EA W
process and on the comments received on the EA W. Pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, in
deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the following
factors shall be considered:
a. Type, extent and reversibility of environmental effects.
b. Cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects.
c. The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by
ongoing public regulatory authority.
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, or of EISs previously prepared on similar projects; and
WHEREAS: The EA W prepared by McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. is incorporated herein; and
WIlEREAS: Comments regarding the EA W were received during the 30-day comment period ending
December 24, 2003. Responses to those comments dated January 9, 2004 are incorporated
herein. All comments were adequately addressed and no further information is needed; and
WHEREAS: None of the potential environmental effects identified in the EAW are deemed to be significant or
to materially adversely affect the environment, particularly in light of the mitigative measures
proposed or integrated into the project and the extent to which they are subject to regulatory
1:\03 files\03 subdivislons\03 prelim plat\deerfield Indus Dark\ei!V>'\9Ew resolutlon.doc
WWW.cllyorpnorlaKe.com
Page 1
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
1.1 .
authority; and
WHEREAS: Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the project does not have the potential for
significant environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS This documents all matters set forth above and incorporated herein, together with all matters in
the same, shall constitute the Record of Decision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA:
A. The above recitals are incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
B. Based on the foregoing information and applicable ordinances, the proposed Deerfield Industrial Park
development does not have potential for significant environmental effects and that preparation of an EIS is
not to be required based on a review of the submitted EA Wand evidence received.
C. The preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) and the comments received on the
EA W have generated information adequate to determine whether the proposed development to be known as
Deerfield Industrial Park has the potential for significant environmental effects.
D. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required for the Deerfield Industrial Park development.
E. The attached Findings of Fact and Conclusions are incorporated herein as Exhibit A as if fully set forth.
Passed and adopted this 20th day of January, 2004.
YES NO
Haugen Haugen
Blumberg Blumberg
LeMair LeMair
Petersen Petersen
Zieska Zieska
{Seal} Frank Boyles, City Manager
1:\03 files\03 subdivisions\03 prelim plat\deerfield indus park\eaw\eaw resolution.doc
Page 2
.111 I
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. EXHIBIT A
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL
IMP ACT STATEMENT (EIS) FOR THE PROPOSED DEERFIELD INDUSTRIAL PARK
DEVELOPMENT
Deerfield Development, Inc. is proposing to develop 60.6 acres of land located south and west of
CSAH 21, west ofCSAH 87, and immediately to the east of the Deerfield residential
development. The proposed development consists of60.93 acres to be subdivided into 10 lots
for future industrial, commercial and residential development. Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.4300,
subp. 14, the City of Prior Lake has prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W)
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 EA Wand comments received, the
City of Prior Lake makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions:
Findings of Fact
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Project
The Deerfield Industrial Park project proposes the creation of 10 lots for future
industrial, commercial and residential development. Although there are no
specific uses proposed on the site, the EA W was prepared based on the ultimate
potential build-out for each lot.
B. Project Site
The proposed project includes 60.9 acres ofland located within the NW 1/4
Section 12, T114N, R24W. Portions ofthis site have been cropped in the past and
currently contain 3.5 acres of wetland, 3.1 acres of wooded area, and 54.3 acres of
cropland.
II. PROJECT HISTORY
A. This project was subject to the mandatory preparation of an EA Wunder
Minnesota Rules. 4410.4300, subp. 14.
1:\03 files\03 subdivisions\03 prelim plat\deerfield indus p,ll!"!<:\eaw.\findings.doc
www.cn:yOlpnorlaKe.com
Page 1
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
1.:1 .
B. An EA W was prepared on the proposed project and distributed to the
Environmental Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parties on
November 18,2003.
C. A press release containing the notice of availability of the EA W for public review
was sent to the Prior Lake American on November 25, 2003.
D. The EA W was noticed in the November 24, 2003, EQB Monitor. The public
comment period ended on December 24,2003. Comment letters were received on
or before the deadline from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the
Scott County Highway Department, the Scott County Community Development
Natural Resources Department, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the
Metropolitan Council and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Copies
of the letters are hereby incorporated by reference. Responses to the comments
are also incorporated by reference.
III. CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Minnesota R.441 0.1700, subp. I states that "an EIS shall be ordered for projects that have
the potential for significant environmental effects." In deciding whether the project has
the potential for significant environmental effects, the City of Prior Lake 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 REVERSmlLITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The first factor that the City of Prior Lake must consider is "type, extent and
reversibility of environmental effects," Minnesota R.441 0.1700, subp. 7.A. The
City's findings with respect to each ofthese issues are set forth below.
1. The type of environmental impacts anticipated as part of this project
includes:
a. Increased municipal water use
Increased water use will be accommodated by the expansion of the
existing watermain trunk system.
b. Increased wastewater discharge
All ofthe wastewater will be typical sanitary sewage from a
business office/warehouse, light industrial use. The additional
wastewater will be treated at the Metropolitan Council
Environmental Services Blue Lake Treatment Plant. This plant has
the capacity to accommodate the additional discharge.
1:\03 files\03 subdivisions\03 prelim plat\deerfield indus park\eaw\findings.doc
Page 2
II I
c. Increased noise due to traffic within the area
Based on traffic and noise modeling, the additional traffic will not
have a significant impact on the noise levels which will be within
the MPCA standards
d. Wetland impacts from filling
Wetland filling will be mitigated through on-site wetland
mitigation and use of existing banked credits. Further, wetland
impacts will be evaluated through the permitting process.
e. Increased pollutants in stormwater runoff
Treatment ponds designed to NURP guidelines have been included
in the plans for this development to mitigate the effects of
pollutants in the stormwater runoff.
f. Increased stormwater runoff rate and volume.
This project has been designed to limit discharge rates to pre-
project levels. As with any type of development, the project does
increase the volumes of stormwater runoff. The stormwater
analysis for the project has shown this project will not create a
significant bounce in the water bodies.
Further, these impacts will be minimized and mitigated through the
local, state, and federal permitting and plan approval processes.
2. In general, the extents of the environmental impacts are consistent with
those of a business office/warehouse and light industrial development.
B. CUMULATIVE POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF RELATED OR ANTICIPATED
FUTURE PROJECTS
The second factor that the City of Prior Lake must consider is "the cumulative
potential effects of related or anticipated future projects", Minnesota R.441 0.1700.
supb. 7.B. The City's findings with respect to this factor are set forth below.
1. The construction of the Deerfield Industrial Park Development will be in
phases over the next 5 years based on the local demand for these uses.
The use of Best Management Practices and the NPDES General
Stormwater Permit will be implemented and maintained throughout all
construction phases of these projects to ensure the effects of erosion and
sedimentation are mitigated. The property directly to the west is part of
the Deerfield Residential Development and is substantially complete. The
property to the south is part of the Scott County Urban Expansion Area.
This property is currently developed with large lot residences. It is
1:\03 files\03 subdivisions\03 prelim plat\deerfield indus park\eaw\findings.doc
Page 3
[. i I
possible this property will redevelop in the future; however, no plans have
currently been developed.
2. The EA W has also determined the potential traffic generated as a result of
this development will impact the turning movements on CSAH 21. In
order to mitigate this impact, the developer will be required to contribute
in the cost of the construction ofleft-turn lane at CSAH 21 and CSAH 87.
When Scott County determines the left-turn lane is needed, these funds
will be utilized for that construction. The nature and the amount of the
contribution will be determined as part ofthe final plat and development
contract approval process.
3. In general, the City finds the cumulative impacts of this development can
be mitigated by the above conditions.
C. THE EXTENT TO WHICH ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ARE SUBJECT TO
MITIGATION BY ONGOING PUBLIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY
1. The following permits or approvals will be required for the project:
Unit of Government
State:
MPCA
MPCA/MCES
MN Dept. of Health
Permit or Approval Required
NPDES Permit; General Storm Water Permit
Sanitary Sewer Permit
Water Extension System
Local:
City of Prior Lake
City of Prior Lake
LGU - Prior Lake
Scott County
Grading and platting plan approval
Building Permit/Sign Permits
Wetland Impact for Wetland Conservation Act
Access/R-O- W
2. The City finds that the potential environmental effects of this project are
subject to mitigation by ongoing regulatory authorities; therefore, 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, OR OF EIS 's PREVIOUSLY PREPARED ON
SIMILAR PROJECTS.
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, or of
1:\03 files\03 subdivisions\03 prelim plat\deerfield indus park\eaw\findings.doc
Page 4
Ill! I
EIS's previously prepared on similar projects," Minnesota R.4700.1700, subp.
7.D. The City's findings with respect to this factor are set forth below:
The environmental impacts ofthe proposed project have been addressed in the
following plans:
1. City of Prior Lake Comprehensive Plan
2. City of Prior Lake Comprehensive Local Surface Water Management Plan
3. Traffic Impact Study for the Deerfield Industrial Park Development
4. Deerfield Stormwater Analysis
The City finds the environmental effects ofthe project can be anticipated and
controlled as a result ofthe environmental review, planning, and permitting
processes.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The preparation of the EA W and comments received on the EA W have generated
information adequate to determine whether the proposed development has the potential for
significant environmental effects.
2. The EA W has identified areas where the potential for significant environmental effects exist.
Appropriate mitigative measures have been incorporated into the project plan with respect to
utilities, wetlands, traffic, noise and stormwater runoff. The Deerfield development is
expected to comply with all City of Prior Lake standards and review agency standards.
3. Based on the criteria established in Minnesota R.4410.1700, the potential impacts of this
project can be addressed through the regular permitting process.
4. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
1:\03 files\03 subdivisions\03 prelim plat\deerfield indus park\eaw\findings.doc
Page 5
Iii 1 I
Deerfield Industrial Park Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW)
Response to Comments
January 20, 2004
Agency Comments
Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT), Tod Shennan, December 26,2003
The Minnesota Department of Transportation has reviewed the EA W for the proposed
development and offers the following comments:
1. COMMENT: This development should have little or no impact the
Minnesota Department of Transportation's (Mn/DOT) right of way.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
Metropolitan Council, Phyllis Hanson, December 19,2003
The Metropolitan Council has reviewed the EA W for the proposed development and
offers the following comments:
1. COMMENT: Item 6 - Project Description. The document states that
there is potential for further subdividing of outlots on the site. However,
on page 13 the document states that it "describes the full scope of the
Deerfield Industrial Park subdivision, which will be built-out in several
stages, and that the entire site was master planned to analyze the
cumulative impacts of the project, including infrastructure needs,
stonnwater management needs, and wetland mitigation:' It is unclear if
the full accounting of all potential impacts, as apparently in the master
plan document for the site, are presented in this document. This item will
need to be addressed in the final record of decision document.
RESPONSE: The infrastructure needs, storm water management needs
and wetland mitigation were all analyzed and determined based on the
maximum build-out of the site, per the City of Prior Lake Zoning
Ordinance. Any further subdividing of the project site would not create
any additional infrastructure needs, impervious surfaces or additional
Deerfield Industrial Park EA W
Response to Comments
January 20, 2004
Page I
Iii 1 I
storm water management needs. Therefore, all cumulative impacts have
been analyzed and will be reflected in the negative declaration.
2. COMMENT: Item 10 - Land Cover. The proposal reduces the amount
of wetlands on the site from 3.5 acres to 0.8 acres. Council staff
recommends that effort be made to avoid impacts to the wetland area on
the southwestern portion of the site. These wetlands are part of a larger
wetland complex, therefore likely having better wetland values, and as
such may be the highest priority for wetland protection. It is
recommended that this wetland area and the native vegetation buffers
around it be avoided.
RESPONSE: Comment Noted. The City Subdivision Ordinance required
a buffer strip, a minimum of 20' wide and an average of 30' wide, around
all wetlands. In addition, the City required a minimum 30' setbackfrom
the 100 year flood elevation of all wetlands. These requirements will be
applied as part of any building permit review. The additional
recommendations will be passed on to the developer.
3. COMMENT: Item 11 - Fish, Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive
Resources. The EA W states that Blanding's Turtle, a state-listed
threatened species, has historically been observed in the site vicinity.
Given the extent of wetland habitat adjacent to the site, and the
understanding that Blanding's Turtles are known to travel up to one mile
from wetland feeding areas to sandy upland nesting areas, it is possible
that they may live in and traverse portions of this site. Since there are no
buildings planned to be constructed this winter, a simple site survey by
qualified personnel during the turtle's spring nesting period could be done.
Staff also recommends the use of mountable curbing for proposed roads.
RESPONSE: Comments noted. There have not been documented
sightings of Blanding's Turtles on the site. In addition, the comment letter
dated September 11,2003 receivedfrom the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources Natural Heritage response did not indicate the
presence of the Blanding's Turtle on the site itself, only that the site
conditions are similar to those known to be home to the Blanding's Turtle.
A flyer provided by the DNR will be provided to the developer to
disseminate to all persons involved in construction work on the project
site, as the flyer describes methods to minimize or avoid impacts to this
rare turtle. If any are discovered, appropriate measures, including
surmountable curbing, will be undertaken at the City's direction to
mitigate against any detrimental effects.
4. COMMENT: Item 12 - Physical Impacts on Water Resources. The text
states that some of the proposed wetland impacts on the site will be
exempt from mitigation for their loss 'provided existing tile lines and
Deerfield Industrial Park EA W
Response to Comments
January 20, 2004
Page 2
InB i II
drainage ways are maintained.' Typically, agricultural drain tile is
removed from land being urbanized due to the potential that the tile
system could be damaged during site earthmoving activities; and its
questionable design, location, and life-span. Council staff recommends
that all existing drain tile within the area be identified and removed prior
to development. Any potential upstream public drainage facilities will not
be able to rely on continued operation of private downstream drainage
facilities within the area. Removal of the tile may result in
reestablishment of natural storm water retention and wetland features in
hydric soil areas that had been drained. Ownership and maintenance
responsibilities of any agricultural drain tile proposed to remain on the site
should be addressed in the final record of decision document.
RESPONSE: The EA W does state the "Wetlands E and F are exempt per
Exemption 2.D (provided the tile line/drainageway is maintained)." The
project proponent intends to do the maintenance to this tile line so that the
area is no longer "wet". This maintenance activity is exempt from the
WCA replacement requirements and opens the area for development as
non-wetland. The WCA exemption does not require continued
maintenance of the tile, and this particular section of the exemption does
not preclude conversion to another use once the tile is functioning as
originally designed. When the site is developed, these tile lines will be
abandoned and appropriate grading, surface drainage, sub-surface
drainage, and up-gradient drainage will have to be provided.
5. COMMENT: Item 17 - Water Quality: Surface Water Runoff. Council
staff encourages the City to work with the project proposer to incorporate
native vegetation and low impact development (LID) techniques (e.g.
porous pavement, bio-infiltration and rainwater gardens) into the project to
maximize efficiency of storm water ponding. Porous pavement techniques
are currently being tested quite successfully at the Minnesota Landscape
Arboretum. Information on Urban Small Sites Stormwater Best
Management Practices can be found in the Council's manual at:
http://www.metrocouncil.org/environmentlwatershed/bmp/manual.htm
RESPONSE: Comment Noted. This suggestion will be passed on to the
developer. All development of the site must meet applicable regulations.
6. COMMENT: Item #25 - Nearby Resources. A portion ofthe property is
across the road from Cleary Lake Regional Park. It is recommended that
the development and landscaping of the property across from the park be
considerate ofthe park. This could include efforts such as minimizing
noise and traffic impacts, larger setbacks and significant native vegetation
landscaping. Also, a sidewalk or trail from the property to the park could
provide an amenity for the future employees ofthe area.
Deerfield Industrial Park EA W
Response to Comments
January 20, 2004
Page 3
Iii I I
RESPONSE: Comment Noted. These suggestions will be passed on to
the developer. The development will meet all requirements of the City of
Prior Lake with regard to landscaping, setbacks and sidewalks. These
requirements will be applied with the development of each individual lot.
During review of the Preliminary Plat, the City will attempt to minimize
impacts to the park and encourage site features which are complementary
to the park.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), Debra Moynihan, December 22, 2003
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has reviewed the EA W for the proposed
development and offers the following comments:
1. COMMENT: As noted in Item 8 ofthe EA W, this project would require
the application for and issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) General Storm Water Permit for
Construction Activity. Although the EA W indicates that the project
proposer plans to implement storm water control measures required by the
City and the MPCA, we are providing the following comments and
information for further clarification.
Since this project will disturb an area of more than 50 acres, the NPDES
General Storm Water Permit must be submitted at least 30 days prior to
commencing any land disturbing activities (i.e. clearing, grading, filling,
and excavating) and be accompanied by a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan that incorporates specific Best Management Practices
(BMPs) applicable to the site.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. The developer will be reminded of this
requirement.
2. COMMENT: The EA W indicates that the site will be graded in
accordance with the Final Grading and Guidance Plan which is guided by
BMP Manual. The BMP Manual is meant only for use on either small
sites or retrofit sites. The erosion control practices must meet the
requirements that are part of the NPDES General Storm Water Permit for
Construction Activity.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. The erosion control practices used on the
site will meet the requirements of the NPDES permit.
3. COMMENT: Also, the EA W indicates that the erosion control practices
will conform to the requirements ofthe City and the MPCA. If the
requirements ofthe City are less stringent than the requirements in the
Deerfield Industrial Park EA W
Response to Comments
January 20, 2004
Page 4
. 1111 I
NPDES permit, the project proposer must adhere to the requirements in
the NPDES permit issued by the MPCA.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. The project will meet whichever
requirements are the most stringent.
4. COMMENT: The EA W mentions the construction of two wet
sedimentation ponds that will be designed to meet National Urban Runoff
Program (NURP) standards. The NPDES permit contains requirements
for sizing and settling velocities that the pond must achieve in order to be
in compliance with the permit. These requirements are not the same as
NURP requirements and need to be incorporated into the pond design.
RESPONSE: Comment noted, The ponding to be constructed on the site
will be designed to be in conformance with the NPDES standards.
5. COMMENT: The EA W contains a detailed traffic study which is
attached as an appendix to the document. The traffic analysis shows that
all the three existing unsignalized intersections will be operating at a level
of service (LOS) F for the 2010 build conditions during both the morning
and afternoon peak hours. Additionally, traffic volumes at all the three
subject intersections meet the peak hour signal warrants for the 2010 build
conditions. The EA W did not provide any detailed air quality analysis for
the project. Judging the size ofthe development, number of parking
spaces proposed, and the poor LOS at three intersections adjacent to the
development, the EA W should have provided a more detailed air quality
analysis than the one provided in the document. Therefore, MPCA staff
strongly recommend the implementation of the roadway improvements
listed in the traffic analysis. The implementation ofthese improvements
would help reduce the potential for traffic congestion and also improve
traffic flow within the project site. Future development within the area
should be monitored until all the improvements are implemented.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. The City of Prior Lake will continue to
work with the Scott County Highway Department to monitor the level of
service (LOS) at the subject intersections. The recommendations of the
traffic study have been taken under advisement. In order to mitigate the
impact of this development, the developer will be required to contribute in
the cost of the construction of left-turn lane at CSAH 21 and CSAH 87.
The nature and the amount of the contribution will be determined as part
of the final plat and development contract approval process. However,
the City and County will work together to determine the most appropriate
improvements to the transportation system as development occurs in the
area. The traffic study completed for the EA W reflected possible traffic
conditions given the uses that could be developed on the site with current
zoning. Since the actual land uses are unknown at this time, the traffic
Deerfield Industrial Park EA W
Response to Comments
January 20, 2004
Page 5
Iii I I
study examined the traffic count that land uses with a high trip generation
factor would generate. The traffic study is specific as to the roadway
improvements required; however, as the specific land uses become known
and are developed on the site, the City and County will monitor the trips
generated and determine appropriate timing for the transportation system
improvements as warranted by the needs of the transportation system.
Any potential air quality issues will be addressed with the improvements
to the system.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Wayne Barstad for Kathleen Wallace,
December 18, 2003
The Minnesota DNR has reviewed the EA W for the proposed development and offers the
following comments:
1. COMMENT: Cover types (Item No. 10). The table shows the
conversion of3.1 acres of wooded/forest cover. This may result in the
removal of a significant amount of wood from the site. Depending on its
conditions, this wood may be used as a landscaping material, firewood, or
as a replacement for coal in the production of energy. The developer
should contact Jean Mouelle, Regional Forest Utilization and Marketing
Specialist (651-772-7567), for advice on this subject.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. The developer will be advised of this
suggestion.
2. COMMENT: Fish, Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resources (Item
No. 11). As noted in this item, the Big Woods community does not occur
on the site. The EA W, however, incorrectly identifies the Big Woods as a
state-threatened species. For the record, the Big Woods was a 3,000
square mile hardwood forest that once extended between present day
Faribault and St. Cloud. Within the shady interior ofthe maple-basswood
forest, a multi-leveled network of niches was home for a rich variety of
plant and animal life. Today this part of Minnesota's natural heritage
consists of scattered remnants; less than seven percent of the pre-
settlement forest remains.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
3. COMMENT: Water Quality: Surface Water Runoff (Item No. 17). The
project site is located immediately north of public waters wetland #70-
188W. The developer should implement sound erosion control and
sediment management practices during grading and construction.
Deerfield Industrial Park EA W
Response to Comments
January 20, 2004
Page 6
Inn I .
RESPONSE: Comment noted. The project will be required to obtain an
NPDES permit and will be required to comply with all applicable
regulations regarding erosion control and sediment management
practices.
Scott County Community Development Natural Resources Department, Dawn Tracy,
December 12, 2003
The Scott County Community Development Natural Resources Department has reviewed
the EA W for the proposed development and offers the following comments:
1. COMMENT: The process used to address stormwater in this EA W does
not appear to be an outcome based analysis, which considers the potential
downstream impacts with an end result of resource oriented management
for water resources.
RESPONSE: The storm water management of the project site has been
designed to hold any runoff to levels consistent with predevelopment. The
storm water management of the site meets or exceeds the requirements of
the City of Prior Lake.
2. COMMENT: The EA W scope appears to be limited to this project only
without considering how this project fits in with the ultimate drainage
needs of the area. The EA W should identify that this project area is within
an Urban Expansion Area in the current County Comprehensive Plan
where further development is expected to occur as future City annexations
and ultimate urban services to the area are provided.
RESPONSE: The project area is located entirely within the corporate
limits of the City of Prior Lake. The site is located adjacent to an Urban
Expansion Area, as identified in the Scott County Comprehensive Plan.
The EA W scope is limited to the project site. In order to conduct a more
comprehensive drainage analysis of the site and surrounding area, there
would have to be a specific development plan for the Urban Expansion
Area adjacent to the site. At this time there is not.
3. COMMENT: The EA W, as submitted, does not provide sufficient
information to identify downstream drainage conditions or acknowledge
that ongoing drainage nuisances exist downstream of the project site.
Based upon our understanding of the drainage concerns of the area, it
appears the project drainage is divided into two separate watershed areas.
The northerly project areas appears to flow into the existing stormwater
system constructed as part of the Waterfront Passage project, under CSAH
21 and into Markley Lake, which is a landlocked basin that is subject to
Deerfield Industrial Park EA W
Response to Comments
January 20, 2004
Page 7
Iii I I
property damages as evidenced by the recent lawsuits associated with
higher lake elevations. (See attached notice of claims addressed to the
City, County and Credit River Township). The southerly project area
appears to flow into a DNR wetland complex, to Cleary Lake and
subsequently outlets into the Credit River, which has known property
damages such as erosion, streambank instability and flooding of properties
in many locations along it's length.
RESPONSE: The site drainage plan meets the requirements of the City of
Prior Lake subdivision ordinance and storm water management policies
including:
a. Storage capacity to accommodate all runofffrom the i-year, 24-hour
rainfall event and have capacity to infiltrate all runoff from said event
within 72 hours.
b, No increase in runoff volume from the site for the 1 DO-year event.
c. All runoff treated prior to discharge into infiltration area.
d. Utilize conservation infiltration rates in the design that will reflect
infiltration rate reductions over the lifetime of the basin.
e. The Developer and City will enter into a monitoring agreement and
implement a monitoring program to demonstrate that the infiltration
basins continue to provide adequate infiltration capacity in the future,
monitoring results will be submitted and reviewed annually by the
City, and the Developer will enter into a maintenance agreement with
the City that outlines their responsibilities for monitoring and
maintenance with regard to the operation of the storm water
management system.
The above five requirements are included in the City's policy for any
development located in a land-locked basin, such as Markley Lake. These
requirements restrict runoff rates and volumes and limit the impact of
future development downstream. The proposed stormwater design meets
these criteria.
4. COMMENT: We are concerned the project may add to the current
localized flooding issues at Markley Lake. The EA W does not estimate
the runoff volume increase expected in each watershed. An "infiltration
pond" is proposed in Outlot B, however the expected volume reduction is
not identified and we question the effectiveness of the design shown as
part ofthe EA W.
RESPONSE: The site drainage plan meets the requirements of the City of
Prior Lake subdivision ordinance and storm water management policies
including as described in the response to Comment #3, above.
Deerfield Industrial Park EA W
Response to Comments
January 20, 2004
Page 8
III I I
Scott County Public Works Division Highway Department, Brian Sorenson, December
19,2003
The Scott County Public Works Division Highway Department has reviewed the EA W
for the proposed development and offers the following comments:
1. COMMENT: The City and County are in the process of studying CSAH
21 from CSAH 82 through CR 87 to ultimately define the future
conceptual design of CSAH 21. The results of that study will have an
impact on the roadway system in the area. This study however is not
expected to be complete until the summer of 2004.
RESPONSE: Comment noted, The City will continue to work with the
County on the study of CSAH 21.
2. COMMENT: Has the City looked at extending right-of-way to the
southern property line to preserve a future local street connection? Even
though the City may not currently have plans to develop to the south,
preserving options for developing an interconnected system of local streets
is critical in ultimately developing a safe and efficient system of roadways.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. The City generally does encourage and
provide for local street connections. In this instance, however, the right-
of way is not expected to be extended to the south due to a wetland
complex on the adjoining property.
3. COMMENT: The minimum right-of-way dedication for CR 87 shall be
60 feet from centerline. This is not reflected on the proposed preliminary
plat.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. The developer will be advised of this
requirement.
4. COMMENT: A County access permit shall be required for the proposed
Adelman Street onto CR 87. All other access to the property shall be
removed from the County right-of-way. A right turn lane and a left turn
lane will be required to be installed as a condition ofthe permit to ensure
turning traffic generated by this development is safely accommodated. A
left turn lane and right turn lane on CR 87 were not mentioned in the
EAW.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. The developer will be advised of these
design issues and will be reminded that a County access permit shall be
required.
Deerfield Industrial Park EA W
Response to Comments
January 20, 2004
Page 9
III1 I
5. COMMENT: The study recommends that traffic signal control be
installed at the CSAH 21/CR 87 intersection in conjunction with the
proposed development. This recommendation is based on the 2010
analysis. Just as with all County intersections, a traffic signal here will not
be installed until traffic conditions throughout the day indicate that a
signal will improve the overall operation of the intersection and the road
system. This intersection will therefore be monitored as this development
adds trips to this intersection, and as traffic on CSAH 21 increases. We
would not install a signal at this location without first resolving the issue
ofthe proximity of the 170th Street intersection to CR 87. This issue will
be dealt with as part ofthe CSAH 21 study currently underway. We also
would not install a signal at this location without left turn lanes being
installed on CSAH 21.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. The City will continue to work with the
County on the CSAH 21 study currently underway as well as with the
implementation of transportation system improvements as warranted by
trip generation. The City understands that transportation system
improvements will not be constructed until warranted by the actual traffic
conditions. In order to mitigate the impact of this development, the
developer will be required to contribute in the cost of the construction of
left-turn lane at CSAH 21 and CSAH 87. The nature and the amount of
the contribution will be determined as part of the final plat and
development contract approval process.
6. COMMENT: The study identified a level of service problem at the
Adelman Street intersection, and recommends two options for dealing
with this issue. This intersection again will be evaluated as part ofthe
CSAH 21 study. We do not believe the options are limited to those
recommended in the study. A full-access unsignalized intersection will
also be considered. Because the local street system here will be
interconnected to both CR 87 and Fish Point Road, traffic will have
options based on traffic conditions throughout the day.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. The City will continue to work with the
County on the CSAH 21 study. Options for the Adelman/CSAH 21
intersection will be studied in addition to those recommended by the
traffic study.
7. COMMENT: The study includes capacity and signal warrant analyses,
but does not include any intersection safety analyses. To safely
accommodate turning traffic at the new intersection proposed on CR 87,
left and right turn lanes will need to be installed. At the CSAH 21 and CR
87 intersection, the 2010 projections show major left turning impacts due
to the development. In the am peak hour, left turns increase from 8
vehicles to 254. In the pm peak hour, left turns increase form 46 to 136.
Deerfield Industrial Park EA W
Response to Comments
January 20, 2004
Page 10
III I I
Without left turn lanes at this intersection, these movements will have a
major impact on the safety of this intersection. We would like to work
cooperatively with the City and the developer to develop a plan for
making the improvements necessary to ensure a safe intersection. It is
critical that this be done before the plat is approved and the development
moves forward.
RESPONSE: Comment noted. The City will advise the developer of the
County's concerns regarding intersection safety. In order to mitigate the
impact of this development, the developer will be required to contribute in
the cost of the construction of left-turn lane at CSAH 21 and CSAH 87.
The nature and the amount of the contribution will be determined as part
of the final plat and development contract approval process. The City will
require that the County's concerns be addressed by the developer before
Final Plat approval will be granted.
Deerfield Industrial Park EA W
Response to Comments
January 20, 2004
Page 11
III1 I
.r'"
I
DEERFIELD INDUSTRIAL PARK
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Prepared for
City of Prior Lake
By
MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES
15050 - 23rd A VENUE NORTH
PLYMOUTH, MN 55447
763..476.6010
November 14,2003
11111, ..
Revised 2199
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Note to preparers: This form is available at www.mnplan.state.mn.us. EA W Guidelines will be available in
Spring 1999 at the web site. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet provides information about a project that
may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The EA W is prepared by the Responsible
Governmental Unit or its agents to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared. The
project proposer must supply any reasonably accessible data for - but should not complete - the final worksheet.
If a complete answer does not fit in the space allotted, attach additional sheets as necessary. The complete question
as well as the answer must be included if the EA W is prepared electronically.
Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the RGU during the 30-day comment period following notice
of the EA W in the EQB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of information, potential
impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for an EIS.
1. Project title Deerfield Industrial Park, City of Prior Lake, Scott County
2. Proposer Deerfield Development Inc.
Contact person lohn Mesenbrink
Title
Address 7765 East 17Sh Street
City, state, ZIP Prior Lake, MN 55372
Phone (952) 447-5058
Fax
E-mail
3. RGU City of Prior Lake
Contact person lane Kilnsier
Title Planning Coordinator
Address 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
City, state, ZIP Prior Lake, MN 55372
Phone (952) 447-9812
Fax (952) 447-4245
E-mail jkansier@cityofpriorlake
4. Reason for EA W preparation (check one)
EIS scoping L Mandatory EA W
Citizen petition
RGU discretion Proposer volunteered
IfEAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number: 4410.4300 Subpart 14, Commercial
Facilities
CityfTownship Prior Lake
Township 114N
5. Project location County Scott
SE v., Section 12
Range 22W
The project is located at the southeast side of Prior Lake, south and west ofCSAH 21 (Cleary Lake Road) and
west of CSAH 87, City of Prior Lake, Scott County.
Attach each of the following to the EAW:
. County map showing the general location of the project;
. U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries
. Site plan showing all significant project and natural features
Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
Figure 4:
Figure 5:
Figure 6:
Figure 7:
Figure 8:
Figure 9:
19B i II
County map
USGS map
Four (4) sheet plan set: Preliminary Plat, Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan, Preliminary
Utility Plan, Preliminary Tree Preservation Plan
City of Prior Lake Zoning Map
Soil Survey
Traffic analysis is the traffic analysis completed by Benshoof & Associates Inc.
DNR Natural Heritage Report
Minnesota Historical Society Letter
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
Deerfield Industrial Park EA W
November 5, 2003
Page 2
6. Description
a. Provide a project su~ary of 50 words or less to be published in the EQB Monitor.
Deerfteld Industrial Park is a 60-acre commercial/light industrial business park development located at the
south west corner of the intersection of CSAH 21 and CSAH 87 in the City of Prior lAke, Minnesota. The plat
includes ten (10) sites ranging from 1 to 18 acres to accommodate high-density housing and a variety of
business types and sizes including office, warehousing, light industrial and retail/commercial
b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction. Attach additional sheets as
necessary. Emphasize construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the
environment or will produce wastes. Include modifications to existing equipment or industrial processes and
significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures. Indicate the timing and duration of
construction activities.
Deerfteld Industrial Park is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of CSAH 21 and CSAH 87 in
the City of Prior lAke, Minnesota, as indicated in the attached figures. New construction will include all of_
the site improvements described in the attached plan set. The internal utility extensions and most of the site
improvements will be constructed in phases as development occurs beginning in 2004.
At the present time, there is no construction planned, as the property has not yet been marketedfor sale to
prospective buyers. It is the Developer's goal to have the business park sites available and fully served prior
to marketing or transferring title to prospective buyers. All uses of the site must comply with the City of Prior
lAke Zoning Ordinance and must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The exact uses for these
proposed structures are unknown at this time, but are anticipated to be a mixture of office commercia~
warehousing and light industrial in nature as permitted by Prior Lake zoning regulations. The parcel zoned
R-4 will be developed as high density residential, in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Ordinance.
Site preparation and storm water management must conform to the Minnesota Best Management Practices
(BMP) Manual as indicated on the attached Preliminary Grading Plan. This includes the creation of dry
infiltration and sedimentation ponds in the north westerly portion of Outlot B, adjacent to Adelman Street and
two (2) NURP ponds located at the southernmost portion of the site located in Outlots C and D. The
Preliminary lAndscape Plan provides perimeter screening, buffering, and other enhancements to the right-of-
ways and green areas.
c. Explain the project purpose; if the project will be carried out by a governmental unit, explain the need for the
project and identify its beneficiaries.
The purposes of Deerfteld Industrial Park are to meet local economic development objectives and to respond
to local housing, commercial/office and light industrial market demand, and provide new space for
businesses. The Prior Lake 2020 Vision indicates that the City of Prior Lake desires to "Ensure that land is
available and designated for future development". Deerfteld Industrial Park will diversify the local business
profile and provide a range of income and job opporiunities. This project is expected to be occupied by small
and large-scale, region-serving corporate office and light industrial businesses that will expand the Prior
lAke tax base.
Need for the Deerfield Industrial Park is identified in the City's 2020 Comprehensive lAnd Use Plan. This
Plan provides for a significant increase in commercial and industrial land uses from the 1985 Comprehensive
Plan. Existing commercial and industrial uses occupy 111 acres within the City of Prior Lake and the 1985 Plan
provided only for an additional 50 acres. The 2020 plan provides for an additional 920 acres of commercia1.and
industrial land within the City and, at build-out, wiU comprise approximately 10% of the City land area compared
to about 1% at present. The plan provides for somewhat more acreage than was projected to be needed in the
Commercial, Office and Industrial Study whkh was completed in 1994. That repori concluded that approximately
611 acres of commercial and industrial land would be needed at build-out. This plan takes a more optimistic
position based on recent interest shown in the community by commercial and industrial developers and by more
aggressive economic development activities on the pari of the City of Prior Lake.
In. I .
Deertield Industrial Park EA W
November 5, 2003
Page 3
d. Are future stages of this development including development.on any outlots planned or likely to happen?
L Yes No
If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline and plans for environmental review.
The preliminary plat proposes the creation of five lots and five outlots. The sizes of the proposed lots are
between one and four acres, while the outlots range between three and eighteen acres. It is anticipated that
the outlots would be built out in the next 5 years and there is a potential for further subdividing of the outlots,
depending on the development proposed and market demands. However, the entire site has been master
planned to estimate wetland mitigation acreage, stonn water management and infrastructure needs for the
entire development.
e. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? _Yes L No
If yes, briefly describe the past development, time line and any past environmental review.
7. Project magnitude data
Total project acreage The gross area of the entire site is 60.445 acres: Lot 1 and Lot 2 of Block 2 are 1 acre
each, Lot 3 Block 2 is 2 acres, Lot 1 Block 1 is 4.25 acres and Lot 2 Block 1 is 3.8 acres. Outlot A is 6.07
acres, outlot B is 17.77 acres, outlot C is 10.35 acres, outlot D is 6.12 acres, outlot E is 2.23 acres. At this time,
no development is planned.
According to the 2020 Comprehensive Plan and City of Prior lAke Zoning Ordinance, the maximum building
coverage is listed below. These figures are based on gross densities, and do not take into account undevelopable
areas with steep slopes, wetlands, unsuitable soils etc.
District
I-I
C-4
C-5
R-4
Acres
12.35
6.07
31.92
4.25
Maximum Building
Covera/le Ratio
50%
35%
50%
30 units per acre
Although there are no specific development plans as of yet, the following projections are based on maximum
build-out potential.
Number of residential units: unattached NA attached 123 total maximum units per building: No limit
Commercial, industrial or institutional building area (gross floor space): total square feet: 848,178 square feet
Indicate areas of specific uses (in square feet):
Office/W arehouse: 486,652 square feet
ManufacturinglLight industrial: 268,983 square feet
Other commercial (specify): General Commercial/Hospitality: 92,543 square feet
Agricultural: 0
Institutional: 0
Building height. Unknown at present time. If over 2 stories, compare to heights of nearby buildings.
At this time, there are no buildings planned. Any future construction on the subject property must confonn to
the City of Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance. The maximum height for buildings in the proposed Deerfield
Industrial Park is three stories or 35 feet.
8. Permits and approvals required. List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals and tinancial
assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing permits, governmental review of plans and all
direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing and
1]0 II
Deerfield Industrial Park EA W
November 5, 2003
infrastructure.
Unit of I!overnment
City of Prior Lake
MN Department of Health
MN PoUution Control Agency/MCES
MN Environmental Quality Board
City of Prior Lake
City of Prior Lake
City of Prior Lake
MPCA
Scott County
Tyve of avvlication
Wetland Conservation Act permit
Watermain Extension
Sewer Extension
EA W Publication
Preliminary/Final Plat
Building/Grading/Utility Permit
Sign Permits
NPDES Permit
Access/R-O- W
Page 4
Status
Future Application
Future Application
Future Application
Applied for
Applied for
Future Application
Future Application
Future Application
Future Application
No modifications to existing permits are proposed. The applicant anticipates that permits to be issued and
zoning review process will include conditions of approval to ensure that the development plans are
implemented in a manner that is consistent lI!ith the permits and the applicable regulations. No public
assistance such as Tax Increment Financing is being requested for this project.
9. Land use. Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lands. Discuss
project compatibility with adjacent and nearby land uses. Indicate whether any potential conflicts involve
environmental matters. Identify any potential environmental hazards due to past site uses, such as soil
contamination or abandoned storage tanks, or proximity to nearby hazardous liquid or gas pipelines.
The 60.445 acre property is in the R-4 Multi-family Residential, C-4 General Commercial, C-5 Business Park
and 1-1 General Industrial Districts which permit various commercial land uses, high density residential,
office uses, limited retail, light industry and warehousing and distribution. The site currently is undeveloped.
In the Prior Lake 2020 Comprehensive Plan, the Deerfield Industrial Park site is mainly designated as
Commercial-Business and Office Park (C-BO) with smaller areas designated as Urban High Density (R-HD),
Planned Industrial (I-PI) and Hospitality General Business (C-HG). The C-BO classification is characterized
by high-amenity planned developments, which have a low-traffic generation rate and a site utiliuztion that is
compatible with naturalfeatures.Primary uses are corporate headquarters; and professional and administrative
offices; and limited research, development and manufacturing facilities. Related secondary uses such as
restaurants where food is ordered and consumed on the premises, hotels, and other businesses having limited
contact with the general public and no retail sale of products could be allowed as conditional uses.
The high design standards should ensure compatibility with high density housing to be located to the west and the
potential for shared parking, open space, convenient housing and service, and reduction of traffic generation onto
public streets.
The High-Density Residential area could consist of two-family dwellings, townhouses, apartments, and other
designs; nursing homes; schools; churches; recreational open space, parks, and play grounds with public utilities;
and public buildings.
The Commercial Hospitality and General Business (C-HG) areas are characterized by a wide range of commerce,
recreation, and entertainment uses whose trade area is the community and, under certain conditions, the region.
Highway-oriented uses and single-stop or destination stores are included. Large-scale development, such as
regional shopping centers, are allowed by Planned Unit Development procedures only.
An important role of this classification is to provide services, goods, and employment opportunities related to the
continued dependence upon the automobile for high mobility; to the growth of the leisure and recreational
activities in the area; and to resultant need for hospitality and lodging facilities.
I~D Ii
Deerfield Industrial Park EA W
November 5, 2003
Page 5
The I-IP classification is characterized by developments in IndustrUll Parks with high standards for design and
perfonnance. Planned Industrial Parks allow uses such as the indoor manufacturing, production, processing,
storage, and distribution of materials and products.
Deerfield Industrial Park is adjacent to low to medium density residential uses to the west and large lot rural
residential land uses to the east and south. As indicated in the attached zoning map, parcels to~ the north are
zoned C-5 Business Park, and R-4 High Density Residential to the west. Areas to the east and south are
outside the City limits and are subject to Township Zoning.
Past land use of the site includes agricultural uses. After analyzing available data, there are no known
environmental hazards on the site. If environmental hazards are discovered during site development, they will
be processed and mitigated in accordance with applicable regulations.
10. Cover types. Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development:
Cover TVDe
Type I -8 Wetlands
Wooded/Forest
Brush/Grassland
Cropland
Lawn/Landscaping
Impervious Surface
Other (Ponds)
Total
Before
+3.5
3.1
0.0
54.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
60.9
After
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.6
46.0
2.5
60.9
If Before and After totals are not equal, explain why:
Impacts to the existing assumed habitat are discussed in item 11.
11. Fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources .
a. Identify fIsh and wildlife resources and habitats on or near the site and describe how they would be' affected
by the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid impacts.
This parcel is primarily agricultural cropland. Most of the 3.5+ acres of wetlands on the site are partially
drained and cropped. As such both the uplands and wetlands would provide similar seasonal food and cover
for wildlife. There is a small amount of wooded habitat along the western edge of the site. Nearly all of the
wooded and wetland habitat will be converted to commercial or high-density residential use. The site plans
currently do not include on-site replacement of the impacted wetlands.
b. Are any state-listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species, rare plant communities or other
sensitive ecological resources such as native prairie habitat, colonial waterbird nesting colonies or regionally
rare plant communities on or near the site? _ Yes LNo
If yes, describe the resource and how it would be affected by the project. Indicate if a site survey of the
resources has been conducted and describe the results. If the DNR Natural Heritage and Nongame Research
program has been contacted give the correspondence reference number: ERDB 20040174. Describe measures
to minimize or avoid adverse impacts.
A copy of the response letter foUowing a request for Natural Heritage information by the Department of
Natural Resources is provided in Figure 7. The letter indicates that Blanding's Turtle and remnants of the
Big Woods are known to occur in areas and conditions similar to this site, however, none are known to occur
on the site itself. Both are listed as state-threatened species. Upon reviewing the site, no occurrences of the
Big Woods are present, and occurrence of Blanding's turtle has not been observed. A flyer provided by the
DNR should be disseminated to aU persons involved in construction work on the project site, as the flyer
describes methods to minimize or avoid impacts to this rare turtle.
I ~II i II
Deerfield Industrial Park EA W
November 5, 2003
Page 6
12. Physical impacts on water resources. Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration-
dredging, tilling, stream diversion, outfall structure, diking, and impoundment - of any surface waters such as
a lake, pond, wetland, stream or drainage ditch? X. Y es _No
If yes, identify water resource affected and give the DNR Protected Waters Inventory number(s) if the water
resources affected are on the PWI: N/A. Describe alternatives considered and proposed mitigation measures to
minimize impacts.
The wetlands on the site have been delineated by Peterson Environmental Consulting Inc. (report (8/26/03).
Eight wetland basins, labeled A through H in the Wetland Delineation Report, have been identified and
delineated. The wetlands shown on the 6/17/03 Preliminary Plat of Deerfield Industrial Park (Rehder and
Assoc, Inc) appears to incorporate the wetland delineation, except wetland that H is missing. The 6/27/03
Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan (Rehder & Assoc, Inc) contains wetlands identified that are not
consistent with the wetland delineation report.
The wetland delineation report identifies three (3) "Questionable Drained Area" that show evidence of wet
condition on the historical aerial photographs. These questionable areas have been reviewed by the City of
Prior Lake and subsequent to an assessment of water table depth, these areas were determined to be
effectively drained and not subject to regulation under the WCA.
There are approximately 3.5 acres of type 1,2, & 3 wetlands on the site. The accuracy and acceptability of
the wetland delineation is subject to review by the City of Prior Lake and its Technical Evaluation Panel
(TEP) under the procedures of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). Upon review of the report
and visits to the site, the City has approved the Delineation Report.
The applicant has requested a WCA exemption for approximately 1.4 to 1. 7 acres of wetlands based on the
past history of drainage and/or incidental re-creation of these wetlands. The applicability of this exemption
is subject to review by the City of Prior Lake and its TEP under the procedures of the WCA. Upon review
by the TEP and City Staff, it has been determined that Wetlands E and F are exempt per Exemption 2.D
(provided the tile line/drainageway is maintained). Wetland H is exempt per Exemption 2.D and 5.
Although the site development plan is just conceptual, it does anticipate approximately 1.0 acre of wetland
impacts in addition to the wetland exemption. These wetland impacts are subject to the avoidance,
minimization and replacement provisions of the WCA and must be reviewed and approved by the City of
Prior Lake and its TEP.
The breakdown of Wetland impact by location is as follows:
Lot 1. Block 1
Oulot C
Road Crossing
Outlot A
Total
8,000 sq. ft.
12,000 sq. ft.
1,500 sq. ft.
20.000 SQ. ft.
41,500 sq. ft.
New Wetland Credits required for the estimated impacts will be provided, where possible, on-site by
expanding the existing wetlands. Public Value Credits will be accumulated through on-site ponding and
upland buffers adjacent to the created wetlands. Any required credits that cannot be accommodated on-site
would be drawn from the State wetland bank owned by the proposer/applicant.
It should be noted that the on-site mitigation locations are not shown on the site plans provided.
13. Water use. Will the project involve installation or abandonment of any water wells, connection to or changes in
any public water supply or appropriation of any ground or surface water (including dewatering)? :L Y es _No
If yes, as applicable, give location and purpose of any new wells; public supply affected, changes to be made,
and water quantities to be used; the source, duration, quantity and purpose of any appropriations; and unique
well numbers and DNR appropriation permit numbers, if known. Identify any existing and new wells on the site
I]. i II
Deerfield Industrial Park EA W
November 5, 2003
Page 7
map. If there are no wells known on site, explain methodology used to determine.
Deerfield Industrial Park will be served by the existing 12 inch municipal water main located in Adelman
Street. The water system will ultimately be looped to pennit adequate functionality and maintenance of the
system, including the fire hydrants. After searching Minnesota Department of Health and other public
records, there are no known water wells on the site, and no new wells will be drilled. If an existing or
abandoned well is discovered, it must be sealed by a licensed well contractor in accordance with Minnesota
Rules Chapter 4725. Dewatering is not anticipated to occur. If the contractor finds that temporary
dewatering is necessary, a permit from the DNR must be obtained.
The table below estimates water use based upon the planned land use and size of the structures:
Estimated Water Use:
OjJice/Warehouse
High Density Residential
Light Industrio.l/Manufacturing
General Commercial
Total
Bldt!. Size (SQ. ft.)
486,652
185,130
268,983
92.543
1,033,308
GPD
22,330
9,775
9,963
4.325
46,393
(NOTE: These figures are based
on maximum build-out and typical
water use for each development
type.)
14. Water-related land use management district. Does any part of the project involve a shoreland zoning
district, a delineated 100-year flood plain, or a state or federally designated wild or scenic river land use
district? _Yes ,LNo. If yes, identify the district and discuss project compatibility with district land use
restrictions.
The site does not contain shoreland, 100 year floodplain, or wild or scenic rivers.
15. Water surface use. Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body? _Yes LNo
If yes, indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss any potential overcrowding or conflicts
with other uses.
16. Erosion and sedimentation. Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to be moved:
acres: not to exceed 60 acres.; cubic yards 150,000 cu yd. Describe any steep slopes or highly erodible soils
and identify them on the site map. Describe any erosion and sedimentation control measures to be used during
and after project construction.
The site will be graded in accordance with the. Final Grading and Drainage Plan, which is guided by Best
Management Practices. Site grading will be done in phases to minimize the extent of the site that is exposed
to erosion during construction. The attached Preliminary Grading and Drainage plan includes the
installation of silt fencing around ecological features and temporary earth storage areas, and the
implementation of other erosion control measures required by the City of Prior Lake and the MPCA. The
developer must obtain a NPDES permit from the MPCA.
The western edge of the site includes an area along a drainageway that is mapped as Lakeville-Burnsville
gravelly sandy loam, 6-12% slopes, moderately eroded (LbC2) and Hayden Loam 6-12% slopes, moderately
eroded. c .
17. Water quality: surface water runoff
a. Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe permanent controls to
manage or treat runoff. Describe any storm water pollution prevention plans.
The hydrologic functionality of the entire 60.445-acre Deerfield Industrial Park site has been
comprehensively modeled to determine water quantity and quality impacts, necessary mitigative measures,
and estimated ponding needs. The storm water management system is designed to function independently ,
from the storm water management improvements in surrounding developed areas. The infiltration and
sedimentation ponds were designed to hold the 100-year storm event and to provide pretreatment of the
storm water by reducing nutrient loads and suspended particles in the storm water prior to percolating into
I~I I I
Deertleld Industrial Park EA W
November 5, 2003
Page 8
the soiL Once the ground cover is established, if fertilizers and pesticides are necessary, they should be
applied according to manufacturers' suggestions.
b. Identify ro~tes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site; include major downstream water bodies as
well as the immediate receiving waters. Estimate impact runoff on the quality of receiving waters.
The soils in this area consist of mostly well-drained sandy, loamy soils. Storm water that is not absorbed
directly by the soil will flow to NURP ponds on the site. No storm water on the site flows directly from
pavement to natural water bodies off-site. After construction is complete, all disturbed areas will be
replanted with seed, sod, erosion control blanket, or other material to provide long-term erosion protection.
Considering the limited potential for increased runoff from this site the impact of runoff on the quality of the
receiving waters will be negligible.
18. Water quality: wastewaters
a. Describe soW"ces, composition and quantities of all sanitary, municipal and industrial wastewater produced or
treated at the site.
All of the wastewater will be typical sanitary sewage from a business office/warehousing, light industrial use.
It is not anticipated that Deerfield Industrial Park will include any tenants that are high water users for
manufacturing purposes. Based upon the historical experience of the proposed typical tenants it is
estimated to generate approximately 41,755 gallons of wastewater per day as illustrated in the table below.
The usage figures below assume that approximately 10% of the potable water used on the site will be usedfor
irrigation and other purposes that do not use the wastewater infrastructure. Industrial wastewater is not
produced on the site. Item 28 discusses sanitary sewer improvements and the processing of sanitary
wastewater generated by the project.
Estimated Wastewater Use:
Office/Warehouse
High Density Residential
Light Industrial/Manufacturing
General Commercial
Total
Bldf!. Size (Square Feet)
486,652
185,130
268,983
92,543
1,033,308
Gallons Per Dav
20,097
8,798
8967
3893
41,755
b. Describe waste treatment methods or pollution prevention efforts and give estimates of composition after
treatment. Identify receiving waters, including major downstream water bodies, and estimate the discharge
impact on the quality of receiving waters. If the project involves on-site sewage systems, discuss the suitability
of site conditions for such systems.
The entire 60.445-acre site will be served by the lO-inch public sanitary sewer main that exists adjacent to the
site in Cottonwood Lane and Adelman Street. No on-site pre-treatment methods are proposed, and no on-site
septic systems will be used or installed in Deerfield Industrial Park;
c. If wastes will be discharged into a publicly owned treatment facility, identify the facility, describe any
pretreatment provisions and discuss the facility's ability to handle the volume and composition of wastes,
identifying any improvements necessary.
Wastewater will be processed by the Blue Lake Wastewater treatment Plant (WWTP) that operates under a~
existing NPDES permit. Flows in 2002 to the facility from Prior Lake include 560.8 mgal in residential, 8.5
mgal of institutional and 25.0 mgal commercial for a total of 594.3 mgal per year or 1. 63 mgal per day.
This plant and associated collection infrastructure has been designed to accommodate additional
development in the area, and there is excess capacity in this plant to serve this site. The internal sanitary
sewer lines have been sized to serve the entire site.
d. If the project requires disposal of liquid animal manure, describe disposal technique and location and discuss
capacity to handle the volume and composition of manure. Identify any improvements necessary. Describe any
In. i Ii
Deerfield Industrial Park EA W
November 5, 2003
, Page 9
required setbacks for land disposal systems.
This project does not generate liquid animal manure.
19. Geologic hazards and soil conditions
a. Approximate depth (in feet) to ground water:
to bedrock:
JL.. mmunum
90' minimum
15' average
LOO' average
Describe any of the following geologic site hazards to ground water and also identify them on the site map:
sinkholes, shallow limestone formations or karst conditions. Describe measures to avoid or minimize
environmental problems due to any of these hazards. .
None are known or can be reasonably anticipated to occur.
b. Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications. if known. Discuss soil granularity and
potential for groundwater contamination from wastes or chemicals spread or spilled onto the soils. Discuss any
mitigation measures to prevent such contamination.
The attached Soil Survey of the immediate area in and around Deerfield Industrial Park identifies several
soil map units identified and described in the map legend. The general soil types include rolling, to fairly
level Estherville, Hayden, Lester, Burnsville and Glencoe soils with 0-12% slopes. The County Well Index
was reviewed for the geological assessment of the site. There are at least two wells immediately adjacent to
the subject property, one on the residential lot to the south and the other on the commercial property on the
north east corner. Wells within a radius of 2000 feet were analyzed for well depth and depth to bedrock. A
total of 70 wells were identified and the average well depth in the area is 144 feet. The shallowest well depth
is 96 feet and the deepest well is 190 feet. The well logs indicated bedrock was encountered within 50 of the
drilled depths. The proposed uses of the site are not anticipated to generate wastes or chemicals that could
potentially contaminate groundwater.
20. Solid wastes, hazardous wastes, storage tanks
a. Describe types. amounts and compositions of solid or hazardous wastes, including solid animal manure,
sludge and ash, produced during construction and operation. Identify method and location of disposal. For
projects generating municipal solid waste, indicate if there is a source separation plan, describe how the project
will be modified for recycling. If hazardous waste is generated, indicate if there is a hazardous waste
minimization plan and routine hazardous waste reduction assessments.
No hazardous wastes, solid animal manure, sludge, or ash will be generated during and following
construction of Deerfield Industrial Park. Construction may require the use of hazardous products such as
paints, stains, varnishes, polyurethane, mineral spirits, and other building products. If these products are
used, the licensed solid waste hauler that serves the site during construction is responsible for disposing of
them properly.
Once completed and the structures are occupied, it is expected that typical commercial solid waste will be
generated on site. For reference, based on a recent solid waste composite study*, commercial waste
composition is estimated in the adjacent Twin Cities regional area as: '
Waste TYDe
Paper
Plastic
Metals
Glass
Organic Materials
Problem Materials
Hazardous Wastes
Other Waste
Total
Commercial Percenta/(e
35.1
12.3
4.4
2.7
29.5
1.7
0.1
14.2
100.0
"
III I .
Deerfield Industrial Park EA W
November 5, 2003
Page 10
*Source: State wide MSW Composition Study, March 2000, fiolid Waste Management Coordinating Board,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, (MPCA), and Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance
Private sanitation companies provide the garbage disposal for the City of Prior LAke. Refuse Haulers
include: Buckingham Disposal, Inc., Dick's Sanitation, Prior LAke Sanitation, and Waste Management.
Solid waste will be temporarily stored in screened dumpster containers provided by the waste haulers prior to
pick-up.
b. Identify any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or present at the site and identify measures to be used to
prevent them from contaminating groundwater. If the use of toxic or hazardous materials will lead to a regulated
waste, discharge or emission, discuss any alternatives considered to minimize or eliminate the waste, discharge
or emission.
At the present time, there is no specific development or type of development planned, therefore, there are no
known or anticipated hazardous materials used or to be used. The nature of development and land use
indicates no anticipated hazardous materials other than typical cleaning supplies, solvents for maintaining
equipment and machinery, etc.
c. Indicate the number, location, size and use of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum products or
other materials, except water. Describe any emergency response containment plans.
No above or below ground storage tanks to store petroleum products or other materials are planned at the
present time, however, the zoning does allow such. uses as bus garages, gas stations and automotive service
garages.
21. Traffic. Parking spaces added Based on City Zoning Ordinance. Existing spaces (if project involves
expansion) Q.
Use
Townhouse/Multifamily
Office
Warehouse
Manufacturing
Retail
Units/Square Feet
123
145,995
340,657
268,983
92,543
Rate
2 per unit
1 per 250 sq. ft.
1 per 1500 sq. ft.
1 per 500 sq. it +
1 pe.r 250 sq. ft
Soaces
246
584
227
538
370
These figures are based on maximum build out potentiaL
Estimated total average daily traffic generated 10.275. Estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated (if
known) and time of occurrence: Aooroximatelv 963 durinf! the weekday O.m. oeak hour (4:30 to 5:30 o.m.).
Provide an estimate. of the impact on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic improvements
necessary. If the project is within the Twin Cities metropolitan area, discuss its impact on the regional
transportation system.
The full traffic studyis included in Figure 6 of this document. A brief overview of the impacts associated
with the proposed development is shown next. Please refer to the full traffic study in Figure6 for further
details.
The proposed project is expected to be completed by 2009. Therefore, consistent with' standard traffic
engineering standards, the year after completion, or 2010, was analyzed along with existing conditions. As
shown in the full report, the year 2010 was also analyzed to account for development of the entire area.
Weekday p.m. peak hour trip generation estimates for the study area are based on data presented in the
Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation, Sixth Edition. Full details of the traffic
forecasting process are shown in the report in the attached Figure 6.
IIII I
Deerfield Industrial Park EA W
November 5, 2003
Page 11
Capaciry analysis results are presented in terms of Level of Service (LOS), which ranges from A to F. Level
of service A represents the best intersection operation, with Vl:,ry liI/le delay for each vehicle using the
intersection. Level of Service F represents the worst intersection operation .with excessive delay. A detailed
description of what each Level of service value represents in terms of delay is presented in the attached
traffic study. Most agencies in Minnesota consider that Level of Service D represents the minimal acceptable
level of service for normal peak traffic conditions. Below is a discussion of the level of service of specific
intersections under current conditions and two build-out scenarios.
CSAH 21/Adelman Street - All movements at this intersection operate at LOS D or better during both
the a.m. and p.m. peak hours for existing and 2010 no build conditions. With the proposed development,
northbound movements will operate at a LOS F and all others at LOS C or better.
CSAH 21/17ffh Street. All movements at present are at LOS C or better. In 2010 both build and no;.build
conditions, th4e southbound movements will experience a LOS F during the p.m. peak hour.
CSAH 21/CSAH 87 -All movements at present are at LOS C or better. For 2010 both no-build and
build conditions, the northbound movements at this intersection will operate at LOS F during the p.m.
peak hour. For the 2010 build condition, the northbound movements will operate at LOS F during the
a.m. peak hour.
A traffic signal warrant analysis was completed based on the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices, 2001. Based on the analysis, traffic volumes at all three intersections meet the peak hour volume,
requirementfor the 2010 build conditions. Although no specific plans existJor CSAH 21 at present, County
staff indicates that there is a likelihood Jor some improvements in the next few years. The minimum spacing
requirement between traffic signals is ~ mile, meaning only one of the three intersections can be signaled.
Therefore, it is recommended~to place a signal at the CSAH 21/CSAH 87 intersection in conjunction with the
proposed development, and if/when feasible, acquire the land to the north of said intersection to realign 17ffh
Street and connect here for the tfh leg oj the intersection.
It is Jurther recommended to improve the CSAH 21/Adelman Street intersection with either a ~ access which
would allow all movements except the northbound and southbound left turns, or a traffic signaL (the spacing
would be only 300 Jeet less than the minimum requirement of Yz mile. These options depend on the nature oj
improvements that the County chooses to implementJor CSAH 21.
22. Vehicle-related air emissions. Estimate 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. Note: If the project involves 500 or more parking spaces, consult EA W Guidelines about whether a
detailed air quality analysis is needed.
Based upon the traffic analysis, traffic congestion is not expected to be noticeably worse due to this project
relative to the no-build alternative. This is due to the existing capacity on CSAH 21, CSAH 87 and Adelman
Street. When there is no reason to expect traffic congestion or that existing congestion will be noticeably
worse due to the project, the EA W guidelines indicate that vehicle related air emissions would not cause any
significant decrease in air quality
23. Stationary source air emissions. Describe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of any emissions
from stationary sources of air emissions such as boilers, exhaust stacks or fugitive dust sources. Include any
hazardous air pollutants (consult EA W Guidelines for a listing) and any greenhouse gases (such as carbon
dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide) and ozone-depleting chemicals (chloro-fluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons or sulfur hexafluoride). Also describe any proposed pollution prevention techniques and
proposed air pollution control devices. Describe the impacts on air quality.
Standard commercial heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units will be installed at each building as
regulated by the building code administered by the Ciry of Prior Lake. There are no boilers, exhaust stacks;
industrial processors, fugitive dust sources or generators of greenhouse gasses proposed for this site.
Illl I II
Deerfield Industrial Park EA W
November 5, 2003
Page 12
24. Odors, noise and dust. Will the project generate odors, noise or dust during construction or during operation?
:LYes _No
If yes, describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities or intensity and any proposed measures to mitigate
adverse impacts. Also identify locations of nearby sensitive receptors and estimate impacts on them. Discuss
potential impacts on human health or quality of life. (Note: fugitive dust generated by operations may be
discussed at item 23 instead of here.)
Odors generated during construction should be mitigated by maintenance of the construction equipment to
the manufacturers' specifications and by using the appropriate fuel additives when necessary. Grading and"
construction will temporarily generate noise and dust. BMPs and other standard construction methods
should be used to reduce construction impacts. Examples include limiting hours of operation to comply wuh
the noise regulations in Minnesota Rules Chapter 7010, and intermittent applications of water to exposed
soils as needed to reduce dust during times of drought. While there are no known sensitive receptors in the
immediate vicinity of the project area, the use of the construction equipment is expected to be dispersed on
the sue rather than concentrated in one limited area for extended periods of time to limu this impact.
Once the structures are occupied, the resultant vehicular and limited amount of truck traffic is anticipated to
generate an increase of noise and a limited amount of dust in the area.
25. Nearby resources. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site?
25.a. Archaeological, historical or architectural resources? _Yes L No
25.a. The attached letter from the Minnesota Historical Society indicates, "there are no properties listed on
the National or State Registers of Historic Places, and no known or suspected archaeologu:alproperties in
the area that will be affected by this project. "
25.b. Prime or unique farmlands or land within an agricultural preserve? _Yes ~ No
25.c. Designated parks. recreation areas or trails? .JL Yes _No
25.c. There are no designated parks, recreation areas or trails on the site, however, Cleary Lake Regional
Park is located adjacent to the subject property across CSAH 87.
25.d. Scenic views and vistas? _Yes ~ No
25.d. The site is relatively flat wuh no scenic views or vistas.
25.e. Other unique resources? ....!.... Yes _No
If yes, describe the resource and identify any project-related impacts on the resource. Describe any measures to
minimize or avoid adverse impacts.
25.e. The existing wetlands on the sue are protected under the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA).
Accordingly, improvements to these areas will be guided by City ordinances, the WCA and BMPs. The
existing wetlands are resourc~s discussed in uem 12 above.
26. Visual impacts. Will the project create adverse visual impacts during construction or operation? Such as glare :::
from intense lights, lights visible in wilderness areas and large visible plumes from cooling towers or exhaust
stacks? _ Yes L No. If yes, explain.
Sue lighting improvements are guided by Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) standards. Standard pole-
mounted metal halide shoebox or comparable fixtures with cutoff optics will be used to light the site for
safety purposes. The planned lighting will be coordinated with the City of Prior Lake to meet the
requirements of Prior Lake Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances to direct light away from adjoining property
and rights of way. The bituminous pavement in the parking areas reduces glare and reflection due to us
I.! I
Deerfield Industrial Park EA W
November 5, 2003
Page 13
dark color. There are no proposed plumes, cooling towers, or exhaust stacks proposed.
27. Compatibility with plans and land use regulations. Is the project subject to an adopted local comprehensi ve
plan, land use plan or regulation, or other applicable land use, water, or resource management plan of a local,
regional, state or federal agency? l Yes _No. If yes, describe the plan, discuss its compatibility with the
project and explain how any conflicts will be resolved. If no, explain.
The Deerfield Industrial Park development plans have been drawn to be consistent with the City of Prior
Lake Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and the Prior Lake Subdivision Ordinance. The parcel is
largely planned for commercial development by the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. Commercial zoning is in
place for the majority of the site and allows the anticipated land uses consisting of offices, warehousing, and
light industrial and commerciaL Lot 1 Block 1 is zoned R.4 multi-family residential and will be developed
consistent with said zoning.
28. Impact on infrastructure and public services. Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure or
public services be required to serve the project? .....L Yes _No. If yes, describe the new or additional
infrastructure or services needed. (Note: any infrastructure that is a connected action with respect to the project
must be assessed in the EA W; (see EA W Guidelines for details.)
The existing water and sewer mains in Cottonwood Lane and Adelman Street north of the site are adequate
to serve this development, and there is sufficient capacity in the Blue Lake WWTP. All street improvements
will be coordinated with the City of Prior Lake Public Works prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Overall, the surrounding roadway system will be able to accommodate the estimated 2005 volumes with
minimal changes as indicated above.
29. Cumulative impacts. Minnesota Rule part 4410.1700, subpart 7, item B requires that the ROU consider the
"cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects" when determining the need for an
environmental impact statement. Identify any past, present or reasonably foreseeable future projects that may
interact with the project described in this EA W in such a way as to cause cumulative impacts. Describe the
nature of the cumulative impacts and summarize any other available information relevant to determirling
whether there is potential for significant environmental effects due to cumulative impacts (or discuss each
cumulative impact under appropriate item(s) elsewhere on thisfonn}.
This document describes the full scope of the Deerfield Industrial Park subdivision, which will be built-out in
several stages. The entire site was master planned to analyze the cumulative impacts of the project, including
infrastructure needs, storm water management needs, and wetland mitigation.
30. Other potential environmental impacts. If the project may cause any adverse environmental impacts not
addressed by items 1 to 28, identify and discuss them here, along with any proposed mitigation.
Items 1 through 28 address all known environmental impacts and mitigation strategies for the proposed
Deerfield Industrial Park
31. Summary of issues. Do not complete this section if the EA W is being done for EIS scoping; instead, address
relewi.nt 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 begun. 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.
In summary, the applicant has coordinated the planning of this project closely with the City of Prior Lake
staff in order to address and mitigate the potential project impacts in a manner that is consistent with the
planning documents and regulations of the City of Prior Lake and other jurisdictions. Proposed impacts to
wetlands will need to comply with the WCA standards and be approved by the City of Prior Lake.
Transportation improvements including signalization and other improvements are necessary to mitigate
potential traffic impacts, and this development will utilize existing, unallocated water and sanitary sewer
capacity. Other potential zoning issues will be addressed through the City of Prior Lake. Development
Ij. i .
Deerfield Industrial Park EA W
November 5, 2003
Page 14
agrEfements will be executed between the City of Prior Lake and prospective developers to ensure that the
improvem'ents described herein are properly implemented in '! manner that is consistent with the permits that
are issued for the project.
RGU CERTIFICATION. The Environmental Quality Board will only accept SIGNED Environmental Assessment
Worksheets for public notice in the EQB Monitor.
I hereby certify that:
· The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge.
. The EA W describes the complete project; there are no other projects, stages or components other than
those described in this document, which are related to the project as connected actions or phased actions,
as defmed at Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200, subparts 9b and 60, respectively.
. Copies of this EA Ware being sent to the entire EQB distribution list.
1/ / rf-/D"3
Date I .
Environmental Assessment Worksheet was prepared by the staff of the Environmental Quality Board at
Minnesota Planning. For additional information, worksheets or for EA W Guidelines, contact: Environmental Quality
Board, 658 Cedar St., 8t. Paul, MN 55155, 651-296-8253, or www.mnplan.state.mn.us
Iii. II
FIGURE 1
I~I II
Sibley
Carver
le Sueur
N,' . Federal and State Highways ' .
-0 Prior Lake City Boundary
D Scott County Boundary
'_FHA
-..... -
_1-.
Iii i .
FIGURE 1: Project Location
.. Deerfield Industrial Park Site
N
w*,
o
10 Miles
s
FIGURE 2
[D. I II
~ ,------)
\ -., I i
\"'J j'
~~_c
/........ .:';' \
r--_____/ ......... \ ,.....,
/ ....... ,d;,'~ "'-.' \
~/' -::...11.0 _~. ,!<. AJ~' . \ /,l' ~ '?o
. ~r: I //
J!- ~ ( 0 \ -;J- ~ ,'.It. · I;' . -
".'. ~ oo, .lI.. 2''''' - - ..... ~ ~ . /"~' ./ (j' \ r\ ~
-1: . ~ .<\k... _ / / ".,__t "v
I ';.4. c-.:!).' -'....__ ~__ - .\lo.. ~ '" ~l _/ // l.2:: '---I
/.. - ~ \_~--........_;;'::'\",........ -7_-::- iT ('.. 1 \ r\
-. ""-- - - - -=<-- jl .... -""9..~Yfff~'" I fo. ../' /'-"~ ~":..~ .' J
. ......- ../IJ... d) '>>' \ \ /" ,/ , . , ~;.~~~
/ ~ -- ,'J..+- ~ ,~_ ~. y\ - -:-~,;,..' . , \ h~." c' - "-':,,"""' .l..,,~_
f-!..""'. '100- ~ -~- . I( -!j .-" . \, '--~- .-/?f ,-. .
(~. -~ /--.... 1.iJ."'~ ~ \> I C\}~.~ f;" '.' ..
, .".:....;/ \""--',-..-- ~ ../ 1 ~Y..""'~' ..c..,'.,...,...'.' 'v< '. '.
! - '-'-..- /....., (' ':,' ...... .' . . <." ,~" ,
~ l\S_ L?'f . .0 Gt~ffL!
(F<;\ -'.j .' ..., . ~>".71.<!,.::,.,
" \\ '- ',;.?'.//' ...., ;-"
... "~,-_._~~ ~~~~~~ _-"'.~:~""'" ~:;->~,~:.'.::',-.:T
.--..
4
. ,~~
,.-'
(
....;1. "
- !I
/'.~ -.;,' I
, ---~
--- .;/
(/.
/
{
,.. FIGURE 2: USGS MAP - PROJECT LOCATION
'M!J!.~ .. Deerfield Industrial Park Site
N
w+,
1000
o
1000
2000, Feet
s
1111. II
FIGURE 3
III. I II
-l
I
\ ,~\~_~, ~~i;'~:-:'
,tb~L~:'~~~:~,; ,
:.. -=~:.::!';;...-;:'-::"'--
.."" ~
~~;i t
~i ~l ~
sr! ~
,
.e~-'l
.00 t' .
~g:~l ~
'l'~<S~1t ~
~.. v. ~
~~ ~ll
~r n" ~~.
~ i !.~ ft
__ H.
~ i
1 ~~
i ~
i ~ ~
'a" ;
.~ !~~ ,
! , ~ .
"
~:~,B[~~
n!' l\
!H ~
1 ~.; ~rc
~i! '~l'
~ ~~ ~ ll~
~i ~ ~
l~~ ,~~ ~
i! l}.i ~
llm~t
~,~~: 3'~ \
ij~";'
\
"~~c..
,
"
,"I.;
.; ~ ~
"
, ,
, \"
, 0
. ""
, ~
!
01 "..g!,~; 1 U
~i?~~f~:t ~~~:::
;;..t\; [S&'~Ii~i,~gg\
!~~~~!~d~HH ~
~~~" '~nn!<
~ _ :. t.!, l? 0
_ \{'ti'
^' ,
,,'.1'-)
~
1;1'
~
o...o.,..-~~~~~~-~~~..~;..::
\_"; ---t-\ 1;-"':- \,\'\.
Il\'~
, \' \l"~\\j~:
r ..,'
f; : I \ '\
(&' ;-~ ~ \
'.,. t ~ "
. t ,: / ;':'
~ f '....:
~:' -v;':'.
/~ .
" ~tte
,~ ~,
't.,
;_/..1 ;
:' .,-
\ ' ~,.....
, -
,.., \'...
o
" r'1i
gj
::J
" i1j ~
. r- !l.
~03'
! s'
,_0
'2:-<
,J::J -
":c: ...':
,,:, 0
~::.;VI ~
<.~c
,,~-
"'-J"
-
,>
r-
~
:::0
~
:J
0)
o
c::
;::!
-~-~
~~.~
"
OJ
r
\~s.._.
,- :..,'
/....
.,
....."
i ~
......_____y_--' I i~: :/__:1:
';~0~;;:::~~;;~: i!~~, . \ ill
, S0'25'2"~' ,oJ. ' 'J'.' ;'."
, :__no , 667.00, ."." '.:; /
i : '. / .":. /
: "j ',t' /::.
'~---~"~'. '
'__ " /( II
\::] ,
.' '.'/ .,. /
/ :;'; /
,:.:0' I
/ ::.., V
7,.""/.'/\
",
// // '\
\
J
:~~
~ " ~
:c~
(-,
"i
,.,r
I
\ ,}.'
irl
!I"
1"1
[Ii
d
pi
~ ~t
,
,
\
! ~
\-,~l'
"I..'
, ,:
'"
,..;
t~,
~
~
";'
I
/ /
\ ':} / /
C< -1-;--
~ .-:- + !-~
.':.
(
~
i
?J
i R iU ,,!l~( ,~fi,~ -b
q ~ ~n . ; li~
r ~ :~h ~ i .. ~
~ g ~ ~~[ ~! lilt
. ~ ~ ij_~ ". f ·
p G,> ~~~i' q f.l
l~g\U' '~~~i
. ~ o' If.. ~ .=1
r " - f'. ~ ~~ .
_ . Cll I ~ '0 ·
E.!"i' t~i
s- \ H~
~ l
~, -
~~
if~'
-n~
:3::
...Q
f
~' L...,..-
.....--z-----
:..::.:--
fWrUtt1
.~~~i'~f~l
..t.~!.. q ~
! ~;'l~N~ ,
g:'el !
S :1:;'~ Q.i;;i ;:0
[. ,}-i: "l ~
1 ,,~ tl ~
tifdi~~ t1
l" of ;' '!;
. R[l' J[.1. i!
~a>~i~J!~! ~
l~ll!.h~~
~ ... til i
~i ~i
~~ ~~
f' ~'
;:1 III
~~ !
~~
~1 ~
~v
.~ ~
>
,
;;
fo.
z
-
",
"'-,.
Ill. i II
I~I i II
/', r:~~'-'-
, i
g.~:' !I': \::L;~DDD11It
",,~~,~O"~ ,\,I~', 1.'.
-~-"...- ",.- ,"
~/,.,,~~;i~~~n,"~!!8~'" I
~~~~ ..~.,~~-~i'.'~~."'>~'
IP'!i!q;'I,!,HII!'Il,!!!li' "
,i,n"" !!"i,,:::!~!ii!!~
.,,,.; , n ""1'1''''"' z
~-~-' ~ . ,.g~~!~<":~<~ '"
~~" : I ~~ <~p~~~"
" n 2 2
~ &
('/ uil'
.r': ;
"
\
..
\
.fA
-r-
I
I
I
I s::
1.6
I
I
I
I
I
,\
I
,
I
I
\
\
I
I
I
1\.
I
__',~ I
--::-"," , =, I
_, I
-- --' - -i
o
c:
::j
o
-;
II
';
en
w(l LAND
\ ,/
II
Ii ~
II No
1.4~ /
:f/
~/
/
1-- __ - /' 1/
I --; '0 )
tfJ-'jM! ; ;t~~~? ,
'J I I / if I I
___V'I I / f!j / I
_ _-=C:OO"'c::;::A'~==;====/ :: :l:::: j
I _._.~.- ~.
, ~.
. \',:,S~:'_~~;:~t:-" - -
?t, ""'="~,-~ '~~'
",'" " --I'"Ii' Ii;":'> r~' -0' ,;
!' ,I ,,~
, '\ i.i!;I"t, , ');:0
.of: i I" II, .). 1./: .
"t\ JI,'!Q~~/--
O:n ,.. ,I I!!'=: ..-
:n m \ 'li'~~ "." I
l:)~ l\~":~oo".'" ",f: '
~~ I:;;;",. . .,1 .' t\~\,
~o ,,'I,t" ~,:' I'
:n% {'/I" ' . ~~ ':,1,'
c:~ \"!ii!~/ ,t'I'
l:) ,I"I!" ,..,,1.'
IB'} ~:\ ',' ::j,'
% ~,~'" " .. ',' ''';\
::.=~~l;;;.=~-I ~.::_ ","1
-,-,-,-,='.:~~~~ ,
z
1:1"
I
/
/
; .4
I .4QJ I
I & /
~/
@ /
I
pi
if!
.4
,8
m~ ~ ~~ i
~d ~. i
~~~ ~ g I :il
~ i ~ ~
~ i ~
~ _ ~ n
! ~ h
~ ~
Ii
g
s:
5
~
Ii !:!$! !e;n i!: n:I!S!iliiiS~~ ~..:: M"_
.. ........, ......., - ..,:: :::::~:::~:~:::~~~~~~:~~~:~:::~: ;
:::::::::':::::::::-::::::::=::::::::::' i i-
o,..n.,_ C)
· i i ii ii; , ::::::::::: :::;:::: ::::::::!
. ................ .... ..".~,
..a..a...,..""..... .............
........, ~
.........;
m~
:e \!.g
~~!~
HH
li~ -',
~m
,
~~~'~J
~!!' to c
I ~ I ~
~n ~
f ~ i r.
~ ~ <;
I:i
lr. ~ ~~
;;d
< ; i
ql
iI
i
!~
i \
~1
~ .
n~~~
o .1 ~
~ lfl
q,H'J;
~ 'r I ~
!. 'j "
~ If i: ~
- t; fir
~ irt
CJ
",
",
n=<>
~;1i
Vl ob~ ;g
::t ." _ 1= ,."
r:1 :$!i3~ r-
....:>!c ii':
() otrJ'"U Z
tv ~~~ 5j
~. ~ -<
",~
=<>
^
Ill. I
iU-
''''If
'[f
~~J
!>l'tf
;ilr
Ill":
-f .
, 11
t~~
z
o
~
"Tl::D
Om
::D<:
offi
~~
(/)0
~z
::Dr
COO<:
"
~
(5
Z
v~ /'
~^
C".
/'-. ,~.
!'
If' I
li"
1
'C
IC:
~
c
-< lliJ
..
10
0
.,
!:
-r;-i<;! r
I '" !/:/~: :
:;:;;:_i.;~.::~i: _;.~ :) \,
i jilt --.-..-.' . . \
i'~""""--~:~:::::,~:..:.I
I '
....,...
\....
c
C:
;::
C
\\.\
rM
L!:J
;:::
/i;"t!'€~}
(
\
\
\
\
\
\
)
../
[0',
I'\.:: ')0-
,0
, "
U!]"
'.
!O
w[T I,AND
/~
,I.;
-~~r [1
~'1
I
I
..1
III ~
>
m
[0'
'.
!O
c
c::
...,
r-
C
a;
l('
~
Z ...
~
1--
)> I
I
[0 I
r'1 !~ [0 I
'. I
!O
I
or
In
"
"
Q.
, I I Ii! Ii! i i I 't' j t t
I ~~______-. i' III I;
; ~ i i : II i 1+ i I ! i \ ~'!] 0 0 . , .. . ·
~ d Ii ~ P ~ I q~ P ~ q u .. .. ~ . r-
'i iii Iiillll' -!I!! !'!!I Ii 11I11 ~
~ n~q~I': i~ n~:~qnqp <:0
Un ~ ~ ~ ~".i ~.~-;~
u~ ~ ~ Ii pP ,
;10
~,t
.~-.
I
/ ,
/ .4
I Cb /
I t /
/ C] /
/ ~ /
I fJ I
/ I
I !") I
I it I
I .4() /
I
I
/..
, I ,)"
/ ,4ClJ /
/ ~ /
18/
/ ~ I
/ D /
i I
/2'
/ rs I
/ ,)" /
I / o~ /
1/ ' /
1/ ~ /
/1 ;::; /
ll')"~ I
... '/ ~ /
/ ~ /
/ ~ /
~ / 1/
1_ - --- ----..../ Co I
I / .'y /1
I I / b / I
....H' ,\ / (! / I
till ...... '::,: ;/ :
, ~ / '
I ..:0'
I ,),,0 I
:::;.:..J,dl' D I
...... ..~-;,tt::::}C :: - " '
_~- _ _ ___ - =l==~l== ___~l
I
lm
i I;'
\\1\
,.
. .,
~"l
z
o
-I
'"I\:D
~m
<:
om
~~
(1)0
-1%
:or-
~-<
-I
5
%
ElG
rt" c",
~ii~
~, ! ~
~U ~
i ~ ~ loll
!;i
fii
,. !
3 :- ~
. !
~ E
,}
; ~
q
.
H
li
: J
H
"
....,...
H
i \
I
~ !l
; hll
dP','
~ hI,
~ ".E'I.
~ i~ [
~ IH '"
~ I'
'.- .",~\:\"
_ . _;-: ::;~.,~: " ~--:c- ." -
_._1...-- __...0__
=--::.-::=~~~~~- ~-.k:,-
I i It~,rnDojH"~I.
liiUUUUUHU ~
~_ ~pnn~~n~l 5
p ~~~dP~.:P!
< ;~. ~n~-~.
. "I~' .
l "
~~
Q~~
=<~~
~~'::'R-~
fTJ z ~
~ ~~~ ~
~ ~~~ ~
~~~ -<
"'"0"0
?o>
"z
. I II ! III' !
MTIillijl.:
UUHIUPi
ilHpnpil
H~iii i
u ~ i
I~I; II
/,
/~'.J;.WJ;
(
o
c:
;:0
o
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. I
CJ:;
--... ,I.;~.,,--,_._' .
o
.
z
.. ,
3'
i i
~ i ~ ~ I~
, ~ ~ ~ ~ I
~ ; ~ r,
~ ~
I '"
u~...j_ ~ j ~ i2
,~; ~ T"" s ~
,js~ ~l ! ~ c,
i i ;; ~ ~
l f. ~ 5
1 ; ~
i
~-
l ~ru i~ ~
'i t~ H ii ~
,! _~ ;1 ~~
~ l~ l~l
i i ~
~J ~l~, ~l~l 121
t nn ~ I. p: t ~
"~ll' ,1,0
i ~ . 1,1, q dl
1I. ;. II. I" " ~......:z
qiilii\'~i~
ii1..q (!~
h ~i ~ I · · i \' ~
Hh!n:1 ~
r i 5' I ~ t" i; VI
ih~~\~IP
'i1.1 liJ
!(. ~ ' {r. - ~ ~ ..
:~ 'I !tP
Ii ~l H,E
\' L ,,[3
!l t'l IHi
I' ! ."1
t: !It iP~
it. Ii
l! it 11'~i
i ~ i! P
o Iii
~-
\
i
!
~
'"
~~
~~
\
FIGURE 4
1111' II
~~<ni~~ .~~
~~ga~~~~j
1O~ ~ -8c 5 23 ~ -g
g~!5~'~~~'~~
~ ~ ".; '" g ~~E ~
i5fi~~2-l~<3
" "~'- _ FOil)
~ ~ ~ g-U 0 <1:1-5
85~ ;;~:;.eti
~;g,g~Z~~~~
f~~,;~]j~~8
j'~..2iii~;E.Q~
~~-':.~ ~ M ~,f~
~~]~~j~~-g
~~~~~*~g]
~.g~~~ ~j ~ ~
!g-~~~~.g~-~
~a~~~~:g[
~ ~ 8 ~~~.~-~ ~
511l5U~'a
o~
z+
Ql
.:.:
CtI
..J
... '"
o -0
"C: UJ
a. ~
_ c:
o ~
.z-
(3
c<>
:3
N
".~,;~
~:~ ~tl
"..~J f
(JI:'
In. i .
"
O! 1'!
i ~
'1 ~
,. O!
~ . c O!
&1 IX: {l U
~ ~ ~ ~
c ~ ~ {l w
<J) a IX: E w
.g ~ [ ~ 0 . w
, IX: U c w
~ ~ > is IX: I ~ ~ ~ ~
Ui .
~ ~ '" '" J c ~
is ~ 'n i ~ '"
. ~ 0 ~
;; 0 is '" '" 0.
OJ J' 3 . ~ 0 ~
<J) " >= E O! ~ ~
::> IX: 3 ~ 2' ;; E ~ O!
:r z <3 . -~ ~ ~
<J) <J) '" . '"
.. " " '" ,., '" '" l
" " .., '1' ,.,
IX: U U U .. ~
u u
,(11) ij - <i'.
.i,';i _," ~ 11110
'''''W
~.~,,'
D-
c(
:IE
c,:)
z
-
z
o
N
j
~
,
i:
. u
~ ~
-" <J)
i
<5
"
c
~
~
<J)
~
g
o
'"
o
'"
0.
",..:\
~'~ I
C')
010
010
OlN
-r-_ 0-
~N
>..!:
(1] (J
:Em
..2
-0
<]) ..
_v
0,<])
a-
-0(1]
<c5.
::>
...
0,
(1]
0>
c::
'c
2
0,
c
C
a
N
en
u
<])
6'
0:
0>
c
c
c
(1]
~
X
FIGURE 5
lB. I .
) ~~~~~
'--- ~ 11)\
\
SOILS LEGEND
....------...--.....
~ '
~y
//
//
.//
lbC
EaA Estherville loam and sandy loam, 0-2% slopes
Ga Glencoe silty clay loam
Le LeSueur silt loam
HaC2 Hayden Loam, 6-12% slopes
LbO Lakeville-8urnsville gravelly sandy loams,
12.50% slopes
LbC2 Lakeville-Burnsville gravelly sandy loams,
6-12% slopes, moderately eroded
Hayden loam, 0-6% slopes
Estherville loam and sandy loam, 2-6% slopes
Marsh
Webster-Glencoe silty clay loams
lester silt loam 2-6% slopes, moderately eroded
LeSueur-Lester silt loams
Lester silt loam, 2-6% slopes
Peat, deep, 2.6% slopes
Peat, deep, 0-2% slopes
-'---/
Le
~o J
~
o
I
500
o
N
w*,
II.... frill IHI
UIIIUIIII.lD'-
FIGURE 5: Soil Survey
D Deerfield Industrial Park Site
500
1000 Feet
s
[II i I
FIGURE 6
lB. : II
.
.w
BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS
10417 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD, SUITE TWO / HOPKINS, MN 55343/ (952) 238-1667/ FAX (952) 238-1671
October 17,2003
Refer to File: 03-56
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Cindy Olness, McCombs Frank: Roos Associates
,~ A&,
Edward F. Terhaar and Aravind Gottemukkula
FROM:
RE:
Traffic Study for Proposed Deerfield Industrial Park in Prior Lake, MN
PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND
The purpose of this memorandum is to present the results of our traffic study for the
proposed Deerfield Industrial Park in the City of Prior Lake. We understand that this
memorandum will be part of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
completed for this project.
The proposed development is located in the southwest quadrant ofthe CSAH (County
State Aid Highway) 211CSAH 87 intersection. Figure 1 shows the project location. OUf
traffic study addressed impacts of the proposed development on the following three
intersections:
. CSAH 21/Adelman Street
. CSAH 21/170th Street
. CSAH 21/CSAH 87
Proposed Development Characteristics
For purpose of this study, we have assumed the proposed development will consist of the
following uses:
. 123 townhouses
. 145,995 SF (square feet) office
. 340,657 SFwarehouse
. 268,983 SF manufacturing/light industrial
. 92, 543 SF strip mall
These uses and sizes are based on information included in the EA W.
Access to the proposed development will be provided on the planned extension of
Adelman Street from just south ofCSAH 21 to CSAH87 through the proposed
development. The proposed development likely will be completed by 2009,
I~. I .
30. OTHiliA CT.
31. on A.A CIR. E.
32. NATCHEZ AYE.
33. IolONTEREY AVE.
34. GUJlHURST CIR.
35. GI.fNHUR5T AVE.
36. JIlGt..t"NOOO CT.
37,lHCLEIIIOOO AVE.
:la. 134tl1 ClR.
39. lNGlE"NOOO CIA.
.0. HUNTINCTON AVE.
41. L YHH CIR.
42. 136 th Oll.
.3. GUNHURST LA.
4~. ORCHARO PL
.5.1.3.-d CIR. S.
46. ~RINC!TON 4VE.
47. NATCHEZ CT.
48. H3.-d CT.
49. SOUTH ~ARK CT.
SO. WEBSTER AVE.
100. CROSSANORA ClR.
lOL P4RKVIEW DR.
102. PARlVlEW ClR.
103. WR~ CT.
10.. lIALLAAO IfA Y
10S. KILOEE:R LA.
...
:>
:' ST.
i
..
~ ST.
r@
@
0-
W
...
:>
..
0
0
0
..
~
;:
.. ci <W--
a:
w "
a:
w CLURY ST.
w
0
r OIllcr LA.
S. TORONTO AVE.
S. IYOOOViE1'r CT.
...: T. OVERl.OOl OR. r'
j-~I ~
~-~-~-~-~-~~
N
t ,..
..
,.
SCALE lSOth 5T.
i
2000' z
0
...
'"
%
ST. E. :;
;;j
"
'"
:>
..
ct
CLEARY LAKE
REGIONAL PARK
::
MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS
ASSOCIATES, INC.
TRAFFIC STUDY
FOR DEERFIELD
INDUSTRIAL PARK EAW
FIGURE 1
\Xi BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC,
U TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS
PROJECT LOCATION
1111l; II
or
Ms. Cindy Olness
-3-
October 17,2003
Existing Conditions and Planned Future Roadwav Changes
The proposed project area is presently undeveloped. East ofthe site is CSAH 87, a two-
lane roadway. CSAH 87 intersects with CSAH 21 northeast of the project site at a T-
intersection. CSAH 21 a four-lane undivided roadway. The posted speed limit on CSAH
21 is 55 mph east ofCSAH 87 and 50 mph west ofCSAH 87. Northwest of the site is
Adelman Street, which presently ends at Cottonwood Lane. In the next few years,
Adelman Street will be extended south of Cottonwood Lane to CSAH 87 through the
proposed site. For traffic analysis purposes, we assumed that the Adelman Street
extension would be completed by 2010. Existing geometries and traffic controls at the
subject intersections are as follows:
. CSAH 21/Adelman Street. This intersection is presently controlled by stop
signs on the north and the south approaches. The north and the south
approaches presently provide one lane for all movements. The east and the
west approaches provide one shared through/left turn lane and one shared
through/right turn lane.
. CSAH 21/17o'h Street. This T-intersection is presently controlled by a stop
sign on the north approach, which provides one lane for all movements. The
east approach provides one through lane and one shared through/right turn
lane. The west approach provides one through lane and one shared
through/left turn lane.
. CSAH 211CSAH 87. This T -intersection is presently controlled by a stop sign
on the south approach, which provides one lane for all movements. The east
approach provides one through lane and one shared through/left turn lane.
The west approach provides one through lane and one shared through/right
turn lane. .
TRAFFIC FORECASTS
Tn\, Generation
Weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour trip generation for the proposed development was
estimated based on data presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip
Generation, Sixth Edition, 1997. Using the ITE rates, we established gross trips
generated by the uses in the proposed development. Given the nature ofthe mix of
proposed uses, we expect that a portion of the trips generated by these uses will be
internal to the site and therefore will not use any of the subject intersections. Based on
data published by the ITE and past experiences on similar projects, we established that
five percent of the total trips generated by the proposed development would be internal
trips. We applied this tive percent reduction to gross trips to arrive at net total trips.
1111 i II
Ms. Cindy Olness
-4-
October 17, 2003
The net total trips for the retail use can be classified into the following two trip types:
. New Trips - Trips solely to and from the subject development
· Pass-By Trips - Existing "through" trips on CSAH 21 that will include a stop
at the subject development in future
Based on data published by the ITE, we expect that 70 percent of the retail trips will be
new trips and the remaining 30 percent will be passby trips. All trips to the non-retail
uses will be new trips. Results of our trip generation estimates are presented in Table 1.
Table 1
Weekday Peak Hour Trip Generation Estimates
Land Use Size Units, A.M. Peak Hour PM. Peak Hour
In Out In Out
Townhomes 123 DU 9 45 45 22
Office 145,995 SF 200 27 37 181
Warehouse 340,657 SF 126 28 42 132
Manufacturing/Light Industrial * 268,983 SF 218 30 32 232
General Retail (Strip Mall) 92,543 SF 41 26 11)3 137
Gross Total 594 156 259 704
Net Total (after 5% internal trip reduction) 565 148 246 669
Net Passby Trips (30% of retail trips) 12 8 31 . 41
Net New Trips (Net Total minus Net Passby) 553 140 215 628
Trip Distribution and Assignment
Trip distribution percentages were established for development trips based on the existing
traffic volumes, adjacent road network, and locations of major attractions relative to the
proposed site. The following are our distribution percentages:
. New Trips
50 percent to and from the west on CSAH 21
45 percent to and from the east on CSAH 21
3 percent to and from the south on CSAH 87
2 percent to and from the northeast on 170th Street
· Passby Trips
50 percent from the east and to the west on CSAH 21
50 percent :from the west and to the east on CSAH 21
Based on the preceding trip distribution percentages, we assigned trips that will be
generated by the proposed development to the adjacent road network. Our trip
assignment resulted in development volumes at the subject intersections.
lB. I .
Ms. Cindy Olness
-5-
October 17, 2003
Traffic Volumes
Consistent with normal practice, we have completed traffic forecasts for one year after
full completion of the proposed development, i.e. 2010. Based on historic traffic growth
trends in the area, we established a five percent per year growth rate for background
traffic in this area. This growth rate was applied to existing volumes to arrive at 2010 no-
build traffic volumes. Volumes due to the proposed development were added to 2010 no-
build volUllles to arrive at 2010 build volumes. Traffic volumes for existing, 2010 no-
build, and 2010 build scenarios during both the a.m. and the p.m. peak hours are
presented in Figure 2.
TRAFFIC ANALYSES
Capacity Analyses
To determine the impacts ofthe proposed development on the subject intersections,
capacity analyses were completed for existing, 2010 no-build, and 2010 build conditions
during both the a.m. and the p.m. peak hours. Our capacity analyses were based on
methodologies presented in the Transportation Research Board's Highway Capacity
Manual, 2000. For our capacity analyses, we used the existing geometries and traffic
controls at the subject intersections.
Capacity analysis results are presented in terms of Level of Service (LOS), which ranges,.
from A to F. LOS A represents the best intersection operation, with very little delay for
each vehicle using the intersection. LOS F represents the worst intersection operation
with excessive delay. Most agencies in Minnesota consider that LOS D represents the
minimal acceptable LOS for normal peak traffic conditions. Results of our capacity
analyses are presented in Figure 3 and are also highlighted next.
CSAH 21/Adelman Street. All movements at this intersection operate at LOS D or
better during both the a.m. and the p.m. peak hours for existing and 2010 no-build
conditions. With the proposed development, northbound movements at this
intersection will operate at a LOS F and all the remaining movements will operate
at LOS C or better.
CSAH 21/17dh Street. All movements at this intersection presently operate at
LOS C or better. For both 2010 no-build and build conditions, the southbound
movements will experience a LOS F during the p.m. peak hour and all the
remaining movements will operate at an acceptable LOS.
CSAH 21/CSAH 87. All movements at this intersection presently operate at LOS
C or better. For both 2010 no-build and build conditions, the northbound
movements at this intersection will operate at LOSF during the p.m. peak hour.
For the 2010 build condition, the northbound movements will operate at a LOS F
during the a.m. peak hour.
I~I i II
r '""'IIll
w
.....J
i.O <(
C') -z,. ~ tl
co ... (f)
... ... ~
r::: ti5<.o
a: LO"t NC'} f-
"'LO ..- 0
,... -..
:::l ~~ a: ,...<0 Z
C\J.:!
0 oE!2 :::l OC'}
:c LO<.o 0 COC'}
~ tl I tl
<X: ~
LU L 99/0llv ~ <X: L ~LZIHIG~
c.. LU
r 19/9vIG8 0... r ~ v ~/v8/vl
~ ~
<X: cL
ir La H'iSO ir La H'iSO
<.0,... 01'-
.... "tN .... ~~
C\J co .,.... C\J
J: <i3cYs J: I'-N
<C NN <C "t-"
E!2<i3 0l0l
00 1'-..- 00 cYs"-
() co () I'-
LO co
LO
co "t
N
co ,...
t::: NO
N* C'}"t
S~ cYs:;: Ba
~O
:!:::C'} co..- O....J
COLO ,... co 0_
Jt Jt ~:)a
<!J'9:::!
zO:)
i=ZCD
0000
~ ~/v/8 -..t 681 L8/9l -..t ><00
WC\JC\J
OS/9v188 ~ 6U LLJSS ~ ~~
'.is H.iOL ~ 1i '.is H.iOL ~ 1i
OLO OlCO
LOLO 0...
ti5~ ,...0 x
~~ c:a:c
01'-
"tco ...C'}
('1')-.. -"Ol
0 co LO-..
0 I'- I'- <.0
"t <.0 N ~
en ,...
S cYs
,...Oll'-
COo ,......('1')
~t::N -.....cYs
,....-.. :;:<<5,...
~LOt::: -.."t-..
('I')LOLO COCOOl
Jtl C 68/~~/8 Jtl C 6S/US
8/€1G -1 ~ 01010 010/0 -1 ~ 010/0
r 69/0~/L r 68G/~/~
0/010 ~ 010/0 ~
S8IS8/Sl ~ 1 i r ..is N'i~l3a'i 9S/9S/0v :-1 1 i r '.is N'i~l3a'i
lC,IC'}N NCOCO
...<.oN <.oeot::
LO~~ NO...
...coo (0"'-"
--""'C') ........(C'T"""
;:~:;:: "tC'}
"to
"tN ,...
N <0
(0
('I')
,....
~ ..J
1~1l I
N
W
a:
=>
C)
u:
U)
o
O.
a:O
~z
z ~
<x:U)
a:LU
LLt;:
U)o
aJo
~U)
OU)
o <x:
o
~
a:
::::;)
000
J:w
~:5
e:(=>
W..J
0.0
>>
<u
c-
~LL
wLL
We:(
3:~
~
>-OLU
O....J~
:J~a:
I-LL<X:
U)a:a..
OLU....J
-LUC:X:
u..o-
u.. a:
<x: a: I-
a:OU)
1-u..:J
o
Z
en
a:
w
z
. z
() <(
z ~
-. c
00 Z
UJ <(
~ ~
_ w
() w
o =
00 <:I
ooZ
<( ~
ad 2
u.. f-
o ~
o a:
:c :;:
00 en
Z Z
UJ <(
CD ~
~
,
c:
:::l
o
I
:::s:::::
<:
W
0...
:2
<
~~
<<
Ll
L :3IGJ'J
r :3/a/8
i r L8 H'VS8
~ ~~
<(
(j)
()
~~
<<
JL
0/8/8 -.-1'
0/8/8 ~
'.is H.lOL ~ 1 i
~<
<~
~
<<00
...,.~~
~<<
JLl
C :3/G/O
~ :J/GJO
r :3IG/O
8/8/8~
8/8/8~
1 i r '.is N'VWl3G'V
<<<
~~~
8/8/8-.-1'
I ~II II
a:
:::l
o
I
:::s:::::
<(
w
0...
:2
a.:
<(co
~iD
~<
Ll
"""
W
....J
<(
~~~
I-
o
Z
L :31:3/0
r =31=3/8
i n L8 H'VS8
<<
~~
.-
(\J
:r:
<(
(j)
()
~~
<~
JL
=31=318 -1
=31=318 ~
'.lS H.lOL ~
1i
<<00
~<CD
<<<
JLl
00<(
iD<
<<
<5
....
-
c:
o
U
"0
c:
<tl
en
u
'C
-
Q)
E
o
BO ~
8....J c:
- 0
8:::>0 :;:;
CJct;l~ ~
zO:::> ~
i=ZlIl .$
(fJ 0 0 .S
><00 OJ
n~~1
L=~~
X<tl
c:
~
o
.t:
en
en
-
"'S
en
Q)
a:
CD
-
o
Z
C :3/0/0
~ :310/8
r :318/0
8/8/8 ~
'0/8/8 ~
I i r '.is N'v'Wl30'v'
00<<
~~~
0/8/8 -.-1'
~
a:
:::::>w
00
:J:-
~>
<tCC
wW
c..CIJ
U.
M ~O
W C(J)
c: ~...1
~ wW
C} W>
u: :s:~
~
>-OW
O-l:::s:::::
::>Wa:
I-LL<:
00 a: 0...
()W-l
-w<:
LLO-
LL a:
<:a:1-
a: 000
I-LL:::l
o
Z
00
o
O.
a:()
~Z
Z -
<(00
c:W
u.~
(j)()
COo
::200
000
()<(
()
::2
<Jl
a:
w
z
,Z
()<
Z ~
-,c
(j) Z
W <
~ ~
_ w
() w
o ~
(j) <:l
(j) Z
<( ~
ad 2
I..L. I-
o ~
o a:
:c ~
(j) <Jl
Z Z
W <(
CO ~
~
Ms. Cindy Olness
-8-
October 17, 2003
Signal Warrant Analyses
In addition to the capacity analyses, we performed signal warrant analyses for the peak
hour condition to determine if traffic signal control requirements would be met at the
subject intersections. For this purpose, we used the traffic signal warrants presented in
the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2001. Based on our analysis,
we found that traffic volumes at all three subject intersections meet the peak hour volume
requirement for the 2010 build conditions.
RECOMlVIENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
As indicated in the previous section, all the three subject intersections will experience
LOS F for the 2010 build conditions during one or both the peak hours. The signal
warrant analysis indicated that traffic volumes at all three subject intersections will meet
peak hour requirements upon completion of the proposed development.
Although no specific plans have been established yet for improvements to CSAH 21, we
understand from County staff that there is a likelihood for some improvements in the next
few years. The first signalized intersection on CSAH 21 east of the subject intersections
is at Texas Avenue and to the west is at Franklin Avenue. A traffic signal can be
provided at one of the three subject intersections without violating the County's
minimum spacing requirement of 12 mile between signals. However, signals cannot be
installed at all the three subject intersections since the minimum spacing requirement
cannot be met.
To improve operations at the CSAH 21/CSAH 87 intersection, we recommend that a
traffic signal be installed at this intersection in conjunction with the proposed
development. If and when it is feasible to acquire property on the north side of the
CSAH 21/CSAH 87 intersection, we recommend that 170th Street be realigned to
intersect CSAH 21 at CSAH 87 to create a four-legged intersection. With this change,
the frontage road along the north side of CSAH 21 should be extended to the realigned
170th Street. Since the nature of improvements to CSAH 21 are not certain at this time,
we present the following two options to improve operations at the CSAH 21/ Adelman
Street intersection:
Option A. This option involves modifying the CSAH 21/ Adelman Street
intersection to a % access, which would allow all movements except the
northbound and the southbound left turns.
::
Option B, This option involves installation of a traffic signal at the CSAH
21/Adelman Street intersection. The spacing between CSAH 87 and Adeiman
Street is only about 300 feet less than the minimum signal spacing requirement of
Y2 mile.
To determine if our recommended options would provide adequate LOS at the subject
intersections, we performed capacity analyses with the mitigation measures. Results of
our analyses indicate that adequate LOS will be provided at both the CSA.H 21/CSAH
87/170th Street and the CSAH 21/Adelman Street intersections.
IIII I I
Ms. Cindy Olness
-9-
October 17,2003
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the information and analyses presented in this memorandum, we have made the
following conclusions:
· The proposed development is expected to generate a total 01'750 trips during
the weekday a.m. peak hour and 961 trips during the weekday p.m. peak hour.
. Under existing unsignalized control, the northbound and the southbound
movements at all the three subject intersections will experience LOS F for the
2010 build conditions.
. Traffic volumes at all the three subject intersections meet the peak hour signal
warrants for the 2010 build conditions.
. It is recommended that traffic signal control be installed at the CSAH
21/CSAH 87 intersection in conjunction with the proposed development.
When feasible, we also recommend that 170th Street be realigned to intersect
CSAH 21 at CSAH 87.
. Depending on the nature of improvements that the County chooses to
implement for CSAH 21, one ofthe following two mitigation options can be
implemented at the CSAH 21/Adelman Street intersection - a) provide %
access, or b) install traffic signal control.
I~I i II
FIGURE 7
III: II
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, Box. 25
500 Lafayette Road
51. Paul, Minnesota 55155-40
Phone: (651) 296-7865 Fax: (651) 296-1811 E-mail: sarah.hoffmann@dnr.state.mn.us
September 11, 2003
Cliff Knettel
MFRA
15050 23rd Avenue N.
Plymouth, ~ 55447
Re: Request for Natural Heritage information for vicinity of proposed Deerfield Industrial Park.,
T114N R22W Section 12, Scott County
NHNRP Contact #: ERDB 20040174
Dear Mr. Knettel,
The Minnesota Natural Heritage database has been reviewed to determine if any rare plant or
animal species or other significant natural features are known to occur within an approximate one-mile
radius of the area indicated on the map enclosed with your information request. Based on this review, there
are 2 known occurrences of rare species or natural corrununities in the area searched (for details, see .
enclosed database printout and explanation of selected fi.elds). Followihgarespecific conifuents fo~only
those elements that maybe impacted by the proposed project.' Ra.tefeatukocctit&~cesnot listed below
are not anticipated to be affected by the proposed iiroject. . ", .
· Blanding'sTurtles (Emydoidea blandingii); a state-listed threatened species;are reported from the
vicinity of the project area. Although we have no records from directly within the project area, it is
possible that turtles exist in the area if there is suitable habitat on the site. Blanding's Turtles
spend much of their time in shallow wetlands (1-3 feet deep), but they nest in open, sandy uplands
up to I mile from wetlands. Nesting is in June and eggs hatch in September, at which time young
turtles enter deep wetlands where they over-winter in soft sediments. Factors believed to
contribute to the decline of this species include wetland drainage and degradation, development on
upland nesting areas, and possibLy collection for the pet trade. In addition, because of the tendency
for Blanding's Turtles to travel long distances over land, they are often forced to cross roads in
developed areas. Many of the records we have or Blanding's Turtles are from turtles killed
crossing roads.
For your information, I have attached a fact sheet and a flyer about the Blanding's Turtle. The fact
sheet is intended to provide you with background information regarding habitat use, life history,
and reasons for the species' decline, as well as recommendations for avoiding and minimizing
impacts to this rare turtle. As you will note, there are two lists of recommendations. The ftrst list
contains recommendations to prevent harm to turtles during construction work, and is relative to all
areas inhabited by Blanding's Turtles. Please refer to this ftrst list of recommendations for your
project. The second column. expands on the first column, and contains greater protective measures
to be considered for areas known to be of state-wide importance to Blanding's Turtles, or any area
where greater protection for turtles is desired. Your project area is not within one of these priority
areas. The flyer, which should be given to all contractors working ill the area; contains an
iU1).stration and description of the B landing's Turtle, as well as a surrunatyof the recommendations
provided in the fact sheet.
DNR Information: 651-296-6157 · 1-888-646-6367 · TrY: 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
1111 I
.-<
~
Q
'"
M J.J
0 0
0 ..
N ill
a
a :.:
<Xl .... ~
0 ::!:
'"
ex: .....
'" 0 ~
~ ill
'" J.J 0
E-< os I-<
'" J.J c:l
'" '" '"
'" I>:
M ..;
.0 '" '"
>.0 ~ :.:
'" N j
'tl
c:: J.J Cl
0 .c: '" ~
::;: tn ~
....
.-< I< ~ '"
... >. .4
.. c. (J
... 8
.-<
e
os
I<
tn
0
I<
'"
>- .c:
~ r.J
I<
os
0 ill
:':(J .. r-
~~ ill ..,
ex: *
~~ ill
e '"
os .4 0
I-< tn E-< .-<
I>: . a ~:
... N 0
rn .-< :z:
~ rn
Z '1:l CJl Cl
0 a 0
I-< I-< os !is 0
tJ I>: 3:
C ill '" I-<
.4 '" tn ! ~ c:l
'" CJl os I-<
I-< J.J ~
'" 3C ....
I>: N I< III
'" N ill '" ;~
'" ex: :I: (J
C :z:
:z: .-< '"
... os I>: Cl:l:
.-< I< 8 zrn
.-< :l 1-<:>
E-< J.J ~~
os (J
Z 0
'tl :~
~ c::
'"
Cl '" c
f E-< co
Z 1-<0
~ 8 3:
'" ~~
.4
'" '" 0
:.:
~
...
rn '"
CJl
ill ~
..
os ..; fa
..Q 2 E-<
os CJl E-<
J.J
<ll
C CJl
ill .. ~
1l1'tl C N
os I< '" E-<
J.J 0 '" CJl
.... r.J
I< "
ill ex:
:I:
ill >0%
..... u ~~
os a
I< ill C
:l I< I-< tJ '"
J.J I< 1>:'" N .., ~
os :l "'rn 0 ....
Z r.J I-<
(J 3: 3: cx:
os 0 c:l N N '"
J.J ~ N N
0 " I>: I>: '"
(/) a c
<IJ ill Z Z cx:
a e "" .,. 0
a ill '" .... .... (J
.... .-< ~ .... .... '"
::;: '" E-< E-o cx:
n. .
e
..
I-l
01
o
I-l
a.
~]
~ 8 :
~~~
:i!~
~
~
m
~ S
~ ~
Qti
..:ll'l
",m
~
l>o
P::
I'l
r.:J
Q
....
lE
Q
..
M ..,
o 0
o OJ
'" '"
- 2
<Xl .....
o ::E
p::....
r.:J 0
~ '"
I'l ..,
t: ~
"'m
CIl
M
_ 0
>.0
.. '"
"C
C ...
~-;,
....
.... I-l
.. >.
a.
.. 0
....(J
'"
e
..
0>
- C
'" 0
....z
"C
C
..
'"
0>
..
..,
:J: ....
N I-l
N l\J
P:: :I:
Z.-.
.. ..
.... I-l
.... "
E-o ..,
..
Z
~
Q
f
'"
UI
..
.0
..
..,
..
Q
<II UI
tl1"C
.. I-l
.., 0
'rl rJ
I-l <II
'" P::
:I:
<II
.-. ()
.. C
I-l '"
" I-l
LJ I-l
.. "
Z ()
()
.. 0
LJ
o ..,
OJ C
<II <II
C E
C <II
.... .-.
::EW
1I1 II
M
....
'"
Ul ..
0...
'" ()
....
.. I-l
.. ..,
'" OJ
i:i:<iS
o
.t:,.2l c
....... ..,
P::.-. OJ
"C <II
~ :::: ~
_ :J: '"
N
<Xl
'"
....
-" '"
lJl 0>'-'
\0 l:: .~
.... 0 e
t:..:lo
',,",
>.
~
~~o
..
..,
..
o
"C
'"
~
'"
OJ
.0
o
C
- .....
P::N'<:
o .. ..,
~ .....
P:: .. :J
a...
C
a. .. 0
.. "C....
E ;:l III
.., ....
"C.....()
.. .., '"
3.3.t
..,
OJ,
.3
01
"
J.J
..
...
CIl
"C
'"
"C
C
<II
..,
C
~
,...
M
""
01
"
J.J
..
..,
m
..,
C
<II
I-l
I-l
i3
I'l
..:l
E-o
~
m
i
lJl
~
~'B
.. 0
P:: ()
..
o I-l
r.:J
o
C
C
\.l :J
o 0
C
"C ~ LJ
'" C 0
E ;:l C ..;
.. -w
C \.l .. Z ..:l
41-HE-t
(!i~;;2e:
co.. :;;; I!::
'" .. ~ ~ m
.., a...; "" -
.. ...-1 -.-I C)
<II U1'<: "C .. Z
N CI) aJ l!J H
.,-i .. ~ tn U ~
Ul IV ID m k
.., C C "
o .f"i ~ cU 0
W CIl 0 ::E CIl al
~
-~
i~~~o
8 ~
W
E-o,lQ E-o
E-o ..;
0";'"
&l~gj
~E-o
o
~ ~ ~
ow..,
..
~ .. .L.J
'" LJ CIl
'" C
P:: '" <II
E ..,
Z <II ..
.. .-. LJ
....wm
....
E-o
.
..
..
()
'"
\.l
"C
C
"
o
OJ
I-l
o
LJ
.<:
0>
.....
OJ
Ul
'"
c
o
.....
..,
..
()
....
....
.....
~ ~
>
M
'"
....
o
N
....
~
~
3:
~
I-l '"
<II ....
oC
() ..
" N
o
>:1:
E-o
~
I'l
..:l
S
P::
E-o
j
a.
o
...
N
Ul
....
:I:
E-o
o
~
3:
~
M
....
..
'"
:I:
E-o
g
I'l
..:l
I'l
CJ
..:
~
"C
I-l
o
()
'"
I-l
a.
g ~ f;i!
CIl
i-< '"
o Z 0
r.:J
"C I'l '"
" ,,;
C>~
.. I'l
~~~
....
M
....
'"
III ..
0...
'" ()
.....
.. I-l
<IS LJ
'" l/l
.. ~ ."
c ..; 0
o
..-1 lU >,
tl1.... I-l
OJ -.-I J.J
p::.-. 01
"C "
lE::~
Q 3: '"
Ul
'"
'"
....
"C
'"
c
....
E
i-<
'"
..,
'"
"C
C
'"
..
"'.0
- '"
.. >
N <IS
.<:
M
'" OJ
'"
_ ....-t
lJl tl1 i-<
'" C ..
.... 0 "C
E-o ..:l C
~ ;:l
o
~~:
o
P:: 0 \.l
o .. '"
~ '"
a: .. ..
a...
C
'" .. 0
AS "(j..-1
E ;:l 01
J.J.....
"C..... ()
.. ... '"
3.3.t
i-<
<II
11
'"
..,
a.
<II
CIl
'"
'"
'"
J.J
..
o
"C
<II
~
'"
..
.0
o
..,
OJ
..
..:l
01
;:l M
"'Ul
<IS
.., ..
m""
"C '"
<II ..,
"C ....
em
'"
.., m
C lJl
~ CJ
o
....
...
01
"
LJ
..
..,
CIl
LJ
C
'"
i-<
I-l
8
m
o
o
o
:J:
20
H
- lJl
Ii
:I:
E-oCll
s~
CJlJl
m ,
~~
I'lO
Z 0
MO
.... 3:
I'l
m'"
r.:J ..:
Z 0
CJ
~
.. '"
P::~
o a.
I'l
X ~ ~
o 0 i-< >0
~c;~~
0. '" I'l
;;~~~~
~ j -;;, a; ..:' <:1
rtS a.J -- :I:l 0
>OP::l1lCJO
o P:: '" > 3:
.,. Ul": .. >< 0
m ~_e-<<:3:~
.. '" CJ .<: '0 -. 0
~ N 01 iJJ QJ ~
c..... .. \.l tl1 () Cl
l'G CI) 4J QJ rtS k ll::
P:: LJ C C " I'l
0...-1 :J ro 0 :::-
(f}~U10:F.:cnO
3: ..
'" J.J
'" C
P:: '"
E
Z <II
....-.
.... <il
....
E-o
"" ,,;
0'"
,,; ~
1'l0
>0
j~
~i:'l
!:l!;j
mo
:<:
..:lCll
~o
~
lJl
CIl
o
'"
fZ1
"C~~~
E~~~
'~~gJ~
'" <:1
>..: E-o
c~c5g
o H >0
.~ 0 ~ ~
~ '" ~ ~
~0~fZ1
\.l~",[g
<II ~ a.
> ~ b
CIlC<llJl
~~~
[:l",[;l
0I01'l
,,;
~f:io.
O>OCll
~~~
ze~
~~5a:
'<:00
() l>:
" . Cl
o
>
m
..:l
~ ....
....gj~
QOE-o
D~~
~~~
,(J
o I'l
'" '" Q
....
3:
.0:
r.:JZ
~....
:s~:::
"''''
o
OCll
fi!E~
I'lii!o
!::8~
c5 - ~
m m
::J
>O..:lE-o
..:l>om
r.:Jl>:1'l
~8@i
3: '"
'"
o
m~
>o~o
a.l>:l>o
oa.o
:;;; - m
UCllr.:J
::J:I:
s~
a...:
00.
a.
m
Q
~Uij ..:l
a.~g;~~
:;;j....Clom
Z >0 Z ::J
8~~(j:;;j
iilgj<3~2J
0:: CJ) 0:: H
1'l..:l>o:i'9
~ O..:l I'l U
~~~~g
o c.:J I'l
(J alm
-aCllg]
~[;l
a:
:l:E-o
CIlm
r.:J
'" ,,;
o
Ul'"
I'l
W(J
,,;....
E-oUl
r.<l
o ~
5>0
0,,;
>OQ
SUMMARY OF RECOlVIMENDATIONS
FOR A VOIDING AND MINIMIZING IMPACTS
TO BLANDING'S TURTLE POPULATIONS
(see Environmental Review Fact Sheet Series for full recommendations)
· A flyer with an illustration of an adult Blanding's turtle should be given to all
contractors working in the area. Homeowners should also be informed of the
presence of Blanding's turtles in the area.
· Turtles which are in imminent danger should be moved., by hand, out of harm's way.
Turtles which are. not in imminent danger should be 'left undisturbed to continue their
travel among wetlands and/or nestsites. i"\.",..,;;:\~..." ,..
· If a Blanding's turtle nests in yO'ur yard, do not disturb the, nest, and do not allow pets
near the nest.
· Blanding's turtles do not make good pets. It is illegal to keep this threatened species
in captivity.
· Silt fencing should be set up to keep turtles out of construction areas. It is critical that
silt fencing be removed after the area has been revegetated. ,
· Small, vegetated temporary wetlands should not be dredged, deepened, 'or filled.
· All wetlands should be protected from pollution; use of fertilizers and pesticides
should be avoided, and run-off from lawns and streets should be controlled. Erosion
should be prevented to keep sediment from reaching wetlands and lakes.
· Roads should be kept to minimum standards on widths and lanes.
· Roads should be ditched, not curbed or below grade. If curbs must be used, 4" high
curbs at a 3: I slope are preferred.
· CuI verts under roads crossing wetland areas, between wetland areas, or between
wetland and nesting areas should be at least 36 in. diameter and flat-bottomed or
elliptical.
· Culverts under roads crossing streams should be oversized (at least twice as wide as
the normal width of open water) and flat-bottomed or elliptical.
· Utility access and maintenance roads should be kept to a minimum.
· Below-ground utility construction sites should be returned to original grade.
· Terrain should be left with as much natural contour as possible.
· Graded areas should be revegetated with native grasses and forbs.
· Vegetation management in infrequently mowed areas -- such as in ditches, along
utility access roads, and under power lines -- should be done mechanically (chemicals
should not be used). Work should occur fall through spring (after October 1st and
before June l't).
Compiled by the Minnesota DepartmefU ofNamral Resources Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, August, 2001
Endangered Species EllvirollmefUal Review Coordinator, 500 Lafayette Rd., Box 25. St. Paul, MN 55155/651-296-7863
~I i II
FIGURE 8
TII, Ii
11
MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY
ST ATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
September 26, 2003
Mr. Cliff Knettel
MFRA
15050 23m Avenue North
Plymouth, MN 55447
RE: Deerfield Industrial Park
T114 R22 S12 N, Prior Lake, Scott County
SHPO Number. 2003-3661
Dear Mr. Knettel:
Thank you for consulting with our office during the preparation of an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet for the above referenced project.
Based on our review of the project information, we conclude that there are no properties listed
on the National or State Registers of Historic Places, and no known or suspected
archaeological properties in the area that will be affected by this project.
Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36CFR800, Procedures of the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation for the protection of historic properties. If this project is considered for
federal assistance, or requires a federal permit or license, it should be submitted to our office
with reference to the assisting federal agency.
Please contact us at (651) 296-5462 if you have any questions regarding our comments on this
project.
Sincerely,
\\~l~~~
-t Dennis A. Gim~t~~
{ 'oj Government Programs and Compliance Officer
\../
~d.c;, K.:>.lInrrO' Ronlp'IQrrI Wp..d 1C;~int D':lll/ i\lC;nrh~..:.n.t'l c:.;lO~)_l()Oh. !'T'Q,I.o.P"'Ohr...,.Q h~l '>{)h f:.l'1t:.,
III II
FIGURE 9
n. i I
]. .
.".
(") C5-
~ ~ \~ 1
-u tiJ (fJ..
~~- ~ ~
:::-. 5, $:-<
8r.g ~ (tl
3~ cog.
"0 0 =r cc
"'0 Cii t-...~ .....
iil \I 0...->.
~~ 8~
~ (Xl
UO illtlln
t 0g.~Sg
" ~,"t;~~!!'.Cl:()
Pl H!,~~u
[ !< ~iiil':.~~~a~
'" ~ ~ !~5~~"
g :c ~ g ~ ~
~ ~~g~ ;
g ~ '" ~ ~,
~ 5 ~
fJ ~ 10
;n
CD
(") u:
o C.
3 ~.
~ OJ
o ;;u;;u-
V~~t;oQ
zoos:::o~
::0 iil c 0 ~ ~
~, ~, g ~ ~ ~
~g~~~o
~g<gi~ii\
R a ~ ~
;:0 ~ Q.
~ .:;z 3
=- ~
~ ~
5
<0
.._oo____\
~-- \
c ~ (i~:~
, '. \l..<Ji~\
Z 0 . ~';'i'
C (')
c: 0
enS:
m."
.,,:lJ
r-m
)>:1:
z~
s: en
)> -
." ~
r
OJ
:::>
0-
C
(fJ
CD
o
CD
(fJ
to
:::>
91
o
::l
(fJ
o
r-
III
1i
N
o
o
(.0
+,
N
'"
o
o
-n
[
~
(
''''-'') I
I i
/
,--f'\
) c...,
I ~)
\ ,
I~' l{
(~C (
~)
v
()
::+
-..::
3!: 0
-. -
:::>
:::>
CD
(fJ
o
6i
il'9!1~H!
i. ;ii~~~~
~~Q:h'd
. ~." .,.. ...
~"'l:'t!~~as
ge~lt~Qi5'~
~j~~H ;lii
I.Hi&H!
;.;~~~~~.
l~"p'i~
-~.-.. !
-S~.t.~-:,
hp:....
~ia~hH!
~.h.~~.~
.[li'h'.:
1:'~