HomeMy WebLinkAbout21-093 - ADMIN Resolution - City Council - 2021/08/23Resolution No. 21-093
Approving record of decision and the negative declaration of need for an
environmental impact statement for the Beltline Station Development
South of CSAH 25 near Beltline Boulevard
Whereas, Sherman Associates (“Proposer”) proposes to redevelop 3 parcels in St. Louis
Park to construct 401 new residential units and 21,800 square feet of commercial space to
create Beltline Station Development; and
Whereas, the project crosses the threshold of a mandatory environmental assessment
worksheet (“EAW”) by having a total of more than 375 attached units in a mixed residential and
commercial development per Minnesota Rules, part 4410.4300, subpart 32; and
Whereas, the EAW was prepared by Kimley-Horn on behalf of the Proposer, who
submitted completed data portions of the EAW to the City of St. Louis Park consistent with
Minnesota Rules, part 4410.1400; and
Whereas, the EAW was prepared using the form approved by the Minnesota
Environmental Quality Board (EQB) for EAWs in accordance with Minnesota Rules, part
4410.1300; and
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park submitted a copy of the EAW to all public agencies on
the EAW distribution list and published EAW availability in the EQB Monitor on July 6, 2021, in
accordance with applicable state laws, rules, and regulations; and
Whereas, the EAW comment period lasted from July 6, 2021 to August 5, 2021, and six (6)
regulatory agencies and three (3) members of the public submitted written comments during
the comment period; and
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park acknowledges the comments received from the State
Historic Preservation Office, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency, Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota Department of Transporta tion, the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Nancy Rose, Friends of Bass Lake and Center
Point Energy; and
Whereas, city staff reviewed the proposed record of decision and finds it to be consistent
with the evidence submitted to the city and the applicable statutes and regulations, to the best
of their knowledge, and recommends the City Council approve the findings of fact and record of
decision dated August 2021 and determine that no environmental impact statement (“EIS”) is
necessary, reasonable or warranted with respect to the Project under the circumstances; and
Whereas, the City Council desires to make findings of fact and a record of decision that no
EIS is required with respect to the Project (“Negative Declaration”).
Now therefore be it resolved that the City Council does hereby:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 946A8AD5-6913-4C27-B2D1-30D6F78386C7
Resolution No. 21-093 2
1. Adopt and approve the findings of fact and record of decision for the Beltline Station
Development environmental assessment worksheet in the form which is attached
hereto as Exhibit A and hereby makes the findings of fact and conclusions which are
contained therein; and
2. Find and determine that, based upon the findings of fact and record of decision, no
environmental impact statement is required for the Project pursuant to the Minnesota
Environmental Policy Act or Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200 to 4410.6500.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council August 23, 2021
Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
DocuSign Envelope ID: 946A8AD5-6913-4C27-B2D1-30D6F78386C7
Resolution No. 21-093 3
EXHIBIT A
BELTLINE STATION DEVELOPMENT, ST. LOUIS PARK
Findings of Fact and Record of Decision
City of St. Louis Park
August 2021
DocuSign Envelope ID: 946A8AD5-6913-4C27-B2D1-30D6F78386C7
Resolution No. 21-093 4
1. Administrative Background
Sherman Associates Development, LLC is proposing to redevelop an approximately 7-acre site
south of CSAH 25 and east of Beltline Blvd in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. The mixed -use, transit-
oriented development is located immediately north of the Southwest LRT Beltline Blvd. Station,
and will include one mixed-use building and two residential buildings with a total of 403 multi-
family units and up to 21,800 square feet of ground floor commercial. The proposal also
includes a parking structure, parking within each building, and surface parking.
The City of St. Louis Park is the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for this project. An
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) has been prepared in accordance with Minnesota
Rules Chapter 4410. The EAW was mandatory per Minnesota Rules, part 4410.4300, subpart
32: Mixed residential and industrial-commercial projects.
The EAW was filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) and circulated for
review and comment to the required distribution list. A notice of availability was published in
the EQB Monitor on July 6, 2021. A notice was also published in the Sun Sailor newspaper. This
notice included a description of the project, information on where copies of the EAW were
available, and invited the public to provide comments.
The EAW was made available electronically on the City of St. Louis Park’s website at
https://www.stlouispark.org/government/departments-divisions/community-
development/development-projects/beltline-development and in hard copy at the following
locations:
St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
St. Louis Park Library, 3240 Library Lane, St. Louis Park, MN 55426
The EAW comment period extended from July 6 to August 5, 2021. Written comments were
received from six agencies. Three written comments were received from the public. All
comments received were considered in determining the potential for significant environmental
impacts.
Based on the information in the record, which is composed of the EAW for the proposed
project, the comments submitted during the public comment period, the responses to
comments, and other supporting documents, the City of St. Louis Park makes the following
Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 946A8AD5-6913-4C27-B2D1-30D6F78386C7
Resolution No. 21-093 5
2. Findings of Fact
2.1 Project Description
Sherman Associates Development, LLC is proposing to redevelop an approximately 7-acre site
south of CSAH 25 and east of Beltline Blvd in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. The Beltline Station
Development consists of three previously developed but currently vacant parcels that include
paved and gravel parking lots, and existing right-of-way surrounded by manicured lawn,
wooded area, and wetland. All previous buildings and parking areas have been demolished by
the City of St. Louis Park and Southwest LRT construction contractors.
The mixed-use, transit-oriented development will be located immediately north of the
Southwest LRT Beltline Blvd. Station, and will include one mixed-use building and two
residential buildings with a total of 403 multi-family units and up to 21,800 square feet of
ground floor commercial. The project will consist of four buildings:
Parking Ramp/Retail: Located in the southwest corner of the site will be a 4-story
parking structure with 560 parking spaces, including 268 spaces for park-and-ride
purposes, and 1,800 square feet of ground floor commercial.
Building 1: Located in the northwest corner of the site will be a 7-story, mixed-use
building with approximately 20,000 square feet of ground floor grocery, approximately
159 units of multi-family housing above, and below grade parking.
Building 2: Located in the northeast corner of the site will be a 4-story, residential
building with approximately 84 units of affordable multi-family housing with below
grade parking.
Building 3: Located in the southeast corner of the site will be a 5-story residential
building with approximately 160 units of market-rate, multi-family housing with below
grade parking.
Construction will be conducted over two phases. Phase 1 is anticipated to begin in 2021 and
includes Buildings 1 and 3 and the parking ramp. Phase 2 includes Building 2 and construction is
anticipated to begin by the summer of 2022.
2.2 Corrections to the EAW or Changes to the Project since the EAW was Published
There have been no changes to the proposed project design since the EAW was published.
2.3 Agency and Public Comments on the EAW
During the comment period, the City of St. Louis Park received three written comments from
the public and six written comments from the following agencies:
Nancy Rose
Friends of Bass Lake
Center Point Energy
DocuSign Envelope ID: 946A8AD5-6913-4C27-B2D1-30D6F78386C7
Resolution No. 21-093 6
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD)
Metropolitan Council
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)
Consistent with state environmental rules, responses have been prepared below for all
substantive comments received during the comment period. Original comments in their
entirety are included in Appendix A.
1) State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), August 2, 2021
Comment: “According to our records, the Peavey-Haglin Experimental Concrete Grain
Elevator, which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places and is also a National
Historic Landmark, is located west of the proposed development on the Nordic Ware
property. Based on our review of the project information, we conclude that the historic
property will not be affected by the proposed development. We have also reviewed the
proposed project in regard to impacts to archaeological resources and we do not believe
that an archaeological survey is warranted for this project. Therefore, based on
information that is available to us at this time, we conclude that there are no properties
listed in 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.”
Response: Comment noted.
2) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), August 3, 2021
Comment: “Please note that the 401 Water Quality Certification becomes an
enforceable component of the associated federal license or permit – issued under either
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. The
scope of a Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification is limited to assuring that a
discharge from a federally licensed or permitted activity will comply with water
quality requirements. Revisions to the Section 401 rule became effective in September
2020, and now require applicants to request a pre-filing meeting from the certifying
agency at least 30 days prior to submitting a 401 Water Quality Certification request.
The MPCA is the certifying authority in the State of Minnesota.”
Response: Thank you for your comment. An MPCA 401 Water Quality
Certification has been added to the Permits and Approvals table in Section 2.4.3
and Section 8 of the EAW.
Comment: “Also, please keep in mind that in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, the
Project should include the MPCA as a regulator of all surface waters as defined by Minn.
Stat. § 115.01, subd. 22. Waters of the state. "Waters of the state" means all streams,
lakes, ponds, marshes, watercourses, waterways, wells, springs, reservoirs, aquifers,
irrigation systems, drainage systems and all other bodies or accumulations of water,
DocuSign Envelope ID: 946A8AD5-6913-4C27-B2D1-30D6F78386C7
Resolution No. 21-093 7
surface or underground, natural or artificial, public or private, which are contained
within, flow through, or border upon the state or any portion thereof. Even though
there may be surface waters that are determined to be USACE non -jurisdictional, or
exempt from the Wetlands Conservation Act, all surface waters are regulated by the
MPCA and any surface water impact needs to be described in the application and may
require mitigation.”
Response: Comment noted.
Comment: “Because the Project includes redevelopment of existing impervious areas,
these areas should be included with the total water quality volume accounted for in the
stormwater management plan as required by the City’s MS4 Permit, unless the area has
existing stormwater management that complies with the current National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System General Construction Stormwater
permit.”
Response: As noted in Section 10 of the EAW, an NPDES permit is required
because the project will disturb more than one acre of land. A Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared. All unpaved areas disturbed
during construction will be revegetated in accordance with the standard NPDES
permit requirements.
Comment: “The EAW indicates plans to utilize an existing regional pond in a nearby park
for stormwater discharges from the site. It should be noted that the existing regional
stormwater pond cannot be used for stormwater treatment if it was wetland that did
not go through the wetland mitigation process and must also comply with current
stormwater management requirements.”
Response: Comment noted. The stormwater management plans for the
development will meet the stormwater management requirements of the City of
St. Louis Park and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
Comment: “The EAW also discusses use of biofiltration gardens and underground pipe
detention and not infiltration due to site contamination. If infiltration is prohibited,
consider other methods of volume reduction, such as water reuse. The Project proposer
also is strongly encouraged to include trees in the site design to help absorb stormwater
and improve energy efficiency of buildings. A green roof can also help reduce
stormwater runoff and reduce energy use.”
Response: The project proposer will consider methods of volume reduction such
as the use of a green roof as design advances.
Comment: “If the site has the ability to discharge stormwater to the impaired waters
that have construction related impairments within 1 mile of the site, additional Best
Management Practices are required during construction. These include providing
temporary ponding for 5 acres draining to one location on the Project and stabilizing
DocuSign Envelope ID: 946A8AD5-6913-4C27-B2D1-30D6F78386C7
Resolution No. 21-093 8
inactively worked soils within seven days. Please direct questions regarding CSW Permit
requirements to Roberta Getman at 507-206-2629 or at roberta.getman@state.mn.us.”
Response: Comment noted.
Comment: “As indicated in the EAW, the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
identified issues of concern on the proposed Project site. These issues have the
potential to cause contamination to soils and groundwater. Project proposers/
developers considering construction on or near contaminated properties should begin
working early in their planning process with the MPCA’s Brownfields Program to receive
necessary technical assistance in managing contamination. For some properties, special
construction might be needed to prevent the further spreading of the contamination
and/or prevent vapors from entering buildings or utility corridors. Because this is a
residential development, the MPCA recommends the Project proposer conduct a Phase
II Environmental Investigation to assess the presence of contamination prior to starting
construction activities. State law requires that persons properly manage contaminated
soil and water they uncover or disturb - even if they are not the party responsible for
the contamination. The MPCA’s Brownfields Program can provide necessary technical
assistance in managing contamination. Information regarding the Brownfields Program
can be found at: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/waste/brownfields. If contamination is
encountered during development activities, it must be reported immediately to the
State duty officer at 651-649-5451 or 800-422-0798.
Response: The project proposer will conduct a Phase II Environmental Site
Assessment prior to construction and will work with MPCA regarding
contamination and cleanup of the project site as the site is redeveloped. If
contamination is encountered, the State Duty Officer will be contacted.
3) Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), August 3, 2021
Comment: “1. On page 29 of the EAW it states that, ‘The Project will contribute to the
urban tree canopy, reduce impervious surface on the project site, and provide multi-
modal connections, which is consistent with relevant polices identified in the 2040
Comprehensive Plan.’ a. The table on page 7 shows impervious surface increasing from
2.8 acres to 5.4 acres and wood/forested areas decreasing from 1.3 to 0.0 acres.
There is conflicting information regarding the impervious surface and tree cover on -site,
please clarify the amount of hardcover and urban tree canopy included a part of the
project.”
Response: There will be additional vegetation planted as part of the project;
however, the sentence on page 29 of the EAW should be revised to state that
the project will increase impervious surface on the site. The proposed
development will meet the stormwater management requirements of the City of
St. Louis Park and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The specific
amounts of hardcover and urban tree canopy will be determined at a later date
as the site design advances.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 946A8AD5-6913-4C27-B2D1-30D6F78386C7
Resolution No. 21-093 9
Comment: “The District’s Stormwater Management Rules is triggered for the
redevelopment of impervious surface. Depending on the amount of impervious surface
proposed compared to the existing, one of the following treatment scenarios will apply:
If a decrease or no change in impervious surface is proposed:
Site Size Site Disturbance Impervious Surface
Reduction
Requirements
>1 acre - ≤ 5
acres
≥ 40% site
disturbance
10% reduction in
impervious surface
None
0-9%
reduction in
impervious
surface
Volume control required
for site’s impervious
surface
If an increase of impervious surface is proposed:
Site Size Site Disturbance Requirements Treatment Scope
>1 acre ≥ 40% site
disturbance
Phosphorus
Control, Rate
Control and
Volume
control
Entire site’s
impervious surface
Response: Comment noted. The proposed project will comply with the MCWD’s
stormwater management rules.
Comment: “According to MCWD’s records, the MCWD approved a wetland delineation
Boundary & Type determination for this parcel in December of 2020. Since decisions
issued by MCWD are valid for 5 years, the current Notice of Decision (MCWD WCA NOD
#W19-35) is still valid. It appears that one wetland will be impacted as a result of the
proposed development. If that is the case, a replacement plan to offset impacts will be
required to be provided for District review.”
Response: Comment noted. The purchase of wetland banking credits is
discussed within Section 11 of the EAW.
4) Metropolitan Council, August 4, 2021
Comment: “The development location is a very small part of Transportation Analysis
Zone (TAZ) #1394. TAZ forecast allocations for 2040 have been prepared by the City and
are included in the City’s comprehensive plan. The City expects that TAZ #1394 will gain
+924 households, +1700 population, and +445 jobs during 2020-2040. At this time, the
forecast and TAZ allocation are adequate. Should other planned developments exceed
that forecast, then Council staff would recommend increasing the forecast allocation for
TAZ #1394.”
Response: Comment noted. The City will continue to monitor growth and will
coordinate with the Metropolitan Council regarding the TAZ forecasts for the
area if any modifications are needed.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 946A8AD5-6913-4C27-B2D1-30D6F78386C7
Resolution No. 21-093 10
Comment: “Metropolitan Council Dual Forcemain Interceptors (8041) are within the
County Road 25 (Highway 7) right-of way, north of the proposed development. The
interceptors were built in 2015 and are 24-inch PVC Pipes. There are specific processes
that must be followed before encroachment on our property. Before encroachment on
our property an Encroachment Agreement will be required. To obtain an Encroachment
Agreement Application, contact Tim Wedin, Interceptor Engineering Assistant Manager
(651-602-4571) at the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services. To assess the
potential impacts to our interceptor system, prior to initiating this project, preliminary
plans should be sent to Tim Wedin, Interceptor Engineering Assistant Manager (651 -
602-4571) at the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services.
It is the Council’s understanding that the developer has already contacted the MCES
regarding the relocation of the Metropolitan Council Dual Forcemain Interceptors and
should continue the discussion regarding the relocation as the project continues.”
Response: The developer will continue to coordinate with MCES regarding the
dual forcemain interceptors.
Comment: “The Metropolitan Disposal System has adequate capacity for this project
location.”
Response: Comment noted.
Comment: “The EAW asks proposers to identify measures (e.g., traffic operational
improvements, diesel idling minimization plan) that will be taken to minimize or
mitigate vehicle-related emissions. The City’s comprehensive plan includes the climate
action plan strategy: ‘Reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by encouraging residents and
businesses to replace existing vehicles with more fuel-efficient models, including electric
vehicles (EVs), and by expanding EV charging infrastructure.’ The Council recommends
that City and developer consider the integration of EV charging infrastructure (or EV -
ready infrastructure) to support this strategy and to serve some portion of the parking
spaces throughout the development. Guidance can be found in the Great Plains
Institute’s ‘Becoming Electric Vehicle Ready’ guideline document
(https://www.driveelectricmn.org/becoming-ev-ready/).”
Response: Comment noted. The City requires EV and EV ready infrastructure in
all new and reconstructed parking.
Comment: “The developer is responsible to continue to honor the commitments made
during the right-of-way acquisition process with the Metropolitan Council. This includes,
but is not limited to, maintaining access along the frontage road to General Office
Products until the intersection at Lynn Avenue/CSAH 25 is complete and the Backage
Road is completed to Monterrey Avenue from Lynn Avenue. Coordination with the
Metropolitan Council’s contractors is required for construction of both projects,
including, but not limited to, the Backage Road, Monterey Avenue, underground
utilities, communications, signage, cameras, bus shelters, etcetera.”
DocuSign Envelope ID: 946A8AD5-6913-4C27-B2D1-30D6F78386C7
Resolution No. 21-093 11
Response: Comment noted. The project proposer will continue to coordinate
with the Metropolitan Council’s contractors during construction of this project.
Comment: “Any costs associated with any future modifications at the Beltline
Boulevard/Backage Road and Monterey/CSAH 25 intersections, or the alignment of the
Backage Road, shall not be the responsibility of the Metropolitan Council.”
Response: Comment noted.
Comment: “The Metropolitan Council has reviewed the ¾ turning movements at the
modified Beltline Boulevard/Backage Road intersection as proposed and has found no
detrimental impacts to traffic operations as long as westbound left turning movements
to southbound Beltline Boulevard are prohibited with a curb or median.”
Response: Comment noted.
Comment: “The Metropolitan Council requires that the bus bay along the proposed
modifications to the Backage Road have 120 feet of straight curb. Please note that the
developer will be responsible for the street lighting, sidewalk, landscaping, and concrete
pad and electrical conduit re-routing for the bus shelter.”
Response: The bus bay will be designed in accordance with Metropolitan Council
requirements. Coordination between the City, Developer and Metropolitan
Council will continue through design and construction of the Beltline Station
Development.
Comment: “The Metropolitan Council requires that stair/elevator remain at the
southwest corner of the parking structure and that the north-south pedestrian
crosswalk at the Backage Road be minimized as much as possible.”
Response: Vertical circulation will be designed in accordance with Metropolitan
Council requirements. Coordination between the City, Developer and
Metropolitan Council will continue through design and construction of the
Beltline Station Development.
5) Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), August 5, 2021
Comment: “1. Page 11, Soil and Topography. Please note that an Erosion Hazard Rating
of “Not Rated” means that there is not enough information to make a determination
regarding soil erodibility, not that “erosion is unlikely.” In general, urban soils are more
prone to erosion because of previous disturbance and compaction, and we are pleased
that a SWPPP will be prepared for the site.”
Response: Comment noted. This clarification has been added to the EAW and
erosion control specifications will be addressed through permitting.
Comment: “Page 14, Stormwater. The planned increase in impervious surfaces will also
increase the amount of road salt used in the project area. Chloride released into local
DocuSign Envelope ID: 946A8AD5-6913-4C27-B2D1-30D6F78386C7
Resolution No. 21-093 12
lakes and streams does not break down, and instead accumulates in the environment,
potentially reaching levels that are toxic to aquatic wildlife and plants. Consider
promoting local business and city participation in the Smart Salting Training offered
through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. There are a variety of classes available
for road applicators, sidewalk applicators, and property managers. More information
and resources can be found at this website. Many winter maintenance staff who have
attended the Smart Salting training — both from cities and counties and from private
companies — have used their knowledge to reduce salt use and save money for their
organizations. We also encourage cities and counties to provide public outreach to
reduce the overuse of chloride. Here are some educational resources for residents as
well as a sample ordinance regarding chloride use.”
Response: The developer will look for methods to minimize chloride use and
improve treatment of stormwater runoff to minimize potential impacts
to downstream waters. The project will comply with all City, watershed district,
county, and state rules for stormwater management, and chloride use will be
addressed in the Stormwater Management Plan that will be reviewed by the City
for compliance.
Comment: “3. Page 15, Water Appropriation. Please be aware that if underground
parking or facilities require sump pumping of groundwater in volumes that exceed
10,000 gallons of water per day or one million gallons per year, a DNR Water
Appropriation Permit would be required.”
Response: Comment noted. As discussed in Section 11 of the EAW, a DNR Water
Appropriation Permit may be needed and will be obtained by the
developer/permit holder if dewatering above these volumes is required.
Comment: “4. Page 20, Rare Species. We appreciate that native pollinator-friendly
vegetation will be used in landscaping and stormwater retention ponds, and that trees
will be planted throughout the parking lot to reduce the urban heat island effect.”
Response: Comment noted. The project proposer will work with the City to
complete a landscaping plan that incorporates these elements.
Comment: “Appendices. Please note that agency correspondence should be included in
the EAW appendices. It is unclear if the proposer requested concurrence from DNR
regarding their NHIS query.”
Response: The proposer requested NHIS concurrence from the DNR on May 4,
2021. The comment letter received from the DNR on the EAW is attached in this
Finding of Fact.
6) Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), August 5, 2021
Comment: “MnDOT strongly recommends that Saint Louis Park require the developer to
conduct a Traffic Impact Study-showing particularly how the development will impact
DocuSign Envelope ID: 946A8AD5-6913-4C27-B2D1-30D6F78386C7
Resolution No. 21-093 13
nearby MN highways 7 & 100. Due to the proximity of the Beltline development to the
MN 100/MN 7 interchange ramps, there’s a chance that traffic on CR25 could backup to
the highway ramps and thus impact operations on both State highways. The developer
needs to show that this won’t be the case based on the project traffic operations in this
area.”
Response: Thank you for your comment. The traffic impact study included the
northbound Highway 100 ramp. The distance between the northbound Highway
100 ramp and the project site provides approximately 1,550 feet of storage area
between the two signals and the projected queues do not reach this distance.
The eastbound and westbound directions of CSAH 25 are anticipated to operate
acceptably and the longest eastbound queues along CSAH 25 in the build
analysis scenarios would be around 500-550 feet, while the interchange is
approximately 1,550 feet away. Therefore, queuing along CSAH 25 is not
anticipated to impact the interchange or ramp operations. More details related
to queues is available in the appendix of the traffic impact study in Attachment D
of the EAW.
7) Nancy Rose, August 5, 2021
Comment: “I note a technical error in Table 5, page 12 of the EAW. Bass Lake in St. Louis
Park is number 270015. The Bass Lake numbered 270098 is located in the City of
Plymouth, MN.”
Response: Comment noted. Table 5 in Section 11 of the EAW should have stated
the correct assessment ID number for Bass Lake in St. Louis Park, which is
270015.
8) Friends of Bass Lake
Comment: “We would like to know about the climate consequences that the project will
create. The existing law governing environmental review requires that a project's
climate impacts be considered and the need for inclusion of that data has been upheld
in legal actions.
The report guideline utilized in the Beltline project review is not specific about climate
data required, but the Environmental Quality Board is now updating that form to specify
how those impacts are quantified and reported. That proposed format could be a guide
to adding climate effects for this EAW.
We request that the EAW be expanded to include several proposed sections:
7. Climate Adaptation and Resilience
8. Cover type
18. Greenhouse gas emissions / carbon footprint”
Response: Thank you for your comment. The Minnesota Environmental Quality
Board is considering changes to the Environmental Review Program to address
DocuSign Envelope ID: 946A8AD5-6913-4C27-B2D1-30D6F78386C7
Resolution No. 21-093 14
climate change; however, these changes have not yet been implemented and
guidance on how to evaluate a specific site or individual project’s effect on
climate change has not been finalized.
The proposed development will incorporate elements of sustainability as
described in Section 20 of the EAW. Project-specific sustainability elements
include providing green infrastructure and landscaping that will increase native
vegetation and pollinator habitats and energy efficiency with performance
functionality to achieve sustainable conservation and ongoing reduction of the
project’s carbon footprint. Additionally, the project proposer has developed
solar arrays in the metro area to provide renewable energy to reduce the carbon
footprint of new development.
9) CenterPoint Energy, June 30, 2021
Comment: “CenterPoint Energy has no objection or issues related to the Proposed
Beltline Station Development EAW Distribution.”
Response: Comment noted.
2.4 Decision Regarding Need for an Environmental Impact Statement
The City of St. Louis Park finds that the analysis completed for the EAW and the additional
information considered in this document of findings of fact and conclusions are adequate to
determine whether the project has the potential for significant environmental effects based on
consideration of the four criteria identified in Minnesota Rules, part 4410, subpart 7.
2.4.1 Type, Extent and Reversibility of Impacts
The City of St. Louis Park finds that the analysis completed for the EAW is adequate to
determine whether the project has the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW
described the type and extent of impacts to the natural and built environment anticipated to
result from the proposed project. Based on the EAW analysis and mitigation commitments, the
proposed project is not anticipated to result in substantial impacts. Below is a summary of the
findings regarding the potential environmental impacts of the project are as follows:
Land Use – The project will be compatible with nearby land uses and land uses planned
in anticipation of the opening of the Southwest Light Rail Transit. A portion of the
project is already guided for transit-oriented development (TOD).
Soils and Topography – Soil borings indicate the site is suitable for development. Gentle
slopes will result in relatively low erosion potential during construction.
Water Resources – There is only one surface water, a wetland, located in the project
area. The wetland impact is anticipated to be permanent, resulting from
roadway/parking lot fill or building development. Wetland impacts will be tracked and
replaced at a minimum of 2:1 replacement ratio with wetland replacem ent in
accordance with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District requirements. It is anticipated
that wetland bank credits will be used for replacement of the wetland impacts. The
DocuSign Envelope ID: 946A8AD5-6913-4C27-B2D1-30D6F78386C7
Resolution No. 21-093 15
proposed project activities and planned land uses are believed to pose a low threat to
bedrock aquifers that supply the City’s drinking water wells.
Wastewater - The City and regional wastewater system have the capacity to accept and
treat the proposed wastewater from the project.
Water - The City’s water system can adequately serve the project.
Stormwater Management - Stormwater management will be designed to meet the City
and MCWD requirements. Stormwater discharges from the project will be cleaner than
current water discharges and rates will be at or below existing discharge rates. During
construction of the proposed development, best management practices of temporary
stormwater management will be implemented.
Wildlife and Habitat - One wetland will be impacted by the proposed development and
may displace fish, wildlife, and plant communities within or nearby the wetland. It is not
anticipated that rare features that will be impacted. The proposed development
includes landscaping, parks, and stormwater retention areas that can provide habitat for
wildlife and plant communities. This area will include a blend of biodiverse, native,
drought-tolerant plant species that could provide pollinator habitat.
Historic Resources - There are no known historic resources on site. No impacts to
historic resources are anticipated as part of this development.
Visual – The project will be visually similar to buildings in the surrounding area.
Air – Emissions will be typical of residential/commercial development.
Noise – Noise levels will be typical of residential/commercial development.
Transportation – The traffic and parking study concluded that there is expected to be
minimal impact from the proposed project on the local and regional transportation
system. Additional sidewalk connections will improve non-motorized transportation.
Light Rail Station – The site is noted to be adjacent to a Southwest LRT light rail station.
The Beltline Station development will complement the transit functions in and around
the site.
2.4.2 Cumulative Potential Effects of Related or Anticipated Future Projects
Cumulative effects result from the incremental impact of the proposed project when added to
other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency o r
person undertakes such other actions. No cumulative potential effects are anticipated for this
project. Overall, the project fits within the existing neighborhood. Given that the site has been
previously developed and provides limited wildlife habitat, impacts are limited. The project can
be served by existing utilities and transportation infrastructure.
2.4.3 Extent to which the Environmental Effects are Subject to Mitigation by the
Ongoing Public Regulatory Authority
The mitigation of environmental impacts will be designed and implemented in coordination
with regulatory agencies and will be subject to the plan approval and permitting process.
Permits and approvals that have been obtained or may be required prior to project
construction are shown below:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 946A8AD5-6913-4C27-B2D1-30D6F78386C7
Resolution No. 21-093 16
Unit of Government Type of Application Status
Local
Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District
Stormwater Management
Permit
To be applied for
Erosion Control Permit To be applied for
WCA Replacement Plan
Approval
To be applied for, if needed
City of St. Louis Park Preliminary and Final Plat To be applied for
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment
To be applied for
Preliminary and Final Planned
Unit Development
To be applied for
Right-of-way Vacation To be applied for
Building Permits To be applied for
Demolition Permits To be applied for
Public Right-of-Way permit To be applied for
Sewer and Water Permit To be applied for
Erosion Control Permit To be applied for
Dewatering Permit To be applied for
Regional
Metropolitan Council Notification of intent to
perform a demolition
To be applied for
Construction Site Stormwater
Permit
To be applied for
Sewer Connection Permit To be applied for
Southwest LRT Project Office
Coordination for access
modification
To be applied for
Hennepin County ROW Vacation To be applied for
Work in ROW Permits To be applied for
Driveway Modification To be applied for
State
Minnesota Department of
Health
Notification of Asbestos
Related Work
To be applied for
Water Extension Permit To be applied for
Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency
Notification of intent to
perform a demolition
To be applied for
Construction Site Stormwater
Permit
To be applied for
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
permit
To be applied for
401 Water Quality
Certification
To be applied for, if needed
Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources
Water Appropriation Permit To be applied for
DocuSign Envelope ID: 946A8AD5-6913-4C27-B2D1-30D6F78386C7
Resolution No. 21-093 17
Unit of Government Type of Application Status
Minnesota Department of
Transportation
Driveway access permits and
utility permits
To be applied for
Federal
US Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit To be applied for, if needed
2.4.4 Extent to which Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and Controlled as a
Result of Other Environmental Studies
The City of St. Louis Park has previous multi-use development experience, and similar projects
have been designed and constructed throughout the county. Design and construction staff are
familiar with the project area. No problems are anticipated that city staff has not encountered
or successfully solved previously in similar projects in or near the project area. The City finds
that the environmental effects of the project can be anticipated and controlled as a result of
environmental review and experience on similar projects.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 946A8AD5-6913-4C27-B2D1-30D6F78386C7
Resolution No. 21-093 18
3. Conclusions
1. All requirements for environmental review of the proposed project have been met.
2. The EAW and the permit development processes related to the project have generated
information that is adequate to determine whether the project has the potential for
significant environmental effects.
3. Areas where potential environmental effects have been identified will be addressed
during the final design of the project. Mitigation will be provided where impacts are
expected to result from project construction, operation, or maintenance. Mitigation
measures are incorporated into project design and have been or will be coordinated
with state and federal agencies during the permit process.
4. Based on the criteria in Minnesota Rules, part 4410 .1700, the project does not have the
potential for significant environmental effects.
5. An environmental impact statement is not required for the proposed project.
For the City of St. Louis Park
_____________________________________________ ___________________________________________
Jake Spano, mayor Kim Keller, city manager
DocuSign Envelope ID: 946A8AD5-6913-4C27-B2D1-30D6F78386C7