HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.a CSAH 42 and Akron Avenue AUAR, 06-16-CPAGENDA ITEM: 06 -16 -CP CSAH 42 and Akron Avenue
AUAR
AGENDA SECTION:
Old Business
PREPARED BY: Eric Zweber, AICP; Senior Planner
AGENDA NO. p G 41.
ATTACHMENTS: Memo from Andrea Moffatt of WSB, Draft
AUAR Comment Responses
APPROVED BY-
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve the responses to the commen received
during the 30 -day public comment period of the CSAH 42 and Akron Avenue AUAR and
authorize the release of the revised AUAR for a 10 -day agency review period.
City Council authonzes Release of the Draft AUAR
September 19, 2006
Public Review and Comment Penod
October 9 through November 9, 2006
Agency and General Pubhc Open Houses
October 10, 2006
City Council Review of Revised AUAR
December 19, 2006
Agency 10 -day Review of Revised AUAR
December 2006 January 2007
City Council Adoption of the Final AUAR
February 2007
1
4ROSEMOUNT
CITY COUNCIL
City Council Regular Meeting: December 19, 2006
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ISSUE
On February 7, 2006, the City Council authorized the creation of an Alternative Urban Areawide Review
(AUAR) to evaluate the infrastructure needs and environmental impacts caused by the development of
approximately 1,500 acres north of County Road 42 and along both sides of Akron Avenue (the CSAH 42
and Akron Avenue AUAR). On September 19, 2006, the City Council authorized the release of the
AUAR for the 30 -day pubhc review and comment period. Since the comments have been received, WSB
staff and City staff have prepared responses to the comments and revisions to the AUAR where
warranted.
SUMMARY
Andrea Moffatt, from WSB, will be giving a presentation highlighting the comments received for the
AUAR and discussing the draft responses. These responses will need to be released to the commenting
agencies for a final 10 -day review. Following that 10 -day review period, staff will bring the final AUAR for
City Council adoption m early February.
Important Dates in the AUAR process
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends a motion to approve the responses to the comments received during the 30 -day pubhc
comment period of the CSAH 42 and Akron Avenue AUAR and authorize the release of the revised
AUAR for a 10 -day agency review period.
WSB
Associates Inc.
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Andrea Moffatt, WSB Associates, Inc.
Date: December 12, 2006
Re: CSAH42 /Akron Avenue AUAR
Responses to Comments
WSB Project No. 1556 -65
Attached, please find a draft memo containing the responses to comments received as part of the
30 -day comment period for the Draft CSAH 42 /Akron Altemative Urban Areawide Review
(AUAR). The 30 -day comment period for the Draft AUAR ended November 8, 2006. Based on
the comments, portions of the AUAR will be revised as indicated in the responses to the
comments. There are no major changes to the Final AUAR based on these comments.
It is requested that the City Council review the responses to comments and authorize distribution
of the Final AUAR for the second 10 -day comment period. Once the 10 -day comment period
ends and no objections to the AUAR are filed, the City Council can adopt the AUAR. The
adoption of the AUAR is anticipated in February.
If you have any questions, prior to the meeting, please call me at (763)287 -7196.
G 120061PhmnIg Cases106-16 -CP County Road42 Akron Ave A(JARIM100.121206bnccdoc
Memorandum
To:
Matt Langan, Department of Natural Resources
Mary McNeil Department of Transportation
Phyllis Hanson, Metropolitan Council
Greg Konat, Dakota County
Jim Davidson, Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District
Becky Balk, Department of Agriculture
Bruce Minea and Jill O'Rourke, Landowners
Jeff and Jackie Wilcziek, Landowners
Todd Bodem, Tollefson Development
Mike McMenomy, Landowner
John McMenomy, Landowner
From: Andrea Moffatt, WSB Associates
Date: December 12, 2006
Re: CSAH 92 /Akron Area AUAR
Responses to Comments
WSB Project No. 1556 -65
DRAFT
On behalf of the City of Rosemount, please find below responses to comments received as part of
the public review of the Draft CSAH 42/ Akron Area Alternative Urban Areawide Review
(AUAR). The comment period on the Draft AUAR ended on November 8, 2006. The full record
of comments is attached to this memo. The restatement of comments below only includes those
comments related to the necessary environmental review of the site.
Comments from the Department of Natural Resources:
Comment 1: Mitigation Measures B1 -B11: Fish, Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resources
Most of the mitigation measures listed on pages 7 -8 are required under the Wetland Conservation
Act or city ordinance. These measures alone do not represent a commitment to avoid impacts to
resources. The Draft AUAR mitigation plan is not adequate It falls short of being the "most
important result of the AUAR process," as envisioned in the Guide to Minnesota Environmental
Review Rules. What we look for in the AUAR process are opportunities to conserve and manage
the natural resources, particularly habitat, within the AUAR study area and, ideally, over the larger
citywide and regional scales as well. The Draft AUAR seems to point in the direction of
conservation without actually taking the necessary steps to accomplish that goal. The document
identifies the northwest part of the site as providing a variety of habitat, including wetlands,
woodland, brushland and grassland. Figure 11.1 shows this area as having several wetlands
classified as "Preserve" wetlands in the City's Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan. Figure
G 120061Planning Cases106 -16-CP County Road 42 Akron Ave. AUARIMEMO-Comment Responses 121206 doc
CSAH 42 /Akron Area Draft AUAR
Responses to Comments
December 12, 2006
Page 2
11.2 shows Regionally Significant Ecological Areas extending north from the northwest portion of
the site. Ecologically, this is the most important part of the site. It not only provides habitat, but
also connects to habitat areas off -site. The RGU could easily develop a plan to preserve this area.
The mitigation plan, however, does not commit the RGU to take action to prevent impacts to this
area, but rather, defers these decisions to the project development and permitting stages. In the
absence of a comprehensive mitigation plan, planning and permitting decisions will end up being
made on a project specific basis after the development of project concepts. The decision to use the
AUAR approach will have come to nothing.
Response: The City has undertaken a number of background studies to investigate wetlands
and wildlife habitat in the area. With this information, the City has enacted policies which
are actually more protective than many other communities in the Metro area. The City was
one of the first communities to complete a Wetland Management Plan back in 1998 and has
recently (in 2005) completed an update to the policies of this Plan to further protect wetland
resources in the City. This Plan goes beyond the Wetland Conservation Act. Some
examples include:
Requires a 3:1 mitigation ratio on Preserve wetlands
Requires 75 foot buffers on Preserve wetlands (as well as buffers for other
wetlands)
Requires minimum buffer widths if buffer averaging is applied to a project
The City has done much of its environmental planning and protection prior to conducting
this AUAR and this work does represent a commitment by the City to protect its natural
resources. As part of the mitigation plan, a more detailed ecological review of the area is
required and additional mitigation measure could be needed depending on the results of that
review. The City also requires parkland dedication and will look to dedicate those areas
with higher ecological function. The City will use park dedication, density bonuses,
greenway corridor implementation, and alternative storm water management techniques to
protect and enhance high value areas in the study area. The mitigation measures have been
clarified to reflect the City's intent.
Comment 2: Fish, Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resources (Item No. 11)
The conceptual greenway corridor (Figure 11 -3) loops south of the wooded area, in effect skirting
the higher quality habitat The linear corridor appears to provide a trail function, but very little
habitat function. Tying it to a complex woodland and wetland would greatly strengthen the habitat
function. It's not clear that this is what the City is attempting to do.
Response: The corridor that has been planned by the City is anticipated to provide for
wildlife and habitat protection as well as recreational opportunities. The corridor width is
anticipated to vary depending on the resources in the area. The City has provided flexibility
in the location of the corridor in order to preserve important habitat, provide recreational
opportunities, and to link to other regional trail systems. The City also will look at parkland
dedication and other tools to protect and preserve high value areas.
G 120061Plammmg Cases106 -16-CP County Road 42 Akron Ave AUARWMEMO- Comment Responses 121206 dot
CSAH 42 /Akron Area Draft AUAR
Responses to Comments
December 12, 2006
Page 3
A north -south link is also anticipated to be needed in the area as discussed in the AUAR and
it is anticipated that the City's corridor will be implemented to connect with the future north-
south regional corridor. The City will use their flexibility during development plan reviews
and discussions with local landowners to take advantage of protecting natural resources
where applicable. The City is willing to work with the County and DNR to plan for the
north -south trail alignment. The only way to obtain funding for this trail alignment is for the
County to adopt a Trail Corridor Plan that includes this area.
The City will also look for additional opportunities to preserve and create natural areas
through alternative storm water management techniques and by providing density bonuses.
This has been added to the AUAR as part of the City's efforts to investigate feasible and
effective alternative storm water management techniques for the area.
Finally, some of the landowners in the northern portion of the study area are investigating
opportunities to apply for the County's Farmland and Natural Areas program. Through this
program and other opportunities, the City, County, and landowners are pursing a variety of
options to continue to protect natural resources within the community.
Comments from Mn/DOT
Comment 1: Right-of-way preservation/acquisition:
The added traffic associated with the proposed development will result in a more urgent timetable
for the future expansion of TH 3. The AUAR, page 59, predicts a Level of Service "F" for TH 3 in
the year 2020, with average daily traffic (ADT) volumes of approximately 25,000 to 30,000. This
will result in the need for TH 3 to be widened to a four lane divided highway. Sufficient right -of-
way is not currently available to permit widening the highway, nor has any funding been identified
to acquire right -of -way. Mn/DOT Metro District recommends that the City of Rosemount preserve
right -of -way suitable for TH 3 expansion, and identify funding available for that purpose.
Response: As indicated in the AUAR and as noted above, the traffic volumes on TH 3 will
exceed the capacity of the roadway in the future. This has also been noted in the City's
Transportation Plan and other documents that have been prepared by the City. The City is
interested in working with Mn/DOT to begin the County's Transportation Plan process of
removing this portion of TH 3 from the Preservation Category in order to have more
flexibility in securing additional funding. The City will work with Mn/DOT in determining
a future plan for the corridor that will identify right -of -way requirements and access
locations along the corridor.
Comment 2: Access spacing and access management:
There are seven signalized intersections in the 5 7 miles between County Road 42 in Rosemount,
and TH 149 in Inver Grove Heights. The AUAR indicates that two additional intersections on TH 3
may need to be upgraded. When additional intersection control may be needed, the appropriate type
of control would need to be determined by an "Intersection Control Evaluation," which would need
to be approved by Mn/DOT. This could include: "Three quarter intersections" (which would not
allow for left turn movements from the cross road); roundabouts; typical signalized intersections;
G 120061Plannmg Cases106 -16-CP County Road 42 Akron Ave AUARIMEMO- Comment Responses 121206 doc
CSAH 42 /Akron Area Draft AUAR
Responses to Comments
December 12, 2006
Page 4
signalized intersections with dual left turn lanes; or a non typical intersection such as a continuous
flow intersection (an intersection type usually signalized, where left turns take place
simultaneously with through movements).
Response: This comment is noted and an Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) will be
prepared at such time when a new intersection or modified traffic is proposed in the
corridor.
Comment 3: An access management corridor study analyzed the section of TH 3 between the
south boundary of Rosemount and Farmington. That study determined the specific or general
locations of anticipated future full access intersections that would connect cross roads with TH 3.
The study recommended spacing of full access intersections at least one -half mile apart. Access has
not been studies along the portion of TH 3 that passes through Rosemount and proceeds north;
however, it is most likely that, if studied, it would be concluded that access spacing north of the
City should be the same as south of the City. Based on the development scenarios noted within the
AUAR, proposed development may also require the spacing of full access intersections on TH 3 of
one -half mile. This assumes that future development west of TH 3 in Rosemount would not result
in additional full access intersections. The area west of TH 3 is currently guided for Rural
Residential, and Transitional Residential (see City of Rosemount Land Use Comp Plan). We also
assume that access at existing minor street connections to TH 3 would eventually be restricted to
Right Turn In/ Right Turn Out Only.
Response: As stated in Comment No. 1, the City is willing to work with Mn/DOT to
determine a future plan for TH 3 through the City of Rosemount. At this time, the access
locations as indicated in the AUAR, as well as the City's Transportation Plan, would meet
the half -mile spacing guidelines for signalized intersections. No additional access is
anticipated in the corridor, however, a more detailed access plan should be completed in
cooperation between the City and Mn/DOT.
Comment 4: Traffic forecasts The traffic volumes presented in the maps in Appendix "C" appear
to be significantly overstated and should be re- checked; i.e., the existing 2004 volume on County
Road 38 at TH 3 shows 6,000 vehicles per day.
Response: This traffic volume was a typo and should indicate as 600 vehicles per day.
This has been corrected in the final AUAR
Comment 5: The forecasts included in the AUAR should include explanation/justification for the
background traffic growth rate, and the distribution of trips. Another factor that should be
addressed in the AUAR are the potential local road network changes associated with the Eagan
Inver Grove Heights Transportation Study.
Response: The AUAR anticipated a 2.5% growth rate on CSAH 42 and TH 3, and a 1%
prorated growth rate on all other adjacent roadways. The factors were based on the City's
Transportation Plan and anticipated overall growth in the area. With the magnitude of the
proposed development area added to this growth rate, traffic volumes appear to be
G 12006 Plmmmg Cases106 -16-CP County Road 42 Akron Ave AUARIMEMO -Comment Responses 121216 doe
CSAH 42 /Akron Area Draft AUAR
Responses to Comments
December 12, 2006
Page 5
reasonable in comparison to other plans. The traffic distribution was also based on the
origins and destinations from the City's transportation model. The City's transportation
model was based on the Dakota County Transportation Plan model.
Comment 6: Potential New 120 Street at TH 3:
It is not possible to determine from the AUAR whether there is a potential need for a full access
intersection at this location Figure 21 -5 of the AUAR projects turning movements at this location
for 2020. The volume of traffic moving through this intersection is fairly low. This may indicate
that a "Three Quarter Intersection" may be appropriate.
Response: The City concurs with this comment. As part of the AUAR, the impact of no
access at 120 Street was also analyzed. As development occurs in this area, this access
location will be studied in more detail to determine its feasibility.
Comment 7: There is a curve in TH 3 just to the north of the potential intersection of TH 3 and
120 Street. Because of the curve, there is not sufficient "sight distance" for a full access
intersection at the proposed location. Any type of full access intersection, including a Three
Quarter Intersection, will likely need to be moved south of the proposed location.
Response: See response to Comment No. 6.
Comment 8: Intersection upgrade at 132 Street/County Road 38 at TH 3:
This intersection was recently reconstructed. Traffic volume increases projected in the AUAR for
TH 3 and County Road 38 indicate a potential need to upgrade this intersection in the future. A
wetland in the northeast quadrant of the intersection will limit expansion options.
Response: As indicated in the comment, this intersection was recently upgraded to provide
left-turn lanes in both directions on TH 3, and additional turn lanes on Old CR 38/132
Street. In the future, the only additional upgrade to this intersection would be the
installation of a traffic signal or other intersection control based on an Intersection Control
Evaluation (ICE).
Comment 9: Local Road System: Alternative parallel roads to TH 3:
The AUAR recommends the upgrading of County Road 73. Mn/DOT strongly supports the
proposed upgrading of County Road 73, which could divert local trips off of TH 3.
Response: This comment has been noted.
Comment 10: Anticipated impacts to TH 52:
The amount of traffic generated by this type of development is very likely to increase traffic on TH
52, particularly at the interchange with Dakota CSAH 42 Impacts to this highway and interchange
should be investigated and documented.
Response: The proposed development area will increase traffic at the CSAH 42 and TH 52
interchange; however, this interchange has been studied and is currently being studied by the
G. 110061Plannng CasesI06 -16CP County Road 41 Akron Ave AUARLUEMOComment Responses 111106 dot
CSAH 42 /Akron Area Draft AUAR
Responses to Comments
December 12, 2006
Page 6
County and Mn/DOT. Previous studies have included the land -use data from the City's
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development area does not significantly change the
amount of traffic generated from this area. With this in mind, the small amount of
additional traffic that would be generated from the altemative scenarios would not change
the proposed preliminary geometrics that have been recommended for this interchange. The
information from the AUAR will be supplied to the County for analysis of the preliminary
interchange.
Comment 11: A drainage permit may be required to any specific development. Any proposed
development will need to maintain existing drainage rates (i.e., the rate at which stormwater is
discharged from the site must not increase).
Response: The project proposer will be required to obtain any necessary permits. This
permit has been added to Item 8.
Comment 12: With the level and density of residential development in this area, the increased
motor vehicle traffic, the new school traffic and the proposed roadway widening, it is recommended
that the City and developer plan, design and construct pedestrian and bicycle accommodations into
this development.
The AUAR should consider identifying bicycle and pedestrian destinations (libraries, parks,
schools, retail shops, employment centers, etc.) and how these destinations would be connected with
bike /walk connections to the Capitol Gateway Corridor (formerly the Robert Street Corridor)
transitway. The City should consider bicycle and pedestrian accommodation for both sides of roads
that carry higher motor vehicle volumes and higher speeds, especially roads with operating speeds
40 mph or greater.
All shared use paths and sidewalks must be ADA compliant. Please refer to standard plates:
http: /www. dot. state. mn. us /tecsuD /splate /englishe /e7000 /s7036fl.pdf
http: /www. dot. state. mn. us /tecsup/ splate /english/e7000 /s7036f2.pdf
The Mn/DOT Bicycle Design Guidelines provides Mn/DOT's guidelines for constructing bicycle
facilities on Mn/DOT right -of -way (for example, TH 3):
http: /www. dot. state.mn.us /bike /pdfs /mg1004.pdf and see the AASHTO 2004 guidelines for
pedestrian facilities. See our website for additional information about bicycle and pedestrian
design, planning and funding opportunities and links to these documents: www.mndot.gov click
on the "bike."
Response: Currently the City has guidelines and policies that recommend pedestrian
facilities adjacent to collector roadways. As these roadways are development in this area,
these facilities will be included as part of those plans. Currently, CR 73 is being
reconstructed (designed) from CSAH 42 to Old CR 38. As part of this project, pedestrian
facilities are included adjacent to this roadway.
G 120061Plammng Cases106 -16LP County Road 42 Akron Ave AUARUI&MOComment Responses 121206 doc
CSAH 42 /Akron Area Draft AUAR
Responses to Comments
December 12, 2006
Page 7
Comments from Met Council
Comment 1: Metropolitan Council staff has reviewed the CSAH 42 and Akron Study Area AUAR
to determine the document's accuracy and completeness in addressing regional concerns. Council
staff finds the AUAR accurate and complete, and raises no major issues of consistency with Council
policies or systems plans.
Response: No response in necessary
Comment 2: The AUAR explains that Scenario 1 is consistent with Rosemount's updated
comprehensive plan. It also indicates that Scenario 2 and Scenario 3 require comprehensive plan
amendments to reflect those land uses. These future amendments should evaluate the increase in
households with the City's growth forecasts.
Response: If Scenario 2 or 3 is proposed as development occurs, the City will update its
Comprehensive Plan and include these growth forecasts. This is noted in Item 8.
Comment 3: The Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) is planning a project to
phase out the Rosemount WWTP, and divert the sewer flows from the Rosemount WWTP to the
Empire WWTP. This project is scheduled for completion in 2008. The Council understands that
the City is proposing to ultimately provide wastewater service to approximately 1,245 acres of the
total AUAR area through a connection point on the MCES interceptor at Akron Avenue and Hwy.
42. The Council requires that Rosemount keep wastewater flows within the Rosemount WWTP's
capacity until the interceptor project is constructed. The current capacity of the Rosemount WWTP
is 1.28 million gallons per day (MGD) average daily flow.
Response: The City will keep wastewater flows within the Rosemount WWTP's capacity
until the interceptor is constructed.
Comment 4: The AUAR mitigation plan identifies existing City policies and ordinances
(comprehensive wetland management plan, tree protection ordinance) that are expected to provide
some level of protection to the sensitive resources located within the RSEA areas. However, it is
unclear from the draft document what level of protection (i.e., local park dedication, density
transfer, acquisition for greenway corridor) the City will use to protect the areas collectively
mapped as RSEA area and Metro Wildlife Conservation Corridor.
Response: See responses to DNR comments. Also, the City intends to use a combination
of park dedication, density bonuses, alternative storm water management strategies, Wetland
Management Plan policies, and trail implementation to protect high value resources in the
area. The mitigation plan in the AUAR has been revised to clarify the City's intent.
Comment 5: The AUAR (page 68) indicates that the City's Park, Trail and Open Space Plan
identifies future park areas within the study area, and identifies a proposed greenway /trail corridor.
The City's 2002 Parks Plan identifies proposed "park service areas" and greenway corridors in the
G 120061Plannmg Cases106 -16CP County Road 42 Akron Ave- AUAR4UEMOComment Responses 121206 doc
CSAH 42 /Akron Area Draft AUAR
Responses to Comments
December 12, 2006
Page 8
AUAR area west of Akron Avenue. The AUAR, page 68, states that the "Rosemount Interpretive
Corridor study" further refines the location and design of greenway corridors.
The Council staff has reviewed the 2002 Parks Plan, but not the corridor study. It appears from a
connectivity standpoint, that the two recommended greenway preservation corridors in the 2002
Parks Plan would both provide continuous habitat between existing separate habitat areas than the
single corridor proposed in the AUAR's Figure 11 -3. Based upon the available information, the
probability is much greater that wildlife currently moves in the directions contained in the 2002
Parks Plan, between the existing high quality woodland and wetland habitats, rather than the platted
developments to the southwest or open area to the east, as depicted in the AUAR.
The Council recommends that the final document provide additional background to justify the
change in proposed greenway preservation corridors.
Response: See responses to previous comments. Also, the AUAR contains a mitigation
measure that the City needs to update its Comprehensive Park Plan for the eastern half of the
study area. Additionally, as mentioned in the AUAR, a north -south regional trail is also
anticipated by the County. The City is willing to work with the County, DNR, and Met
Council to plan for the north -south trail alignment. The only way to obtain funding for this
trail alignment is for the County to adopt a Trail Corridor Plan that includes this area.
Comments from Dakota County
Comment 1: Dakota County staff has been in discussion with city staff about the trail corridor
from downtown to the river. To that end, Dakota County would like to incorporate a portion of the
proposed trail into the County's Park System Plan as a regional trail segment.
Response: The County is the responsible government unit for a regional trail and should
adopt a Regional Park Plan. The City looks forward to the County adopting this regional
plan and including a north -south regional trail system in this area. With the adoption of' such
a plan, funding for the regional trails system could be obtained.
Comment 2: The Metropolitan Council Park System Plan also calls for a regional trail connection
between Lebanon Hills Regional Park and the new proposed County Park in Empire Township.
Current routing roughly shows this regional trail entering from the NW corner of the AUAR study
area and exiting to the South at Akron Ave. A linkage between this north -south trail and the east
west greenway corridor would promote the County's guiding principle of interconnectedness.
County staff requests that the city work with the developer to accommodate this regional trail as
part of the development concept.
Response: The City will work with the project developers to create trail linkages through
the AUAR area. The City requests that the County adopt a Trail Corridor Plan so funding
for trails and corridor implementation can be obtained.
G 120061Plannmg Cases106 -16-CP County Road 42 Akron Ave AUTARWIEMOComment Responses 121206 doe
CSAH 42 /Akron Area Draft AUAR
Responses to Comments
December 12, 2006
Page 9
Comment 3: The Dakota County Transportation Department is concemed about the impact of the
proposed development to the surrounding County highway system. This review needs to provide
the basis for the developer and governmental agencies (City, County, State) to understand traffic
impacts, deficiencies, and needs as the site develops and as surrounding traffic continues to
increase. In order to fully understand the impacts to the surrounding road network and to identify
improvements necessary to allow traffic to operate in a safe and efficient manner, the following
items need to be addressed:
Peak Hour Analysis
In order to understand full impacts throughout the day, the review needs to include AM peak hour
analysis. Currently, the study includes only PM peak hour analysis.
Response: Based on the proposed trip generation and background traffic growth, it was
determined the PM peak hour would represent the worst -case analysis for this area. The
mitigation measures outlined in the AUAR would also apply to the AM peak hour.
Therefore, it was assumed that no additional AM peak -hour traffic analysis would be needed
for the development area.
Comment 4: Level of Service Analysis
Level of Service analysis data sheets need to be included for the results shown in Tables 21 -5, 21 -6,
21 -8, and 21 -9.
Response: The traffic analysis data sheets are available upon request.
Comment 5: Timing and Need for Improvements
The review states that roadway improvements will be made with development. The review should
correlate which improvements will coincide with which development stage and/or roadway network
deficiency. Furthermore, the Transportation Department evaluates and determines traffic control
based not only on a level of service analysis, but also upon traffic needs.
Response: It is the City's anticipation that the mitigation improvements outlined in the
AUAR be completed prior to the majority of the area being developed. Currently, as you
are aware, Old CR 38 has been reconstructed from TH 3 to CR 73, and CR 73 is planned for
upgrading from CSAH 42 to Old CR 38 in 2007. CR 73 from Old CR 38 to the north City
limit line is scheduled in the County's capital improvement program for 2008/2009. The
other segments that will need to be upgraded, including local City streets, will be
constructed as development occurs in the area. With respect to the traffic control
improvements, it is understood that these would be included as future analysis dictates along
CSAH 42 and TH 3.
Comment 6: Traffic Analysis pg. 6
The review analyzes for 2020 traffic data. 2025 (preferably 2030) traffic data should be used for
the analysis.
G 120061Plannmg Cases106 -16-CP County Road 42 Akron Ave AUARIMEMO- Comment Responses 121206 doc
CSAH 42/Akron Area Draft AUAR
Responses to Comments
December 12, 2006
Page 10
Response: The 2020 data was used as the development horizon for this area. It is
anticipated that this area will be fully developed prior to 2020.
Comment 7: Traffic and Transportation pg. 10
Signal installation along CSAH 42 at CSAH 71 and CSAH 73 does not follow the approved CSAH
42 Corridor Study adopted in 1999. Dakota County has identified CSAH 73 as a possible signal
location. The installation, when warranted, will need to be coordinated and in conjunction with the
development of the area south of CSAH 42, including access changes with Dakota Technical
College and upgrading /adding turn lanes on the southern approach of the intersection of 42 73.
Response: The City has been working with Dakota County on updating this area with
respect to full- movement accesses and signalized intersection. The City recently went
through a transportation planning effort, including updating the land uses along the CSAH
42 corridor and associated access, not only along CSAH 42 but on the adjacent City and
County roads Although, this document was never approved by the County, there was
concurrence from the County on location and spacing of access in this area. The mitigation
plan outlined in the AUAR assumes this access plan In addition, through work on the CR
73 project, the City has developed conceptually out of the southern approach to CSAH 43 on
the Dakota Technical College property, as well as showing future conceptual layouts of
locations of Dakota County Technical College access along CSAH 42.
Comment 8: Table 21 -1— pg. 51
Change CSAH 71 functional class to A -minor Arterial.
Response: This has been corrected.
Comment 9: First paragraph after Table 21 -1 pg. 51
The third sentence reads, "The existing lane geometry and traffic control at special intersections is
displayed on Table 21 -2. "Selected" or "key" is preferable to "special" when describing these
intersections.
Response: This has been corrected.
Comment 10: No Build pg. 56
Please explain why the growth rate of 2.5% was used for CSAH 42 this seems low. The County's
model 2025 AADT is 25,900 from 145 Street to CR 73 and 26,300 from CR 73 to CSAH 71. This
County information is available for use.
Response: See response to Comment No. 5 from Mn/DOT.
Comment 11: Trip Distribution pg. 58
The first paragraph should refer to Figure 21 -3, not Figure 21 -4 as stated.
Response: This has been corrected.
G 12006iPlanning Cases106 -16-CP County Road 42 Akron Ave AUARLMP.MOComment Responses 121206 doe
CSAH 42 /Akron Area Draft AUAR
Responses to Comments
December 12, 2006
Page 11
Comment 12: Table 21 -8 pg. 59
The 2020 No build AADT for CR 73 shows to be 600 this seems low. The Dakota County 2025
model shows the AADT for CR 73 to be 4,900 for CSAH 42 to Old CR 38, and 7,500 from Old CR
38 to Albavar Path.
Response: The no -build represents no development in the area (i.e., only the background
growth of 1% /year). Scenario No. 1 represents the comparison to the existing
comprehensive plan traffic volumes which can be compared to the County's numbers.
Comment 13: Figure 21 -1 Existing 2004 Daily Traffic Volumes pg. 100
The 2004 /2005 AADTs on CSAH 42 are low. The county's 2004/2005 counts show 17,000
between 145 and CR 73, and 15,100 between CR 73 and CSAH 71. This information should be
used to accurately reflect current traffic.
Response: This has been corrected.
Comment 14: Figure 21 -2 Existing PM Peak Hour Turning Movements pg. 101
At the intersection of CSAH 42 and CR 73, counts need to be taken for traffic entering/exiting the
southem approach. Traffic is utilizing this intersection to access Dakota County Technical College.
Response: As part of the design on the CR 73 improvement project from CSAH 42 to Old
CR 38, it was assumed that the access to the south at CSAH 42 would not change at this
time. This is currently a gravel road approaching the intersection. It is understood that the
intersection of CSAH 42 at CR 73 would not be considered for signalization or other traffic
control until such time as the southem approach is improved and the ultimate access along
CSAH 42 is agreed upon. A traffic study of the intersection, including updating existing
traffic counts, would be included as part of that Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE).
Comment 15: Rail Crossings
The AUAR makes no mention, other than noise abatement, about how the infrastructure at rail
crossings would be improved. The only grade separated crossing, Connemara Trail, is located west
of the study area. Dakota County is concerned about the safety of these neighborhood crossings
considering the amount of proposed development to the east of the high speed Union Pacific line.
Dakota County would be interested in partnering with the City of Rosemount and Union Pacific
Railroad in order to study various auto and pedestrian safety measures.
Response: Currently, as discussed above, the City is in the process of designing
improvements to CR 73 from CSAH 42 to Old CR 38. These improvements include
upgrading the railroad crossing just south of Old CR 38. The County has received federal
money to improve this crossing. The City, in turn, is upgrading the intersection with
medians in anticipation of a future quiet zone through this area. With respect to other
railroad crossings in this area, the City would be interested in working with the County on
improving the vehicular and pedestrian safety at these crossings.
G 120061Plammng Cases106 -16 -CP County Road 42 Akron Ave. AUARMEMO- Comment Responses 121206dac
CSAH 42 /Akron Area Draft AUAR
Responses to Comments
December 12, 2006
Page 12
Comments from the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District
Comment 1: Overall, the AUAR appears very well prepared and we support the mitigation
measures identified for the general protection of the natural resources within the City's future
growth area. We trust that we will be included in the review and comment process to identify site
specific requirements to protect natural resources as each future development project conies
forward.
Response: The SWCD would be involved in any Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP)
meetings that occur in the future as part of any wetland permit application. Also, as
development occurs, the City will continue to coordinate with the SWCD erosion control
inspectors.
Comment 2: The AUAR states in several locations that future development activities must comply
with the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan (CSMP). The AUAR should be
revised to include a statement to clarify the environmental assessments were made based on the
City's current CSMP requirements which may be different than the standards currently being
developed by the Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization (VRWJPO). The
VRWJPO standards will include rate, volume, thermal controls, wetland buffers, conservation
credits and other requirements created specifically for resource protection within the Vermillion
watershed. All future development activities must comply with the VRWJPO standards when
adopted and the City's CSMP requirements will be updated to equal or exceed those standards.
Response: The AUAR has been revised to state that development will need to comply with
the most recent Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan. The City anticipates
updating the CSMP in the next year or two to meet the requirements of the VRWJPO. It
should be noted that many of the City's storm water management requirements currently
exceed the VRWJPO. Further, the City does not drain to the Vermillion River and as such,
many of the thermal requirements of the JPO do not apply to the City. Further, the
VRWJPO and City have been discussing the boundaries of the VRWJPO and the City is
awaiting action from the VRWJPO regarding the boundary issues.
Comments from the Department of Agriculture
Comment 1: The Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) would like to comment on the
Draft AUAR for CSAH 42 /Akron Area. I would just like to mention the possibility exists that some
of the farmland within the area may be enrolled in agricultural preserves under the Metropolitan
Agricultural Preserves Program (Minn Stat. 473H). Most likely you have already looked into this
matter. If not, we would recommend that you check with the Dakota County Recorder's Office or
the City to make sure it is clear of agricultural preserve covenants.
Response: There are two parcels in agricultural preserve as shown on Figure 5 -3. These
are the Bester and Minnova parcels. They are in agricultural preserve until 2007 and 2010,
respectively.
G '2006''Plannmg Cases106 -16-CP County Road 42 Akron Ave AUARV 1EMO- Comment Responses 121206 doc
CSAH 42 /Akron Area Draft AUAR
Responses to Comments
December 12, 2006
Page 13
Comments from BVM and JMOR Real Estate Investments
Comment 1: Based on our review, we would like to make the following comments with respect to
our property. We would like to reiterate our previous comments with respect to the allowed density
along the railroad tracks on our parcels. The urban residential land use designation, which allows
four units per acre, seems reasonable for most of our property. However, the portion of our land
that lies closest to the railroad tracks should, in our opinion, allow for a somewhat higher density to
allow townhomes or carriage homes to be constructed, without causing a subsequent reduced
density elsewhere on our site.
Response: This comment is noted and will be addressed at the time a project is proposed in
the area. The land uses allowed in the area and analyzed in the AUAR provide for a range
of densities.
Comment 2: We would also like to offer a more general comment with respect to current, and
future, infrastructure improvements and extensions of utilities. We have an overall concern with the
fact that there is no mechanism or ordinances in place that allows for the extension of sewer and
water lines across the property to our south, if unforeseen delays occur with respect to development
of that parcel. With this in mind, we are worried that development of our site will ultimately hinge
on how large private developers to our south choose to proceed with their property. Those entities
may even have motivating factors and constraints to future development of their land that is
independent of the overall housing market. They may be influenced by many factors such as
market share, a desire to prevent competition from other large builders, the number of concurrent
projects in the region, and availability of capital, which may result in unforeseen delays to
development in eastern Rosemount. We feel that under the current statutes and by having the sewer
and water lines in the currently planned locations, results in the City of Rosemount ceding a
considerable amount of its control of what occurs, and when, to the inclinations and motivations of
private developers.
Response: The location of utilities shown in the AUAR is estimates only. Exact locations
will not be known until development occurs. Any landowner can petition for improvements
and if willing to pay the cost, to extend past undeveloped properties. The extension of
utilities to undeveloped properties through the course of development is typical.
Comment 3: While the current ordinances and location of public utilities probably make the most
sense from an engineering cost standpoint, we are very concerned that we are being assessed large
sums of money for new roads and other public improvements while our property remains
undevelopable due to the lack of sewer service. Furthermore, we feel that the new 135 Street and
the planned upgrade to Akron Avenue next year currently benefit the existing developments, while
placing a considerable hardship on the current long term landowners. As you are probably aware,
the majority of the land in the AUAR study area is held by local families who have been longtime
Landowners in Rosemount. We have owned our property for almost 40 years and the McMenomys
to our north have had their property in the family for over 100 years. It is frustrating to be in a
position whereby we are being assessed hundreds of thousands of dollars for current large scale
infrastructure improvements, while development might not occur for another 3 -14 years.
G 120061Plannmg Cases106 -16 -CP County Road 42 Akron Ave AUARIMEMO- Comment Responses 121206 doe
CSAH 42 /Akron Area Draft AUAR
Responses to Comments
December 12, 2006
Page 14
Response: At the time that assessments are levied for projects there is a separate process
from the AUAR for property owners to appeal the assessments.
Comments from Jeff Jackie Wilcyek
Comment 1: My name is Jeff Wilcyzk; I live in the 1,500 acre study area of the CSAH 42 /Akron
Area and have approximately 181/4 acres currently under the Alternative Urban Areawide Review
(AUAR). I've attended the public hearings and reviewed the environmental impact of the three
development scenarios and would like to go on record as supporting Scenario 2 for future
development in this area. The Scenario 2 would provide greater economic value for the area
landowners in my opinion.
Response: This comment has been provided to the City Council.
Comments from Todd Bodem, Tollefson Development
Comment 1: One of the main components within the document that stands out immediately on
how it could affect this property is the proposed establishment of a greenway corridor as indicated
in the Rosemount Interpretive Corridor plan that jettisons across a significant portion of the
approximate 80 acre parcel. We are happy of this foresight to provide trail connections that meet
the intent of the City's Park, Trail and Open Space Plan. I believe our property is east of the
Lebanon Hills Park area to where the corridor is not yet defined and in flux. I understand that the
corridor will have an average width of about 150 feet depending what unique features surround it.
It probably will have an 8 to 10 foot wide bituminous trail installed as development occurs leaving a
linear park greenway systems on both sides of the trail. Our concern is that the entire width
showing on the exhibits is completely crossing our southerly property line. My comment would be
that extra thought should be given to make sure this is the best location by reviewing the land area's
unique features more closely. At a minimum, I believe the corridor specific to the property should
be shared with the neighboring properties and not be placed solely on the Cliff property.
Response: The greenway figure in the AUAR notes that this is an approximate location.
There is flexibility in the ultimate location of the greenway corridor and a more defined
location and width would be determined with a specific development plan. The City has
identified this corridor to cross from west to east. Additionally, a north -south trail line will
also need to be incorporated in the AUAR study area as part of development. The City will
use a variety of approaches including plan review, park dedication, and other means to
implement a corridor. See also responses to DNR and Met Council.
Comment 2: The other highly critical examination is that we will be assured adequate stormwater,
stom sewer, water and any other utilities to make this property developable for residential in the
future. Additionally, being this property is located near some critical road systems that we are
afforded ease of access and proper roadway circulation within this area.
Response: The utility connections will be made in an orderly fashion and the City's
standards for the inclusion and construction of municipal services will need to be adhered to
upon development.
G 170061Plannmg Coses106 -16-CP County Road 42 Akron Ave AUARLMEMO-Comment Responses 171206 doc
CSAH 42 /Akron Area Draft AUAR
Responses to Comments
December 12, 2006
Page 15
Comments from Mike McMenomy
Comment 1: My name is Mike McMenomy. I am concerned over the density recommended on
our farm as presented in the plan. Our farm includes approximately 80 acres of some of the most
beautiful wooded land that has the potential to be Rosemount's most beautiful park. It is in the
City's plan for this land to be a park.
One way to help this happen would be to offer a developer an increased density on another part of
the property so that it would be to their advantage to include these woods in their purchase. The
wooded area that we're talking about is in an area that currently allows one house per five acres.
This means that if developed, only about 15 to 16 homes could be built there. Increasing the
density on the other part of the several hundred acres could make this very advantageous to a
developer. An offer of, say, 30 to 80 units more could very well make it very doable.
We need a city that is interested in such a proposal to make it happen and preserve those woods for
future generations. It is for the city to let the future developers know the potential in purchasing the
wooded acres with however much of the rest of the farm they purchase. The last proposal we had
from a developer included that parcel with their purchase. It included the entire farm with the
exception of approximately 70 acres that I was keeping on the northwest part of our property, plus a
few acres around the buildings.
A look at the map will show that our property will be one of the last areas developed in the city. I
am currently actively farming the property. I have a small beef cattle herd as part of that endeavor.
I am concerned about zoning changes that might affect the use of the land years before it is able to
be developed. I would hope that zoning changes will be made on parcels as they are being
developed, so that we can continue to use our land as our family has for over 100 years.
The building site includes Rosemount's oldest farmstead. The farmhouse was built in 1898. The
barn and the granary were built in the early 1900s. It is my intention to preserve them. The
buildings are too large and costly to be moved to new location. I am currently a board member of
the Dakota Heritage Village at the Farmington Fairgrounds. I arranged for the moving of our
original family homestead to that location. It is dated from the 1860s -1870s and is being
refurbished at that location. I am committed to preserving our heritage on our current home site and
hope that the city will both help and encourage me in this endeavor.
Response: This comment is noted and will be addressed at the time a project is proposed in
the area. See also responses to DNR and Met Council.
Comments from John McMenomy
Mr. John McMenomy provided a letter to the City dated August 16, 1993 from Dakota County
indicating that the unlicensed dump identified on his property (located immediately north of 135
Street) had been cleaned up. This letter has been added to the AUAR in Appendix B and the
information noted in the AUAR.
This concludes the City's response to comments on the AUAR. The AUAR has been revised as
needed. If you have questions, please feel free to call me at (763)287 -7196.
G 120061Plannmg Casest06 -16-0' County Road 42 Akron Ave AUARL416MOCommnrt Responses 121206 doc