Bench Handout Item 7.a June 7, 2021
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Bench Handout
Item 7.a
June 7, 2021
June 4, 2021
Mayor Dan Roe BY EMAIL
Roseville City Councilmembers
City of Roseville
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, MN 55113
Re: Victoria Shores/Petition for Discretionary EAW
Dear Mayor Roe and Councilmembers:
We represent Builders Lot Group (“BLG”), the developer of the 8-lot single-family subdivision
known as Victoria Shores in the City of Roseville, Minnesota (“City”). The development site is
guided and zoned for single-family housing. The preliminary plat was recommended for
approval by City staff and the Planning Commission on April 7, 2021. We understand the City
subsequently received a citizens petition requesting preparation of a discretionary Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (“EAW”) for the Victoria Shores development. An EAW for Victoria
Shores is not required by law and one would be inappropriate in this situation. We urge the City
Council to reject the petition for a discretionary EAW.
Under state law, a City requirement that an EAW be completed is only appropriate when the
petitioners have demonstrated that there is “material evidence” indicating a project could have
significant environmental effects if constructed. Minn. Rule 4410.1100, subp. 6. Further, the
law states that responsible units of government “shall deny” an EAW petition if the “evidence
presented fails to demonstrate the project may have the potential for significant environmental
effects.” Id. The Minnesota Court of Appeals has defined “material evidence” as meaning “such
evidence as is admissible, relevant, and consequential to determine whether the project may have
the potential for significant environmental effects.” Watab Twp. Citizen Alliance v. Benton
County Bd. of Comm'rs, 728 N.W.2d 82, 89 (Minn.App.2007). In Watab, the court found that
“allegations of vague or generalized fears and concerns are therefore not sufficient under the
statute.” Id.
The evidence in the record before the City Council does not support such a conclusion. City
staff and your Planning Commission carefully reviewed the application and technical data
submitted by BLG’s consultants and concluded the Victoria Shores development fully complies
with your development regulations and should be approved. We are aware of opposition to the
development from those who have signed the EAW petition, a number of whom are not citizens
of the City. The opposition of citizens, whether residents or not, is not a legally sufficient reason
to require preparation of an EAW. Aside from raising allegations and concerns, the petitionersMayor Dan Roe
Roseville City Councilmembers
June 4, 2021
Page 2
have not provided “material evidence” that Victoria Shores has “the potential for significant
environmental effects.”
Any development of land will, of necessity, alter the physical condition of the development site.
The City has adopted stringent environmental regulations to guard against unnecessary risk
associated with new development; moreover, the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District
has its own regulations providing added protection. Aside from allegations of potential harm
associated with the proposed development, no actual “material” risk of harm has been identified;
any theoretical risk can be properly managed through the City’s established regulatory process.
In addition, assuming the development receives final approval, it will be enforced by a
Development Agreement with added protections, both legal and financial, to guard against the
risk of environmental harm.
We urge the City Council to adopt a resolution dismissing the EAW petition as it fails to meet
the legal standards set forth in Chapter 4410 and Minnesota case law. Thank you for considering
these written comments as part of your deliberations in this matter.
Sincerely,
Peter J. Coyle, for
Larkin Hoffman
Direct Dial: (952) 896-3214
Direct Fax: (952) 841-1704
Email: pcoyle@larkinhoffman.com
cc: Builders Lot Group
City of Roseville Planning Staff
4810-8982-6797, v. 2From: Farveh Makhssous
To: Janice Gundlach
Cc: Steve Troskey, AICP
Subject: FW: Cultural Recourse Consultation - Victoria Shores Residential Development in Roseville
Date: Thursday, June 3, 2021 1:25:29 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image016.png
image017.png
image018.png
image019.png
image020.png
image021.png
image022.png
image023.png
image024.png
image025.png
image642985.png
image979200.png
image928810.png
image716772.png
History.xls
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
Hi Janice,
The report from SHPO came back and there are no archaeologic records for the project area. Can
you please mention that during your report to the Council?
Thanks!
Farveh Makhssous
Senior Planner
Direct 763.398.0856
Email FMakhssous@sambatek.com
Engineering | Surveying | Planning | Environmental
Trusted advisors since 1966.
| Watch our video and see why we're unique!
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and the documents accompanying this e-mail contain confidential
information. The information is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended
recipient, please notify us immediately by phone and delete it from your system.
From: MN_MNIT_Data Request SHPO
Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 12:51 PM
To: Farveh Makhssous
Subject: RE: Cultural Recourse Consultation - Victoria Shores Residential Development in Roseville
Hello Farveh,
Please see attached. Our database has no archaeologic records for the given project area.Jim SHPO Data Requests Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office 50 Sherburne Avenue, Suite 203 Saint Paul, MN 55155 (651) 201-3299 datarequestshpo@state.mn.us Notice: This email message simply reports the results of the cultural resources database search you requested. The database search is only for previously known archaeological sites and historic properties. IN NO CASE DOES THIS DATABASE SEARCH OR EMAIL MESSAGE CONSTITUTE A PROJECT REVIEW UNDER STATE OR FEDERAL PRESERVATION LAWS – please see our website at https://mn.gov/admin/shpo/protection/ for further information regarding our Environmental Review Process. Because the majority of archaeological sites in the state and many historic/architectural properties have not been recorded, important sites or properties may exist within the search area and may be affected by development projects within that area. Additional research, including field surveys, may be necessary to adequately assess the area’s potential to contain historic properties or archaeological sites. Properties that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or have been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP are indicated on the reports you have received, if any. The following codes may be on those reports: NR – National Register listed. The properties may be individually listed or may be within the boundaries of a National Register District. CEF – Considered Eligible Findings are made when a federal agency has recommended that a property is eligible for listing in the National Register and MN SHPO has accepted the recommendation for the purposes of the Environmental Review Process. These properties need to be further assessed before they are officially listed in the National Register. SEF – Staff eligible Findings are those properties the MN SHPO staff considers eligible for listing in the National Register, in circumstances other than the Environmental Review Process. DOE – Determination of Eligibility is made by the National Park Service and are those properties that are eligible for listing in the National Register, but have not been officially listed. CNEF – Considered Not Eligible Findings are made during the course of the Environmental Review Process. For the purposes of the review a property is considered not eligible for listing in the National Register. These properties may need to be reassessed for eligibility under additional or alternate contexts. Properties without NR, CEF, SEF, DOE, or CNEF designations in the reports may not have been evaluated and therefore no assumption to their eligibility can be made. Integrity and contexts change over time, therefore any eligibility determination made ten (10) or more years from the date of the current survey are considered out of date and the property will need to be reassessed. If you require a comprehensive assessment of a project’s potential to impact archaeological sites or historic/architectural properties, you may need to hire a qualified archaeologist and/or historian. If you need assistance with a project review, please contact Kelly Gragg-Johnson, Environmental Review Specialist @ 651-201- 3285 or by email at kelly.graggjohnson@state.mn.us. The Minnesota SHPO Archaeology and Historic/Architectural Survey Manuals can be found at https://mn.gov/admin/shpo/identification-evaluation/.
Given the Governor's implementation of Stay Safe MN, SHPO staff will continue to work
remotely and be available via phone and email, and the SHPO office will be closed to visitors
and unable to accommodate in-person research and deliveries. Mail is being delivered to the
office via USPS, FedEx and UPS, however, staff have limited weekly access to sort and process
mail. Our office will continue to take file search requests via DataRequestSHPO@state.mn.us.
Check SHPO's webpage for the latest updates and we thank you for your continued patience.
From: Farveh Makhssous
Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 8:51 AM
To: MN_MNIT_Data Request SHPO
Subject: RE: Cultural Recourse Consultation - Victoria Shores Residential Development in Roseville
That sounds good, thanks.
Farveh Makhssous
Senior Planner
Direct 763.398.0856
Email FMakhssous@sambatek.com
Engineering | Surveying | Planning | Environmental
Trusted advisors since 1966.
| Watch our video and see why we're unique!
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and the documents accompanying this e-mail contain confidential
information. The information is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended
recipient, please notify us immediately by phone and delete it from your system.
From: MN_MNIT_Data Request SHPO
Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 5:58 PM
To: Farveh Makhssous
Subject: RE: Cultural Recourse Consultation - Victoria Shores Residential Development in Roseville
Hello Farveh,
Probably later this week.
Jim
SHPO Data RequestsMinnesota State Historic Preservation Office 50 Sherburne Avenue, Suite 203 Saint Paul, MN 55155 (651) 201-3299 datarequestshpo@state.mn.us Notice: This email message simply reports the results of the cultural resources database search you requested. The database search is only for previously known archaeological sites and historic properties. IN NO CASE DOES THIS DATABASE SEARCH OR EMAIL MESSAGE CONSTITUTE A PROJECT REVIEW UNDER STATE OR FEDERAL PRESERVATION LAWS – please see our website at https://mn.gov/admin/shpo/protection/ for further information regarding our Environmental Review Process. Because the majority of archaeological sites in the state and many historic/architectural properties have not been recorded, important sites or properties may exist within the search area and may be affected by development projects within that area. Additional research, including field surveys, may be necessary to adequately assess the area’s potential to contain historic properties or archaeological sites. Properties that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or have been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP are indicated on the reports you have received, if any. The following codes may be on those reports: NR – National Register listed. The properties may be individually listed or may be within the boundaries of a National Register District. CEF – Considered Eligible Findings are made when a federal agency has recommended that a property is eligible for listing in the National Register and MN SHPO has accepted the recommendation for the purposes of the Environmental Review Process. These properties need to be further assessed before they are officially listed in the National Register. SEF – Staff eligible Findings are those properties the MN SHPO staff considers eligible for listing in the National Register, in circumstances other than the Environmental Review Process. DOE – Determination of Eligibility is made by the National Park Service and are those properties that are eligible for listing in the National Register, but have not been officially listed. CNEF – Considered Not Eligible Findings are made during the course of the Environmental Review Process. For the purposes of the review a property is considered not eligible for listing in the National Register. These properties may need to be reassessed for eligibility under additional or alternate contexts. Properties without NR, CEF, SEF, DOE, or CNEF designations in the reports may not have been evaluated and therefore no assumption to their eligibility can be made. Integrity and contexts change over time, therefore any eligibility determination made ten (10) or more years from the date of the current survey are considered out of date and the property will need to be reassessed. If you require a comprehensive assessment of a project’s potential to impact archaeological sites or historic/architectural properties, you may need to hire a qualified archaeologist and/or historian. If you need assistance with a project review, please contact Kelly Gragg-Johnson, Environmental Review Specialist @ 651-201- 3285 or by email at kelly.graggjohnson@state.mn.us. The Minnesota SHPO Archaeology and Historic/Architectural Survey Manuals can be found at https://mn.gov/admin/shpo/identification-evaluation/. Given the Governor's implementation of Stay Safe MN, SHPO staff will continue to work remotely and be available via phone and email, and the SHPO office will be closed to visitors and unable to accommodate in-person research and deliveries. Mail is being delivered to the office via USPS, FedEx and UPS, however, staff have limited weekly access to sort and process mail. Our office will continue to take file search requests via DataRequestSHPO@state.mn.us. Check SHPO's webpage for the latest updates and we thank you for your continued patience.
From: Farveh Makhssous
Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 3:33 PM
To: MN_MNIT_Data Request SHPO
Subject: RE: Cultural Recourse Consultation - Victoria Shores Residential Development in Roseville
Jim—when do you think we can expect this report back? Thanks!!
Farveh Makhssous
Senior Planner
Direct 763.398.0856
Email FMakhssous@sambatek.com
Engineering | Surveying | Planning | Environmental
Trusted advisors since 1966.
| Watch our video and see why we're unique!
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and the documents accompanying this e-mail contain confidential
information. The information is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended
recipient, please notify us immediately by phone and delete it from your system.
From: Farveh Makhssous
Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 1:28 PM
To: MN_MNIT_Data Request SHPO
Subject: RE: Cultural Recourse Consultation - Victoria Shores Residential Development in Roseville
Hi Jim,
Thanks so much for the quick response. The project is in: Section 2, T29N, R23W.
Please let me know if you need anything else. Thanks!
From: MN_MNIT_Data Request SHPO
Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 12:46 PM
To: Farveh Makhssous
Subject: RE: Cultural Recourse Consultation - Victoria Shores Residential Development in Roseville
Hello Farveh,
Please send the township, range and section numbers of the given parcels. I will then be able to run
the requested data reports for you. Thanx!Jim SHPO Data Requests Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office 50 Sherburne Avenue, Suite 203 Saint Paul, MN 55155 (651) 201-3299 datarequestshpo@state.mn.us Notice: This email message simply reports the results of the cultural resources database search you requested. The database search is only for previously known archaeological sites and historic properties. IN NO CASE DOES THIS DATABASE SEARCH OR EMAIL MESSAGE CONSTITUTE A PROJECT REVIEW UNDER STATE OR FEDERAL PRESERVATION LAWS – please see our website at https://mn.gov/admin/shpo/protection/ for further information regarding our Environmental Review Process. Because the majority of archaeological sites in the state and many historic/architectural properties have not been recorded, important sites or properties may exist within the search area and may be affected by development projects within that area. Additional research, including field surveys, may be necessary to adequately assess the area’s potential to contain historic properties or archaeological sites. Properties that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or have been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP are indicated on the reports you have received, if any. The following codes may be on those reports: NR – National Register listed. The properties may be individually listed or may be within the boundaries of a National Register District. CEF – Considered Eligible Findings are made when a federal agency has recommended that a property is eligible for listing in the National Register and MN SHPO has accepted the recommendation for the purposes of the Environmental Review Process. These properties need to be further assessed before they are officially listed in the National Register. SEF – Staff eligible Findings are those properties the MN SHPO staff considers eligible for listing in the National Register, in circumstances other than the Environmental Review Process. DOE – Determination of Eligibility is made by the National Park Service and are those properties that are eligible for listing in the National Register, but have not been officially listed. CNEF – Considered Not Eligible Findings are made during the course of the Environmental Review Process. For the purposes of the review a property is considered not eligible for listing in the National Register. These properties may need to be reassessed for eligibility under additional or alternate contexts. Properties without NR, CEF, SEF, DOE, or CNEF designations in the reports may not have been evaluated and therefore no assumption to their eligibility can be made. Integrity and contexts change over time, therefore any eligibility determination made ten (10) or more years from the date of the current survey are considered out of date and the property will need to be reassessed. If you require a comprehensive assessment of a project’s potential to impact archaeological sites or historic/architectural properties, you may need to hire a qualified archaeologist and/or historian. If you need assistance with a project review, please contact Kelly Gragg-Johnson, Environmental Review Specialist @ 651-201- 3285 or by email at kelly.graggjohnson@state.mn.us. The Minnesota SHPO Archaeology and Historic/Architectural Survey Manuals can be found at https://mn.gov/admin/shpo/identification-evaluation/.
Given the Governor's implementation of Stay Safe MN, SHPO staff will continue to work
remotely and be available via phone and email, and the SHPO office will be closed to visitors
and unable to accommodate in-person research and deliveries. Mail is being delivered to the
office via USPS, FedEx and UPS, however, staff have limited weekly access to sort and process
mail. Our office will continue to take file search requests via DataRequestSHPO@state.mn.us.
Check SHPO's webpage for the latest updates and we thank you for your continued patience.
From: Farveh Makhssous
Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 12:26 PM
To: MN_MNIT_Data Request SHPO
Subject: Cultural Recourse Consultation - Victoria Shores Residential Development in Roseville
Importance: High
This message may be from an external email source.
Do not select links or open attachments unless verified. Report all suspicious emails to Minnesota IT Services Security
Operations Center.
Hello,
I am preparing for a potential EAW in the City of Roseville, MN in Hennepin County and am
requesting a cultural resources review for the site to inform the impact analysis. This project is an 8-
lot residential development. Parcels are: 022923310058, 022923310048, 022923310001
Thank you!
Farveh Makhssous
Senior Planner
Direct 763.398.0856
Email FMakhssous@sambatek.com
Engineering | Surveying | Planning | Environmental
Trusted advisors since 1966.
| Watch our video and see why we're unique!
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and the documents accompanying this e-mail contain confidential
information. The information is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended
recipient, please notify us immediately by phone and delete it from your system.COUNTY CITYTWP PROPNAME ADDRESS TOWNRANGESECQUARTER USGS REPORTNUMNRH CE DOEINVENTNUM
Ramsey
Roseville
school 2760 Victoria St. N 29 23 2 SESW New Brighton RA-81-2H RA-RVC-0023
St. Paul
Osceola Avenue between Chatsworth St. and Milton
Osceola Avenue Cobbleston Street St. 29 23 2 SW-SE-SW Saint Paul West RA-SPC-5650
W.A. Long House 661 Goodrich Ave. 29 23 2 SE-NE-SE St. Paul West Y RA-SPC-7404
A.J. Brawley House 829 Goodrich Ave. 29 23 2 SW-NW-SE St. Paul West Y RA-SPC-7458From: Dwayne Sikich
To: Janice Gundlach; "Peter Coyle"
Cc: Bryan Lloyd; Steven Soltau; Steve Troskey; Eric Luth; "Bruce Rydeen"; Larry B. Stevens; Shannon Melloy
(smelloy@comcast.net); "Melvin Moore"
Subject: FW: Lake Owasso Wetland Development
Date: Sunday, June 6, 2021 7:45:29 PM
Attachments: 2021-05-13-DNR-Comments-VictoriaShores-PreliminaryPlat-and-CUP.pdf
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
FYI - The email below was received from Mr. Walz (EAW petition applicant) on Friday. Andy also
re-sent the letter from the East Metro Hydrologist that was received back in mid-May.
DWAYNE SIKICH
BUILDERS LOT GROUP, LLC
dwayne@builderslotgroup.com
612.290.5704
From: Andy Walz
Sent: Friday, June 4, 2021 2:02 PM
To: Melvin Moore
Cc: steven@builderslotgroup.com; melvin@builderslotgroup.com; Bruce Rydeen
; Eric Luth ; Dwayne Sikich
Subject: Re: Lake Owasso Wetland Development
Greetings Mr. Moore et al-
I am writing again regarding the proposed development on Lake Owasso in Roseville. As you know,
the DNR has made significant recommendations regarding this project, and is recommending that
the city council deny the application at this time. The full comments and recommendations are
attached.
You have stated that you know this wetland is valuable and are working with the governing agencies
to ensure the wetland is not impacted. Now is the time to heed their advice, not just what may be
allowed by code. Proceeding now to build 5 houses on the lake with funnel shaped lots in order for
each to access the lake via 6 docks with 8 or more boats is what is of questionable integrity and
certain to cause irreversible harm to the environment. Urban wetlands are rare and this one has
particularly thick aquatic growth that forms critical habitat and plays a critical role with filtration and
retention of toxins. It is shallow so increased boat traffic through this area will stir up sediment and
phosphorus, degrading lake quality and hurting wildlife. I know mitigation and maintenance
agreements are being worked on but you need only look at the clear cutting that happened at the
property next door to see how quickly these systems fail. By simply examining the satellite imagery
basemap on google maps you can see how neighboring docks have disturbed the aquatic vegetation
and imagine what concentrating 6 of these in together on the curved shoreline of this site will do.
The DNR has recommended that you re-plat the riparian lots so they are not riparian, thus
eliminating riparian rights, including the right to access the lake via docks. Will you consider thisrecommendation regardless of what the city requires? Brian Llyod tells me you are "the good kind" of developer so I'm hopeful that you'll be proactive and agree to comply with the DNR recommendations which will protect this sensitive wetland from unnecessary human activity. Especially given the current market, I am certain you could still make as much money developing along Victoria Avenue and marketing the homes as lake view, abutting a wetland and a "bird lover's paradise." My kids and I have been watching loons battle for territory down at your site all spring. They only do this for the most desirable nesting habitats in the area--it is really a sight to see (I have video if you are interested). Allowing each home to traverse the wetland, marketing it as lake access, and promoting each home to have their own riparian rights, dock and boats will be a death sentence for the wetland and could mean the end of loons on Lake Owasso. Thank you for considering this. Sincerely, Andrew Walz andywalz@gmail.com On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 9:39 AM Melvin Moore wrote: Good morning Andrew, Thank you for reaching out to us regarding the Victoria Shores development. The concerns you raised in your correspondence are well noted. Our engineers are taking every step to mitigate impacting the natural landscape including but not limited to designing the project to meet and exceed local and state building codes. The engineers have designed this project to comply with the city of Roseville comprehensive plan and local zoning ordinances. Our engineers are working with the city of Roseville engineering department and other governing agencies to insure compliance relative to wetland set backs and other development criteria governed by the state, city of Roseville and DNR. I am always available by email or phone if you have further questions. My phone number is 651-336-8767. Thanks again. On Saturday, April 24, 2021, 11:08:10 PM CDT, Andy Walz wrote: Hello Builders Lot Group- I'm a Lake Owasso resident concerned about the impact your proposed Victoria Shores development will have on the wetland it abuts. To date there has been limited development on all of the Lake's wetland areas. What you have proposed, however, could mean a lot of docks (or boardwalks?) in a condensed area in the thickest part of
the wetland. Loons nest in this area, Egrets fish, turtles sit in the sun, and bass fishermen cast in the weeds. Introduction of boat traffic, docks and channel cutting would be detrimental to all of this. Can you tell me more about your docks/boardwalks plan and how you'll protect the wetland? Would you consider making some of the lots "lakeview" only? There is public water access nearby at both Central Park North and Lake Owasso County Park. I'm also concerned generally about water quality and the effect on flooding the introduction of all the impervious surface for 8 large homes is going to have. Already we are seeing the lake rise after rain events much quicker than it ever has in years past due to so much new development and tree removal in Roseville. Any extra steps you can take to mitigate these concerns is much appreciated. Any information you can share to help put us at ease is also appreciated. Sincerely, -- Andrew Walz andywalz@gmail.com -- Andy Walz andywalz@gmail.com
June 4, 2021 Janice Gundlach City of Roseville Community Development Director Janice.gundlach@cityofroseville.com RE: Victoria Shores Development Dear Janice, At its June 2 meeting, the RWMWD board of managers had a lengthy discussion regarding the proposed Victoria Shores development and asked me to write a letter to share with you and City Council. As a watershed, our goal includes the preservation and protection of wetlands and lakes. These goals are at the core of our mission and carry through to our rules and regulatory program. We work closely with our cities to address the impacts of land use and development on our natural resources. We also understand we have shared goals in protecting those resources. Specific to the proposed Victoria Shores development, my board desires that we continue to work together to find a balance of development that allows people to enjoy the adjacent water resources and protection that would allow those resources to continue to thrive. The watershed uses all the tools available to mitigate environmental damage during construction and thorough inspection and enforcement in the future when the development is complete. However, we know that it is easier to be creative in the development design phase than to try and depend on the enforcement of legal agreements and provisions in the long term. We ask the city to consider what development considerations you can put in place to protect the wetland and lake from multiple access points and change in natural vegetation because of those accesses. Are there additional mechanisms that could be used to limit the impact of this development? The watershed district can then provide additional protections through our permitting process provisions and agreements in collaboration with the city to allow for that protection in perpetuity.
We look forward to continuing the discussion around this development and our shared desire
to promote water resource smart development. We would be happy to discuss design specifics
that could help accomplish our mutual goals.
Sincerely,
Tina Carstens
RWMWD Administrator
cc: RWMWD Board of Managers
Nicole Soderholm, RWMWD Permit Coordinator
Patrick Trudgeon, Roseville City Manager
City of Roseville Mayor and City CouncilFrom: Pat Trudgeon
To: Janice Gundlach
Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council
Date: Friday, June 4, 2021 8:07:40 AM
-----------------------------------------------
Patrick Trudgeon | City Manager
O: 651.792-7021 | | F: 651.792.7020
pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com
2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113
Facebook | Twitter | YouTube
----------------------------------------------------
From: noreply@civicplus.com
Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 10:13 PM
To: *RVCouncil ; Dawn O'Connor
; Pat Trudgeon
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
Contact City Council
Please complete this online form and submit.
Subject Victoria Shores
Contact Information
Name: Heidi Walz
Address: 3097 Sandy Hook Drive
City: Roseville
State: MN
Zip: 55113
This form goes to the Mayor, all Councilmembers and certain City Staff. Due to
the volume of emails submitted, a personal reply is not always possible.
How would you prefer to Email
be contacted? Rememberto fill in the
corresponding contact
information.
Email Address:
Phone Number:
Please Share Your An agenda item for the upcoming City Council meeting on June 7
Comment, Question or is regarding the Victoria Shores project. An environmental review
Concern was requested by citizens through the MN Environmental Quality
Board process as outlined here:
https://www.eqb.state.mn.us/content/environmental-review-
guidance-citizens. You will now vote on whether or not this
should be completed. I urge you to vote yes. Vote yes to request
gaining as much information as possible on this complicated
proposal.
The Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District and DNR are
also reviewing the project. The DNR has made significant
recommendations including that the city council deny the
application at this time.
The 3 Reiling parcels are zoned as residential, and it would be
the land owner's right to develop it as such. I realize you cannot
tell the landowner they cannot build on this land. However the
DNR has made recommendations on how homes could be built
with conditions that would preserve the wetland. The DNR has
made it clear that the site could be developed, and by granting
lake access at a single point instead of 6 points will significantly
limit the impact on the lake and wetland. Given the current
housing market, the land owner and developer could still make
as much money developing along Victoria Avenue and marketing
the homes as lake view, abutting a wetland and a bird lover's
paradise. Allowing each home to traverse the wetland, marketing
it as lake access, and promoting each home to have their own
dock and boats will decimate the wetland. Once this decision is
made, it cannot be undone.
I am concerned that the city council will be hesitant to impose the
DNR recommendations in fear of litigation. There's a very similar
scenario playing out on Lake Minnetonka right now where a
neighbor is suing the city for allowing this to happen next door to
her property (https://bringmethenews.com/minnesota-
lifestyle/neighbor-sues-to-block-estate-from-dividing-billionaires-
lake-minnetonka-property). These are complicated issues. I urge
you to lean on recommendations and guidance from the DNR.
When it comes time, please vote in accordance with what the
DNR is recommending as they are the experts in our state when
it comes to protecting our natural resources.Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City
government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such
as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act
and/or may be disclosed to third parties.
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.From: Pat Trudgeon To: Janice Gundlach Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Date: Friday, June 4, 2021 1:36:09 PM ----------------------------------------------- Patrick Trudgeon | City Manager O: 651.792-7021 | | F: 651.792.7020 pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube ---------------------------------------------------- From: noreply@civicplus.com Sent: Friday, June 4, 2021 1:15 PM To: *RVCouncil ; Dawn O'Connor ; Pat Trudgeon Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution. Contact City Council Please complete this online form and submit. Subject Lake Owasso Victoria Development Contact Information Name: Erin Olson Address: 3065 Sandy Hook dr City: Roseville State: MN Zip: 55113 This form goes to the Mayor, all Councilmembers and certain City Staff. Due to the volume of emails submitted, a personal reply is not always possible. How would Email you prefer to
be contacted?
Remember to
fill in the
corresponding
contact
information.
Email
Address:
Phone Field not completed.
Number:
Please Share Hello,
Your
Comment, Thank you for all the work you all do for our beautiful city! Roseville is truly a special
Question or place to live. I wanted to share a recent article with you that came across my
Concern newsfeed from Kare 11. It is a recent study done my the U of M about some of the
growing issues that they have identified in our lakes due to over development and
wetland/watersheds not being properly protected. We have a responsibility to protect
one of the biggest things that makes MN so unique, special, and desirable...our
lakes. A quote from the article: "Research team members conclude that reducing
nutrient loading (pollution) to lakes is possible by protecting forested watersheds and
using best management practices on agricultural lands to reduce run-off."
Please take a quick read and take this study into consideration as you finalize plans
for what can and can't happen with the proposed development on the south side of
lake owasso on victoria.
https://www.kare11.com/article/tech/science/environment/u-of-m-researchers-worlds-
freshwater-lakes-losing-oxygen-planet-warms/89-d3e89f49-c19b-46ec-90e2-
75fa0a59c5e3?
fbclid=IwAR36r5BBrjmUjg85S_Hi7Pcex6mL5nVrelAVHVQhXZ5Rcw1jd1XCoKGOrx4
Thank you so much,
Erin Olson
Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government
offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may
be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to
third parties.
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.From: Pat Trudgeon
To: Janice Gundlach
Subject: Fwd: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council
Date: Friday, June 4, 2021 5:02:04 PM
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: noreply@civicplus.com
Date: June 4, 2021 at 4:43:29 PM CDT
To: *RVCouncil , Dawn O'Connor
, Pat Trudgeon
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
Contact City Council
Please complete this online form and submit.
Subject Approve the Lake Owasso Environmental Review! Follow DNR
Recommendations on Victoria Shores Developement!
Contact Information
Name: Carolyn Vanous
Address: W Owasso Blvd
City: Field not completed.
State: Field not completed.
Zip: Field not completed.
This form goes to the Mayor, all Councilmembers and certain City Staff. Due to
the volume of emails submitted, a personal reply is not always possible.
How would you prefer Email
to be contacted?
Remember to fill in thecorresponding contact
information.
Email Address:
Phone Number: Field not completed.
Please Share Your Hello,
Comment, Question or
Concern I am strongly advocating for the City to conduct an Environmental
Assessment, as recommended by MN Environmental Quality
Board in regards to the proposed development on Lake Owasso
(Victoria Shores Development).
Additionally, I am strongly in favor of the City following the DNR's
recommendations regarding the proposed Victoria Shores
development, including:
1. Re-plat the riparian lots so they are not riparian, thus
eliminating riparian rights, including the right to access the lake
via docks.
2. Permanently protect the wetland area in Lots 1-5 through a
conservation easement or through restrictions in the Covenant,
Code and Restrictions (CC&R) document developed for the
homeowners association and approved by the City.
As currently proposed, the Victoria Shores development would
divvy-up one of the last remaining ecologically sensitive wetland
fringe areas of Lake Owasso. This area is home to endangered
species and this development threatens this critical watershed
and exacerbate flooding.
Please vote with the environment and keep our community
sustainable!
Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City
government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such
as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act
and/or may be disclosed to third parties.
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.From: Pat Trudgeon
To: Janice Gundlach
Subject: Fwd: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council
Date: Friday, June 4, 2021 4:22:35 PM
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: noreply@civicplus.com
Date: June 4, 2021 at 4:02:44 PM CDT
To: *RVCouncil , Dawn O'Connor
, Pat Trudgeon
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
Contact City Council
Please complete this online form and submit.
Subject Vote to approve the environmental review
Contact Information
Name: Jennifer Barshack
Address: 955 Lydia Drive West
City: Roseville
State: MN
Zip: 55113
This form goes to the Mayor, all Councilmembers and certain City Staff. Due to
the volume of emails submitted, a personal reply is not always possible.
How would you prefer Email
to be contacted?
Remember to fill in the
corresponding contactinformation.
Email Address:
Phone Number:
Please Share Your Dear Mayor Roe, and Roseville City Councilmembers:
Comment, Question or
Concern I write today to ask for your vote to approve the Environmental
Assessment (EAW) that was requested via the citizens petition
sent to the MN Environmental Quality Board for the proposed
development of 6.4 acres on the south end of Lake Owasso on
Victoria Avenue. Materials provided to you noted as of 5/7/21
more than 800 residents had signed the petition.
The plan is to divide 6.4 acres into eight lots with five large
homes to be built on the lake and three homes to be built with
shared lake access. This acreage is heavily forested and the
shoreline here is part of a federally classified PEM1C wetland.
For reference: https://owasso.help
Cut and paste to see video: https://youtu.be/DMoue3YUTKs
I also request that you closely review the DNR’s
recommendations.
*"DNR's review indicates the Preliminary Plat application is
incomplete and requires a variance. Therefore, DNR strongly
recommends the City Council deny this application.”
* The DNR states they "also encourage the City to work with the
applicant to negotiate a modified proposal that significantly
reduces impacts to Lake Owasso."
DNR recommends the following solution:
* Re-plat the riparian lots so they are not riparian, thus
eliminating riparian rights, including the right to access the lake
via docks.
* Permanently protect the wetland area in Lots 1-5 through a
conservation easement or through restrictions in the Covenant,
Code and Restrictions (CC&R) document developed for the
homeowners association and approved by the City.
* Provide all lots located east of Victoria Street with a single point
of lake access through the commonly owned controlled access
lot.
Sharing again in case you did not read my comments in the
petition:
One of the reasons we chose to move to Roseville in 2007 and
raise our family here is because of the quiet neighborhoods, and
the beauty of the wilderness and wildlife.
We love to walk and breathe the fresh air, and live with many
types of wild animals and birds that make their homes in the
wetlands and forest.Unfortunately, over the 14 years we have lived here, so many
new homes and large complexes have been built, destroying
wildlife habitats and changing the very face and feel of this area.
This must stop! These changes to the environment to be more
and more urban are not only bad for wildlife but are bad for
humans, especially our children. This endangers and destroys
animals, devalues our homes and neighborhoods, and causes
more car traffic, pollution, and strain on all of our natural
resources.
We all know this is about money and not about the well-being of
Roseville residents. Must 8 new homes have private access at
the cost of wetland and wildlife that the rest of the
city/county/state population can enjoy? I am strongly opposed to
more destruction of the natural habitats we dearly love and have
come to rely on for mental and physical health.
Please save Roseville from more destruction. Vote in favor of the
Environmental Assessment and follow DNR recommendations
before we lose all that makes Roseville a beautiful and healthy
environment for all of us.
Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City
government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such
as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act
and/or may be disclosed to third parties.
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.From: Pat Trudgeon
To: Janice Gundlach
Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council
Date: Monday, June 7, 2021 3:35:29 PM
-----------------------------------------------
Patrick Trudgeon | City Manager
O: 651.792-7021 | | F: 651.792.7020
pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com
2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113
Facebook | Twitter | YouTube
----------------------------------------------------
From: noreply@civicplus.com
Sent: Monday, June 7, 2021 2:55 PM
To: *RVCouncil ; Dawn O'Connor
; Pat Trudgeon
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
Contact City Council
Please complete this online form and submit.
Subject Victoria Development along Lake Owasso
Contact Information
Name: Stephanie S. Billecke
Address: 962 Lydia Ave. West
City: Roseville
State: MN
Zip: 55113
This form goes to the Mayor, all Councilmembers and certain City Staff. Due to
the volume of emails submitted, a personal reply is not always possible.
How would you prefer to Email
be contacted? Rememberto fill in the
corresponding contact
information.
Email Address:
Phone Number:
Please Share Your I am writing to ask that you deny the application to build along
Comment, Question or Victoria Ave (Lake Owasso), per DNR recommendations. It's
Concern imperative that we maintain our sensitive wetland areas, giving
as much protection as possible.
Many of us moved to Roseville precisely because of these
wilderness spaces. In the 7 years that I've lived here, I've
watched far too many of our wild spaces disappear. It has been
discouraging to witness.
Please, it's time to stop building and start protecting. Please
heed the environmental experts in this important decision. The
risk of damage is enormous and we must proceed with all
caution.
Many thanks for your consideration,
Stephanie
Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City
government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such
as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act
and/or may be disclosed to third parties.
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.You can also read
