Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.a. CSAH 42/Akron AUAR, 06-16-CPAGENDA ITEM: Case 06 -16 -CP CSAH 42 /Akron AUAR AGENDA SECTION: Old Business PREPARED BY: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director AGENDA NO. 3,a. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution, Changes from the December 2006 AUAR, Agency Comments APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt a resolution adopting the Final CSAH 42 /Akron Alternative Urban Areawide Review. 4 ROSEMOUNT City Council Meeting: February 6, 2007 ISSUE: CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Development within the CSAH 42 /Akron study area includes primarily residential development with some areas of commercial land use along CSAH 42. The study area is approximately 1,500 acres located generally north of CSAH 42 and east of Bloomfield development /Bacardi Avenue. As per Minnesota Rules, the proposed magnitude of possible development area required an environmental review The City determined that an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) should be completed for the site. The Final AUAR was submitted for agency review on December 21, 2006. Comments were received from Mn /DOT, Dakota County, and the Metropolitan Council. Comments were received after the deadhne from the US Corps of Engineers. No objections were received by the City during the comment period. The comments are summarized below. The item before the City Council is to consider adopting the Final AUAR with proposed minor changes. BACKGROUND: The Draft CSAH 42 /Akron AUAR was developed and reviewed with City Staff and City Council. Two pubhc meetings and two agency meetings were held during the process to obtain information and take comments on the study. The Draft AUAR was submitted for the 30 -day comment period on September 29, 2006. This comment period ended November 8, 2006. Responses to comments were developed and the Final AUAR revised The Final AUAR was reviewed with the City Council and submitted for the 10- day comment period on December 21, 2006. This comment period ended January 12, 2007 Comments were received before the deadline from Mn /DOT, Dakota County, and the Metropolitan Council Comments were received after the deadline from the US Corps of Engineers There were no objections to the AUAR. The comments that were received are summanzed below. Mn /DOT: Most of Mn /DOT's comments related to reiterating the need to obtain Mn /DOT review and approval for projects that affect Mn /DOT right -of -way. Mn /DOT also requested that clarification be provided to address the future 120`" Street intersection related to sight distance, Since there are no objections to the AUAR, the item before the City Council is to officially adopt the Final AUAR. By adopting this AUAR, any development that is proposed within the study area will need to meet the mitigation measures outlined in the document as well as not exceed the density analyzed in the AL? AR. If the density is exceeded, mitigation measures not met, or the City's Comprehensive Plan is changed for this area, the AUAR will need to be updated. Further, Minnesota Rules requires that the AUAR be updated every five years until development within the study area is approved. SUMMARY: location, and tunung movements. While this can be addressed as part of a specific design project for the intersection in the future, clanfication has been added to the mitigation section of the AUAR to address this comment. This change is attached. Dakota County: The County has reiterated their request for an AM peak hour traffic analysis. The AUAR analyzes the PM peak hour, which is the "worst case scenano" for traffic impacts. Since the mitigation measures are not anticipated to change with the AM peak hour analysis, no change is proposed to the AUAR as this type of study can be conducted when specific development projects are proposed Metropolitan Council: The Met Council reiterated their concern that the proposed greenway corridor as shown m the AUAR will not link existing wetlands and woodland As indicated in the previous responses to comments, the greenway was conceptual m nature and would be adjusted with specific development plans. Additionally, one of the mitigation measures is to identify park service areas for the eastern portion of the study area. No changes are proposed to the AUAR. US Corps of Engineers: The US Corps of Engineers provided comments related to the potential need for wetland permits once a project is proposed. Generally, the US Corps does not have jurisdiction over the wetlands m Rosemount since they are finked to a navigable water. However, as indicated in the AUAR, wetland permits from the US Corps are required to be obtained from a project proposer, if necessary. Staff recommends Council adopt the Final AUAR with the minor changes reflected in the Mn /DOT comments. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2007- A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE FINAL ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW (AUAR) FOR THE CSAH 42 /AKRON AREA WHEREAS, an AUAR has been completed for the project pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410 and identifies and assesses the environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with the CSAH 42/ Akron Development Area. WHEREAS, the CSAH 42/ Akron Development Area is located on approximately 1,500 acres located north of CSAH 42/145 Street and east of the Bloomfield Development and Bacardi Avenue within the City of Rosemount in Dakota County as shown m the AUAR, WHEREAS, three proposed development scenarios were evaluated as part of the AUAR process; one of the development scenarios was m the conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, WHEREAS, the preparation of the CSAH 42/ Akron Development Area AUAR was distributed for one 30 -day and one 10 -day comment period; WHEREAS, comments received on the AUAR have generated information adequate to determine mitigation measures associated with the potential development in this area; WHEREAS, the comments received are included m the public record for the AUAR, and WHEREAS, development in the CSAH 42/ Akron Area is expected to comply with all the City and review agency standards as well as the mitigation measures outlined in the AUAR. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves the Final CSAH 42/ Akron Alternative Urban Areawide Review dated December 2006, with minor changes. ADOPTED this 6th day of February, 2007, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. ATTEST: Amy Domeier, City Clerk William H. Droste, Mayor F4. Coordinate with Mn/DOT improvement to TH 3 to ensure future capacity on the roadway. Development Mitigation These improvements would be completed with development. F5. Construction of an east -west collector roadway between Bacardi Avenue and CR 73 with development area. CR 73 to CR 71 would be constructed with future development. This roadway should be a two -lane roadway with turn lanes at Bacardi Avenue, CR 73, and CR 71. F6. Construction of 120 Street from TH 3 to CR 71 if development and traffic volumes dictate. This improvement should be a two -lane roadway with tum lanes at TH 3, Bacardi Avenue, CR 73, and CR 71. The exact location where 120 Street intersects with TH3 and its impact on site distance and traffic control will be determined at the time of development. F7. Connemara Trail from existing terminus to CR 71. This roadway should be a four lane undivided collector roadway with turn lanes at all major intersections. F8. Construction of a Development Circulation Roadway. This would be a connection from Connemara Trail to the north crossing CR 73 then back to Connemara Trail. This roadway would be a buffer between the residential and commercial developments in Scenarios I and 2. This roadway should be a three -lane facility, including turn lanes at all major intersections. G. Noise, Construction Dust, and Screening 01. Construction dust control shall be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) at the site boundaries. G2. The City limits construction activities to 7:OOAM to 10:OOPM on weekdays, 7:OOAM to 7:OOPM on Saturdays, and 9:OOAM to 5:OOPM on Sundays. G3. Screening between the neighborhoods, rail line, and the adjacent gravel mining operations will be required in accordance with the City zoning ordinance. G4. All roadway improvements that cross an active railroad will need to meet Federal Quiet Zone Standards. H. Trails, Parks, and Open Space Hl. The establishment of a greenway corridor as indicated in the Rosemount Interpretive Corridor plan will need to be incorporated into development plans for the area. H2. Per the City's ordinances, park dedication will be in conformance with City Code and the City's Park Plan. City of Rosemount Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review December 2006 Minor Revisions January 2007 Page 11 of 72 MITIGATION PLAN: ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT Several mitigation measures have been developed to address unacceptable levels of service (LOS E or F) and delay that would occur if any of the build alternatives of the proposed development area would take place. These measures are discussed below. In addition, several additional roadway improvements would need to be included if and when the area would develop. Capacity Deficiency Mitigation These improvements would be completed as traffic dictates. Installation of a traffic signal system at TH 3 and Old CR 38 (132 Street). Installation of a traffic signal system at CSAH 42 and CR 71. Installation of a traffic signal system at CSAH 42 and CR 73. Coordinate with Mn/DOT improvement to TH 3 to ensure future capacity on the roadway. Development Mitigation These improvements would be completed with development. Construction of a east -west collector roadway between Bacardi Avenue and CR 73 with development area. CR 73 to CR 71 would be construction with future development. This roadway should be a two -lane roadway with turn lanes at Bacardi Avenue, CR 73, and CR 71. Construction of 120 Street from TH 3 to CR 71. If development and traffic volumes dictate, this improvement should be a two -lane roadway with turn lanes at TH 3, Bacardi Avenue, CR 73, and CR 71. The exact location where 120 Street intersects with TH3 and its impact on site distance and traffic control will be determined at the time of development. Connemara Trail from existing terminus to CR 71. This roadway should be a four lane undivided collector roadway with turn lanes at all major intersections. Construction of a development circulation roadway. This would be a connection from Connemara Trail to the north crossing CR 73 then back to Connemara Trial. This roadway would be a buffer between the residential and commercial developments in Scenarios 1 and 2. This roadway should be a three -lane facility, including turn lanes at all major intersections. 22. Vehicle related Air Emissions. Estimate the effect of the project's traffic generation on air quality, including carbon monoxide levels. Discuss the effect of traffic improvements or other mitigation measures on air quality impacts. Note: If the project involves 500 or more parking spaces, consult EAW Guidelines about whether a detailed air quality analysis is needed. City of Rosemount Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review December 2006 Page 61 of 72 Metropolitan Council I t January 12, 2007 Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director City of Rosemount 2875 145 Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997 RE: CSAH 42 Akron Study Area Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Review File No. 19859 -2 Metropolitan Council District 16 (Bnan McDaniel) Dear Ms. Lmdquist Metropolitan Council staff has reviewed the CSAH 42 and Akron Study Area Final AUAR to determine the document's accuracy and completeness m addressing regional concerns. Council staff finds the AUAR accurate and complete, and raises no major issues of consistency with Council policies or systems plans. Council staff provides the following technical comments for your consideration. Item 25, Nearby Resources The Council and Department of Natural Resources (DNR) both expressed concern in review of the draft document regarding the proposed location of greenway and wildlife corridors. The City's 2002 Parks Plan identified proposed `park service areas' and proposed greenway corridors within the portion of the AUAR area west of Akron Avenue that tended to connect wooded and higher quality habitat areas. However, the "Rosemount Interpretive Corridor study," referenced in the draft document, proposed corridors along the existing pipeline corridors (see Figure 9 -1), which will be maintained as open areas to allow adequate maintenance access While the proposed corridor may function adequately as a pedestrian trail comdor, wildlife will not utilize such open pathways, but will tend to move between the existing woodland and wetland habitats. The Council recommends that the City work with DNR and Dakota County staffs to plan for preservation of more functional wildlife and greenway corridors within the AUAR area before development pressures mount. If you have any questions or need farther information, please contact Ton Dupre, principal reviewer, at 651- 602 -1621. Sinc Phyllis 11 son, Manager cc: Brian McDaniel, Metropolitan Council District 16 Cheryl Olsen, Reviews Coordinator Patrick Boylan, Sector Representative V RI VIE NS 1 ommurmes Rosemount 1.ettel s Rosemount 2()(KG AL IA R I'4859 -2 P IN if .4 2 Ala no of www metrocouncil.org 390 Robert Street North St. Paul, MN 55101 -1805 (651) 602 -1000 Fax (651) 602 -1550 TTY (651) 291 -0904 An Equal Opportunity Employer REPLY TO ATTENTION Operations Regulatory (2007- 9 -BAJ) Ms. Kim Lindquist City of Rosemount 2875 145"' Street W Rosemount, MN 55068 Dear Ms. Lindquist: DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ST PAUL DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS CENTRE 190 FIFTH STREET EAST ST PAUL MN 55101 -1638 JAN 1 8 2007 We received the document entitled "Final CSAH 42 /Akron AUAR" dated December 2006, on December 22, 2006. The plan identifies approximately 2 to 8 acres of wetland impact associated with development in the study area. The plan also indicates that Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permits would be necessary. However, the discussion on page 24 makes reference only to Wetland Conservation Act requirements. Please incorporate the below information about federal wetland regulations into your AUAR document. If any proposed projects within the AUAR study area involve deposition of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including discharges associated with mechanical land clearing, they may be subject to the Corps of Engineers' jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA Section 404). Waters of the United States include navigable waters, their tributaries, and adjacent wetlands (33 CFR 328.3). CWA Section 301(a) prohibits discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, unless the work has been authorized by a Department of the Army permit under Section 404. Information about the Corps permitting process can be obtained online at http: /www mvp.usace.army mil /regulatory. We do not have a copy of the wetland management plan that is referenced in the document, and it is not clear m the final AUAR whether effort was made to avoid and minimize wetland impacts, as required by Section 404 of the CWA At this early planning stage, we expect that it would be practicable to avoid wetlands to a greater degree than is indicated in the AUAR. The level of wetland impact identified in the AUAR should not be interpreted by developers as justification for wetland impacts associated with their development proposals. Please incorporate the below information about federal wetland avoidance and minimization requirements into your AUAR document. If any proposed project requires a Section 404 permit application, the Guidelines specifically require that "no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences" (40 CFR 230.10(a)). Time and money spent on the proposal Printed on Recycled Paper Operations Regulatory (2007- 9 -BAJ) prior to applying for a Section 404 permit cannot be factored into the Corps' decision whether there is a less damaging practicable alternative to the proposal. For further information, please contact Brad Johnson at (651) 290 -5250, the Corps regulatory project manager for Dakota County. 2 Sincerely, Robert J. Whiting Chief, Regulatory Bran `so Minnesota Department of Transportation i Metropolitan District op nob Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B Roseville MN 55113 -3174 January 12, 2007 Ms. Kim Lindquist Community Development Director City of Rosemount City Hall 2875 145 Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 4997 SUBJECT CSAIT 42 /Akron Avenue Final AUAR Mn/DOT Review AUAR 06 -006A Final AUAR review East of Trunk Highway (TH) 3 and generally south of County Road (CR) 38 (McAndrews Road), north of CSAH 42, and west of CR 71 Rosemount/Dakota County Control Section: 1921 Dear Ms Lindquist: Thank you for the opportunity to review the above referenced Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) that we received on December 26, 2006. Please note that Mn/DOT's review of this AUAR does not constitute approval of a regional traffic analysis and is not a specific approval for access or new roadway improvements As plans are refined, we would like the opportunity to meet with our City and County transportation partners and review any updated information The Mn/DOT Metro District staff has reviewed the Final AUAR and has the following comments Traffic Mn/DOT did not locate any response from the City within the "body" of the Final AUAR addressing our comments concemmg: A) the unsuitability, due to sight distance issues, of the proposed location of the potential new intersection of 120` Street and TH 3, and B) the fact that there might not be a need for a full access intersection for 120 Street with TH 3 due to anticipated turning movements. The City's response letter stated that the City concurred with Mn/DOT's statement. However, on Page 61 of 72 in the main body of the AUAR, in the second "bullet point" under Development Mitigation, we did not find any mention of those issues We recommend that the Final AUAR be amended to respond specifically to "points" A) and B) above An antral nnnnrh inihi amnln, r Right -of -Way: As the area develops adjacent to TH 3, additional right of way needs to be preserved for the expansion projects identified in the traffic mitigation section as well as for stormwater mitigation facilities The city and or county should work with Mn/DOT to develop a footprint for those improvements identified in the traffic mitigation plan and then take appropriate steps to insure the preservation of the needed right -of -way. The City and or county should implement some or all of the following techniques: right of way dedication, setbacks, platting of outlots. Drainage: Mn/DOT strongly encourages the city to consider adopting an official map of the proposed highway expansion right -of -way needs area. The official mapping process will further protect the needed right -of -way and will insure that the City is be eligible for the Metropolitan Council's Right of Way Acquisition Loan Fund (RALF) program, subject to the availability of funding. These funds can provide for advance purchases of right -of- way where dedication or other zoning tools may not be applicable. For questions on these points, please call Mike Geertsema, Mn/DOT Metro District Right -of -Way Office at (651) 582 -1269. A drainage permit may be required for any specific development. Any proposed development will need to maintain existing drainage rates (i.e., the rate at which storm water is discharged from the site must not increase) to any Mn/DOT Right -of -Way. The AUAR states that all stormwater runoff up to the 100 year storm event will remain on the development site. This may change during actual development planning. Therefore, as Plats, Site Plans, and specific project plans are completed, a Mn/DOT review may be required to determine if a drainage permit would be required. Please direct questions concerning these issues to Richard Cady (651- 634 -2075) of Mn/DOT's Water Resources section. Auto /Pedestrian/Bike Railroad Traffic Safety Measures: Permits: Mn/DOT appreciates the fact that the City is seeking to study on a partnership basis with Dakota County auto and pedestrian traffic safety measures to improve railroad crossings within the area of the AUAR. We recommend that bicycles be included within this proposed safety study. For questions on this point, please call Mary Jackson, Mn/DOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Section, at (651) 282 -5317. Any work impacting MnDOT right of way requires a permit. Permit forms are available from MnDOT's utility website at www.dot.state mn us /tecsup /utility Please include one full -size plan set, and a 11 x 17 inch plan set for each permit application. Please direct any questions regarding permit requirements to Buck Craig (651 -582 -1447) or Jeff Dierberger (651) 582 -1443, of MnDOT's Metro Permits Section. As a reminder, please address all initial future correspondence for development activity such as plats and site plans to. Development Reviews Mn/DOT Metro Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B -2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2) copies of other review documents including site plans Failure to provide three (3) copies of a plat and/or two (2) copies of other review documents will make a submittal incomplete and delay Mn/DOT's 30 -day review and response process to development proposals. We appreciate your anticipated cooperation in providing the necessary number of copies, as this will prevent us from having to delay and/or return incomplete submittals. If you have any questions concerning this review please feel free to contact me at (651) 582-1462. Sincerely, cel.) Mary McNeff Transportation Planner Cc: Todd Tollefson, Dakota County Surveyor, Apple Valley, MN Knsti Sebastian, Dakota County Traffic Engineer, Apple Valley, MN Eric Zweber, Senior Planner, City of Rosemount, Rosemount, MN Dan Krom, Transit Manager, Physical Development Administration, Dakota County, MN a Physical Development Division Gregory J Konat, [vector Dakota County Western Service Center 14955 Galaxie Avenue Apple Valley, MN 55124 -8579 Environmental Mgmt Department Farmland Natural Areas Program Office of GIS Parks Department Office of Planning Surveyor's Office Transit Office Transportation Department Water Resources Office 0 PrnnS on recycled paper with 70% post- consumer waste AN COLA:. Owc i'Jf lY J4PLO an 952 891 7000 Fax 952 891 7031 wvw dakotacounty.us January 8, 2006 Ms Kim Lindquist City of Rosemount 2875 145 Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 RE' Dakota County Comments on the Final AUAR for CSAH 42 /Akron Area Dear Ms Lindquist' Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the final alternative urban areawide review (AUAR) for the CSAH 42 /Akron study area. Staff in the Physical Development Division reviewed the draft AUAR for CSAH 42 /Akron in October of 2006. Responses from WSB Associates on behalf of the City of Rosemount were received in December 2006 Based on the information received we believe further traffic analysis is merited, specifically AM peak hour traffic Our comments are included with this letter We look forward to working with you, the city of Rosemount, and WSB Associates as this project moves forward. If you have any questions, please call me at (952) 891 -7034 or Mark Krebsbach at (952) 891 -7102 Sincerely, Greg Konat, Director Physical Development Division 4043° COUNTY cc: Willis Branning, Dakota County Commissioner District 7 Brandt Richardson, County Administrator Phyllis Hanson, Manager, Metropolitan Council Location The CSAH 42 /Akron study area is approximately 1,500 acres located north of CSAH 42 and east of Bacardi Avenue Old County Road 38 (135 Street) bisects the study area east to west The Bloomfield and Meadows of Bloomfield developments are located directly to the west Comments Peak Hour Traffic Analysis Dakota County's original comment regarding the exclusion of AM Peak Hour Traffic Analysis: 1n 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. WSB's response (Final AUAR Section E, page 9): 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. Further comment regarding AM Peak Hour Analysis: Although the PM peak hour analysis would represent the worst -case scenario with regard to number of trips and background traffic growth, an AM peak hour analysis would represent a different traffic pattern with unique potential problems. Such an analysis may reveal traffic issues such as turn lane needs, queue lengths, access location restrictions, traffic control identification, etc at locations other than those predicted by a PM analysis The Institute for Transportation Engineers recommends. "Each peak period generating major traffic volumes should be analyzed to ensure that all critical movements can be accommodated Different time periods will display varying traffic demand patterns and resulting levels of service. Improvements would be based on the cumulative needs of these time periods This practice is consistent with the institute of Transportation Engineers standard practices for preparing traffic impacts assessments. Considering the number of commuters in Dakota County, projects of this size and scope have typically included data for both AM and PM hours in order to fully gauge the traffic impact on State, County, and local roads Transportation Impact Analysis for Sites and Development Institute for Transportation Engineers