4.4. SR 11-21-2011REQUEST FOR ACTION
TO ITEM NUMBER
Ma or and Ci Council 4.4.
AGENDA SECTION MEETING DATE PREPARED BY
Consent November 21, 2011 ustin Femrite, Ci En ' eer
ITEM DESCRIPTION REVIEWED B~/
171St Area AUAR Comment Response Memorandum erem Barnhart, Plannin Mana er
REVIEWED BY
Cal Portner, Ci Administrator
ACTION REQUESTED
The City Council is asked to approve the attached memorandum which includes responses to comments
received in regards to the 1715` Area AUAR.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
As approved by the City Council at the September 6, 2011, City Council meeting, the draft 1715` Area
AUAR was published for public comment.
The comment period ran from September 19 to October 19. We received five separate letters with
comments as summarized in the attached memorandum with a response. The AUAR has been modified
to include revisions as detailed in the response memorandum. With the revisions included, the final
AUAR will be published for a fina110-day comment period which will end on December 9, 2011.
If no objections from the state or local agencies are filed, the City Council will adopt the final AUAR on
December 19, 2011.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
None
ATTACHMENTS
^ WSB Comments Response Memorandum
Action Motion by Second by Vote
Follow Up
A~"Ul~
wsB
- Engineering ^ Planning ^ Environmental ^ Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South
&'Assoc Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763-541-4800
Fax: 763-541-1700
Memorandum
To: Melissa Doperalski, Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Karen Kromar, Pollution Control Agency (PCA)
Terrence Humbert, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)
Richard Kurth, 16754 Hwy 10
Mary Ann Heidemann, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
From: Andi Moffatt, WSB & Associates
Copy: Justin Femrite, City of Elk River
Jeremy Barnhart, City of Elk River
Date: November 15, 2011
Re: 1715 Avenue AUAR
Responses to Comments
WSB Project No.1992-00
On behalf of the City of Elk River, please find below responses to comments received as part of
the public review of the 171St Avenue Area Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR).
Comments were received from the agencies and landowners listed above within the comment
period. Responses to comments are outlined below and refer to the original comment letters,
which are attached to this memo. The AUAR has been revised as outlined in this memo and
the Final AUAR is being sent out for the fina110-day comment period which will end
December 9, 2011.
Comments from agencies are restated here, mostly in their entirety, for ease of review.
Please see the comment letter attached for more information.
Comments from Richard Kurth:
Comment #1: I think with the sewer and water system, what about putting it on east side of
US Hwy 10. There is nothing over there, and would not disrupt business on west side?
Response to Comment #1: While the exact location of these utilities would be
determined as part of a future detailed feasibility study, the location of the utilities is
anticipated on the west side of the TH 10. The existing utility crossing of TH 10 occurs
just south of 171St Avenue to connect the system both east and west of TH 10. The
proposed new utilities would need to be extended to the south to serve proposed
development on the west side of TH 10. Since the extension needs to serve the west
o:~,~~~;a~;ry~,,,~~~~~,~rca\agenda packet\11-21-2011\comment responses.docx
November 8, 2011
Page 2 of 2
side of TH10, it makes sense to connect it to the existing utility along the west side of
the road. Additionally, if utilities were constructed on the east side, the existing
residences and businesses on the west side of TH 10 would not have an opportunity to
be served by these utilities in the future.
Comments from the DNR:
Comment # 1: The AUAR states that "A loggerhead shrike survey maybe required by the DNR
as part of a development project if tree or shrub disturbance would be planned during the
nesting season." The language should be adjusted to read that, "A loggerhead shrike survey
maybe required by the DNR as part of the development project if *r°° ^r °t,,.,,1, disturbance
would be planned during the nesting season." As it is currently worded, it maybe interpreted
that construction work that does not include tree removal would not require a survey.
Response to Comment #1: The AUAR has been revised to reflect this change. Future
development of the site during nesting season (April through July) may require that a
loggerhead shrike survey be performed as part of the development project.
Comments from MPCA:
Comment #1: Permits and Approvals (Item 8): Please be aware that if a U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USAGE) Section 404 Individual Permit is required for any project related wetland
impacts, an MPCA Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 Water Quality Certification or waiver
must also be obtained as part of the permitting process. The Section 401 Water Quality
Certification ensures that the activity will comply with the state water quality standards. Any
conditions required within the MPCA 401 Certificate are then incorporated into the Corps 404
Permit. You can find additional information about the MPCA's 401 Certification process at
www.pca.state.mn.us/water/401.htm1. For further information about the 401 Water Quality
Certification process, please contact Kevin Molloy at 651-757-2577 or Judy Mader at 651-757-
2544.
Response to Comment #1: The table in Section 8 has been updated to add the MPCA
Section 401 Water Quality Certification permit. It will be the responsibility of the
project proposer to secure any required permits and comply with any requisite permit
conditions.
Comment #2: Water Quality -Surface Water Runoff (Item 17): We recommend you utilize
MPCA Special Waters and Impaired Waters Search mapping tool to identify special or
impaired waters located near proposed projects. The mapping tool is located on the MPCA
website at http•///nca-gis02~ca state mn us/websitestormwater/csw/viewer.htm. As noted
on the website, the segment on the Mississippi River near the site is designated as a scenic
river segment. This designation will dictate additional increased stormwater treatment both
during construction and require additional increased permanent treatment post construction.
These requirements will be included in any National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System/State Disposal System Construction stormwater Permit. The project proposer should
determine that compliance with these increased stormwater water quality treatments can be
Minneapolis ^ St. Cloud
Equal Opportunity Employer
N.' (Public BodieslCity CouncillCouncil RCAIAgenda Packetlll-21-20111Comment Responses.docx
November 8, 2011
Page 3 of 3
achieved on the project site or elsewhere. Information regarding the MPCA's Construction
Stormwater Program can be found on the MPCA's website at:
http•//www nca state mn us/water/stormwater/stormwater-c.html. Questions regarding
Construction Stormwater Permit requirements should be directed to Roberta Getman at 507-
206-2629.
Response to Comment #2 -Section 14 of the AUAR notes that the Mississippi River is
designated as scenic and is it shown on Figure 14-1. It is the responsibility of the
project proposer to secure any required permits and comply with any requisite permit
conditions. No change to the AUAR is needed.
Comment #3: Water Quality -Surface Water Runoff (Item 17): In addition, any project
that will result in over 50 acres of disturbed area and has a discharge point within one mile of
a special or impaired water is required to submit their Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) to the MPCA for a review at least 30 days prior to the commencement of land
disturbing activities. If the SWPPP is found to be out of compliance with the terms and
conditions of the General Permit, further delay may occur. The MPCA encourages the Project
proposer to meet with staff at preliminary points to avoid this situation. Questions regarding
SWPPP's should be directed to Todd Smith at 651-757-2732.
Response to Comment #3 -It is the responsibility of the project proposer to secure
any required permits and comply with any requisite permit conditions. No change to
the AUAR is needed.
Comment #4: Water Quality -Wastewater (Item 18): The wastewater flow expected to be
produced from this project ranges from 0.135 million gallons per day (mgd) for scenario 1 to
0.375 mgd for scenario 2. These values appear reasonable based on the proposed land uses.
As noted in the AUAR, a sanitary sewer extension permit will be necessary for construction of
any proposed collection system capacity expansion or extension. Upgrades to the city's
collection system maybe necessary. Any questions about applying for a sanitary sewer
extension permit can be directed to Corey Mathisen at 651-757-2554.
Response to Comment #4 -Water Use: No response is necessary.
Comments from Mn/DOT:
Comment #1: Background Traffic: This area is included in Mn/DOT's collar county model.
While the model is not detailed enough to use to create detailed traffic forecasts, it's
reasonable to refer to it for assessing background traffic increases for TH 10 and TH 169. The
model suggests an annual growth rate closer to 1% for this section of TH 10 and 1.5% on TH
169. Using the County factor of 2.9% per year does not seem reasonable given both historic
growth rates and modeled growth rates. Furthermore, the model does include forecasted
growth within the study area, which suggests some double counting of trips would be
occurring.
Minneapolis ^ St. Cloud
Equal Opportunity Employer
N: (Public BodieslCity CauncillCouncil RCAIAgenda Packetll /-21-201 / (Comment Responses.docx
November 8, 2011
Page 4 of 4
Response to Comment #1- It is understood that using the 2.9% per year is a
conservative assumption and that actual historic growth is closer to 1.5%. However, in
order to insure that a worst case scenario was analyzed the higher value was used.
Even with a lower background growth factor, the conclusions on when specific
improvements are needed in relationship to the AUAR development areas would not
change (i.e. prior to development dual left turn lanes at 171St Avenue; prior to Phase 2
the addition of a new signalized intersection at Twin Lakes Road, and; prior to Phase 3
closing of all access on TH 10 and construction of an interchange at Twin Lakes Road).
Comment #2: Trip Distribution: Use of a city travel demand model for trip distribution
raises the question of why this model wasn't used for trip generation and background growth
forecasts. A better understanding of this would be helpful.
Response to Comment #Z -The City's travel demand model was used strictly to
determine the percentage of traffic originating or destined to the north, south, east or
west. The specific land use being considered for the AUAR area is not the same as that
in the model and therefore would not be a good representation of traffic generation or
background growth. The AUAR analysis also subdivided the area into smaller Traffic
Analysis Zones (TAZ's) that would provide a more detailed analysis. In addition the
background traffic growth factor was used to provide a worst case condition (see
response to comment #1).
Comment #3: Given the close access to the Northstar commuter rail station why weren't rail
trips considered in terms of mode shifts?
Response to Comment #3 - As indicated in response to comment #1, we wanted to
analyze a worst case scenario for traffic operations. While it is anticipated that there
will be some shift in commuter traffic to the Northstar line, it is not anticipated that the
mode shift would be significant enough to impact vehicle traffic operations.
Comment #4: Site/Development Generated Traffic: While the use of ITE Trip Generation
rates is acceptable, given the significant size of the development and the land use mix of the
scenarios, more information on the assumptions used would be helpful. Assumptions on pass
by trips, and internal trips within the study area need to be assessed and the cumulative ITE
trip totals reduced accordingly. It would also be helpful to list which ITE land use categories
were used.
Response to Comment #4 -The paragraph above Table 21-4 of the AUAR indicates
that the traffic generation was adjusted to account for pass-by and diverted trips. This,
together with adding the ITE land use codes, will be included in the Final AUAR.
Comment #5: Any road geometric changes proposed for TH 10 including turn lanes will need
to submitted as a layout for Mn/DOT's review and acceptance. Instructions for preparing a
layout can be found at http•//www dot state mn us/design/geometric/review.html. Please
contact Nancy Jacobson, Mn/DOT Metro Design 651-234-7647 or
Nancy L Jacobson state.mn.us.
Minneapolis ^ St. Cloud
Equal Opportunity Employer
N:IPublic BodieslCity CouncillCouncil RCAIAgenda PacketVl-2l-20lllComment Responses.docx
November 8, 2011
Page 5 of 5
Response to Comment #5 -Comment noted. No additional response required.
Comment #6: All utilities that parallel or cross TH 10 will require a Long Form Permit. An
access permit will be issued for construction only. Any other work that impacts Mn/DOT R/W
will require other permits. For information about the required permits, please contact E. Buck
Craig MnDOT Metro Roadway Regulation Supervisor, Office 651-243-7911, Ce11651-775-0405
or buck.craig state.mn.us.
Response to Comment #6 -This permit has been added to Item 8 -Permits in the
Final AUAR.
Comment #7: The City of Elk River has coordinated with MnDOT District 3 with regard to the
traffic impacts to TH 10 in the AUAR vicinity. District 3 has agreed to the concepts illustrated
in the AUAR. However, no commitment has been made by District 3 with regard to funding at
this point. When the City is ready to construct the TH 10/Twin Lakes Parkway intersection,
MnDOT and the City will need to discuss the required TH 10 access revisions to allow for a
new intersection to be opened on TH 10.
Response to Comment #7 -Comment noted. No additional response required.
Comment #8: Page 3 and 4 -Water Supply and Wastewater/Sanitary Sewer (Also Page
8 -Municipal Water Use and Service): Since this area of TH 10 is planned for a future
freeway, new water main and sanitary sewer should be placed outside of MnDOT right of way.
Conversion of TH 10 to a freeway at a later date will require the City to relocate the utility
lines if they are placed in the TH 10 right of way at this time.
Response to Comment #8 -Any new sanitary sewer or watermain will be placed
outside of MnDOT right of way. When these utilities are extended, future right of way
needs will be taken into consideration. The City understands that it will be their
responsibility to relocate these utilities if they are in conflict with future TH 10 plans.
Comment #9: Page 6, third paragraph (Also Page 11, G-6): Construction of TH 10 as a six
lane does not appear justified based upon the limited life span of the six lane section prior to
the interchange being needed. The fact that the six lane does not appear cost effective should
be noted.
Response to Comment #9 -Comment noted. Reference to the six lane segment will be
removed in the Final AUAR.
Comment #10: Page 11, G-3: The proposed signal would be allowed to go in at Twin Lakes
Parkway when traffic warrants are met.
Response to Comment #10 - It is anticipated that the need for the additional
intersection and signal at Twin Lakes Parkway will be driven by the development of
Minneapolis ^ St. Cloud
Equal Opportunity Employer
N: (Public BodieslCity CouncillCoancil RCAIAgenda PacketV 1-21-201 / (Comment Responses.docx
November 8, 2011
Page 6 of 6
the AUAR area. The City will work with MnDOT as development grows in the area and
the existing signalized intersection at 171St Avenue begins to reach capacity.
Comment #11: Page 20, Temporary Destination Retail: Allowing temporary Destination
Retail will significantly increase the cost of the right of way in the future interchange area.
This land should beheld vacant or be put into along-term lease such that it does not need to
be purchased in the future. If businesses are located in the interchange area, the agency
leading the interchange construction work would have to not only purchase the right of way,
but it could also have to purchase the buildings and possibly the businesses themselves.
Response to Comment #11-To highlight the future need for right-of--way, the City
has developed a specific land use which recognizes the dynamic properties of the land
in this zone.
Comment #12: Page 22, Transportation: What is the timing of the local road connection
from 171St Avenue to Twin Lakes Parkway on the west side of TH 10? Construction of Twin
Lakes Parkway would probably require the closure of the 167th Avenue access to TH 10 to
meet the access spacing guidelines.
Response to Comment #12 -The local roadway improvements will be development
driven. The City will work with MnDOT through the development of the Twin Lakes
Parkway/TH 10 intersection improvement project on the need for additional access
closures and roadway connections if needed.
Comment #13: Page 23, Permits and Approvals: MnDOT does not have a formal
interchange access request process for trunk highways, but continued coordination with the
department is required to ensure that appropriate access spacing and geometric design are
adhered to.
Response to Comment #13 -Comment noted. No additional response required.
Comment #14: Page 65-67, Phase 1 Development Completed and Phase 2 Development
Completed: How many years of background were considered for the Phase 1 and Phase 2
traffic analyses?
Response to Comment #14 -The analysis assumed that Phase 1 would begin in 2012
and be completed by 2016 with 5 years of background traffic growth. Phase 2 would be
then be completed by 2021 with an additional 5 years of background traffic growth.
Comments from SHPO:
Comment #1: Please be aware that the Minnesota Historical Society's Oliver H. Kelley Farm is
located just south of the study area; approximately a half mile away on Highway 10, and just a
quarter mile away along the Mississippi River. The Oliver H. Kelley Farm is listed in the
National Register of Historic Places as a National Historic Landmark, and is also a very
significant historical and educational visitor destination. Your AUAR incorrectly states that
Minneapolis ^ St. Cloud
Equal Opportunity Employer
N.• IPubJic BodieslCity CouncillCouncil RCAIAgenda Packetlll-2/-20111Comment Responses.docx
November 8, 2011
Page 7 of 7
there are no historic sites in proximity of the study area (page 58), and we would like to see
this statement corrected to reflect the Kelley Farm location. Further, your AUAR makes
reference, on page 58, to information about archaeological historic or architectural sites in
Appendix B, and there is no information within Appendix B regarding historic sites.
Response to Comment #1-The information from SHPO was mistakenly omitted from
the Draft AUAR and has been included in the Final AUAR. No information regarding the
Oliver H. Kelley Farm was noted in the database search for the area. Information about
the site has been added to the Final AUAR.
Comment #2: Further, the AUAR traffic analysis makes no mention of the Kelley Farm as a
traffic generator. The City needs to consider that the Kelley Farm hosts a large number of
visitors each year, and conducts a number of educational activities that bring in busloads of
school children and tour groups. Further, the Kelley Farm is planning to expand educational
programs in the near future. It also hosts events and festivals that can attract large numbers of
visitors at specific times. We suggest that your planning team get in touch with the site
manager, Emily Ogran, at the Oliver Kelley Farm (763-441-6896), and that your AUAR reflect
the Kelley Farm as an important neighbor.
Response to Comment #2 -The traffic analysis looked at average conditions on the
roadway system, which would include the day to day operation of the Kelley Farm.
Any growth in average daily attendance would be included with the general traffic
background growth for the area. The Final AUAR has been revised to include
discussion about the Kelley Farm.
Comment #3: To protect the historic setting and feeling of the Oliver H. Kelley Farm, it is
important to protect the rural and agricultural vistas and views to and from the farm. Historic
interpretation activities on the farm are based on the 1860s time period, and visual incursions
from other time periods have the potential to diminish the effectiveness of Kelley Farm
programs. Therefore, we request that you analyze what visual impacts the various
development alternatives in the study area may have on this National Historic Landmark.
Response to Comment #3 - We acknowledge the comment and have revised the Final
AUAR to state that if this analysis becomes required as part of a federal action such as a
permit or other federal involvement that analysis would be completed at that time.
Comment #4: In terms of archaeological sites, there are no known sites in the study area.
However, we regard the Mississippi River corridor as an area of high probability for
archaeological sites. We do not agree with the statement found on page 85 of the AUAR, that
due to past agricultural use, intact sites are unlikely. Generally speaking, agricultural use
affects only the plow zone, and the soils below the plow zone can and often do contain intact
archaeological sites. Based on the proximity of the study area to the Mississippi River, it is our
recommendation that the portion of the study area located between the Mississippi River and
Highway 10 be surveyed by a qualified archaeologist prior to finalizing redevelopment plans
for the area.
Minneapolis ^ St. Cloud
Equal Opportunity Employer
N: IPub/ic BodieslCity CouncillCounci/ RCAIAgenda Packetll /-21-10111Comment Responses.docx
November 8, 2011
Page 8 of 8
Response to Comment #4 - The City had completed a study in 2005 that did not
identify any archeological or historic resources within the study area. However, this
section of the AUAR has been revised to remove the statement that it is unlikely that
intact archaeological resources would be present due to past agricultural uses. The
Final AUAR has been revised to add language and mitigation that states additional
archeological study will be completed for the area adjacent to the Mississippi River if
required by a federal permit or federal agency.
Furthermore, if during any earth moving or construction activities, any item or
condition found that indicates the site is likely to yield information important to pre-
history orhistory shall be reported to the City immediately. The city reserves the right
to stop work authorized in its approval until the site is appropriately investigated and
work is authorized. This language has been added to the Final AUAR.
Comment #5: Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36CFR800, Procedures of
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for the protection of historic properties. If
development projects in this area are considered for federal assistance, or require a federal
permit or license, such projects should be submitted to our office with reference to the
assisting federal agency.
Response to Comment #5 - This has been added to Item 8 in the Final AUAR.
This concludes the City's response to comments on the AUAR. The AUAR has been revised as
needed. The fina110-day comment period for the Final AUAR ends on December 9, 2011. If
you have questions, please feel free to call me at (763)287-7196.
Minneapolis ^ St. Cloud
Equal Opportunity Employer
N: IPublic BodieslCity CouncillCouncil RCAIAgenda Packetll1-21-201IIComment Responses.docx