Loading...
CR 01-72 Alternative Urban Area Wide Review - Medica f. . . , . C\TY OF m HOPKINS May 31,2001 Council Report 01-72 ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW (AUAR) - MEDICA ProDosed Actions. Staff recommends the City Council approve the following motions: First Motion Order a review of the AUAR for Medica consistent with Minnesota Rules 4410.3610 Subpart 3 with the project defined as follows: 1. The proposed project site is bordered on the north by Second Street NE, on the east by Jackson Avenue and St. Louis Street, on the south by Excelsior Boulevard and on the west by Truck Highway 169. 2. The development is proposed to contain the following land uses: · 450,000 square feet of corporate headquarters · 150,000 square feet of general office Second Motion Authorize distribution of the AU AR for the 30-day comment period. Overview. Because of the size of the Medica development, an . environmental review is required. An Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) has been completed for the Medica development. The City has had Jim Benshoof review and comment on the traffic area of the AUAR. and Mark Koegler comment on the land use. The City staff has also reviewed the document. Prima" Issues to Consider. · What is an AUAR? · Why is the applicant doing an AUAR? · What are comments on the AU AR? · What are the next steps in the AU AR? · What was the discussion at the Planning Commission meeting? SUDDortin2 Documents. · Analysis of Issues · AUAR · Memo from Jim Benshoof Ufbrrr11 ~ nrrrlOflfJ1Jr\ Nan~derson, AICP Planner Financial Impact: $_N/A Budgeted: Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): Notes: YIN Source: . . CROI-72 Page 2 . Primary Issues to Consider. . What is an AUAR? The Alternative Urban Areawide Review process substitutes for any Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) required for specific qualifying projects provided they comply with the review assumptions and mitigation measures. The Environmental Quality Board states the following: A hybrid of the EA Wand EIS review processes, the AU AR uses a standard list of questions adapted from the EA W, providing a level of analysis for typical urban area impacts comparable to an EIS. Since its content is uniform, scoping is not necessary; however, it has been voluntarily added to several reviews. A draft and final document is prepared and distributed. in a manner similar to an EIS to ensure adequate review. A process for appeal to the Environmental Quality Board can be invoked by state agencies and the Metropolitan Council. Why is the applicant doing an AUAR? The development is required to have an environmental review. The applicant chose the AUAR process because an AUAR reviews a development scenario or several scenarios for an entire geographical area rather than a specific project. What are the comments on the AUAR? Mark Koegler has reviewed the AUAR,except for Questions 17, 18, and 21. Mr. Koegler found the AU AR is complete for purpose of publication and initiating the public review period. Jim Benshoofhas reviewed the traffic portion of the AUAR and found two areas where he recommends -further analysis. The two areas are the following: . Potential effects on Second Street, Minnetonka Mills Road, and Fifth Avenue. . Potential impacts at major intersections near the Medica site. Attached is the memo from Jim Benshoof. . What are the next steps in the AUAR? The City Council will order the preparation of the ADAR and review the draft. Following that review, the AUAR is distributed for .comments. After the comment period ends, the AUAR is revised and a final AUAR is distributed. If there are objections to the AUAR they need to be resolved; if there are no objections the City adopts the AU AR. . , . CROl-72 Page 3 What was the discussion at the Planning Commission meeting? John Dietrich of RLK Kuusisto LTD appeared before the Commission. Mr. Dietrich reviewed the reasons for the ADAR with the Commission. The Commission discussed the pedestrian crossings and the possibility of a tunnel or elevated crossing. The Commission was indicated that the draft AU ARwas complete for distribution. ~~~ . BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS 10417 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD, SUITE TWO I HOPKINS, MN 55343/ (952) 238-1667/ FAX (952) 238-1671 May 23,2001 Refer to File: 00-92' MEMORANDUM TO: Nancy Anderson Jim Kerrigan Steve Stadler FROM: Jim Benshoof ~ B RE: Comments' on Traffic Study Report for Proposed Medica Development PURPOSE AND OVERALL COMMENTS On behalf of the City of Hopkins, we have reviewed the Traffic Impact Study Report for the proposed Medica development, dated May 2001, which has been prepared by the URS/BR W firm. This memorandum is to offer our comments regarding that traffic study report. As you are aware, we have assisted the City in addressing traffic questions about the proposed Medica development since late last year. During this time, we have coordinated with City staff and representatives of the lJRSlBR W' frrffi to provide input on matters regarding the traffic study that have included: objectives,.scope of the traffic analysis, and comments on preliminary results. To a large extent, the current Traffic Impact Study Report pr09uced by the URS/BRW firm provides a positive response to the key traffic questions and objectives. In order to ensure a satisfactory traffic situation after completion of the proposed Medica development, we believe that further traffic analyses need to be accomplished regarding the following two points: . Potential effects on 20d Street, Minnetonka Mills Road, and 5th Avenue. .. Potential impacts at major intersections near the Medica site. Reasons for such further considerations and suggestions on items to address are presented in the next two sections of this memorandum. Ms. Nancy Anderson, Mr. Jim Kerrigan, Mr. Steve Stadler 2 May 23, 2001 NEED MORE CONSIDERA nON REGARDING POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON 2ND STREET, MINNETONKA MlLLS ROAD, AND 5TH AVENUE These three streets are designated as Collectors in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Residential uses exist along.a.portion of 2nd Street, with a neighborhood nearby to the north. Homes are located along both sides ofMinnetonka Mills Road and 5th Avenue. Figure 2-3 in the report indicates that these streets will be used by some motorists traveling to and from the Medica development. Section 7.1 in the report describes major characteristics of these streets and the existing daily volume on each street. This section also indicates that the existing volumes are within the capacities of these three streets. The report, however, does not indicate the extent to which the volumes on these streets would be increased by the Medica development or the effects of such volume increases. Given the collector function of these streets and their significant residential character, we believe that further. consideration needs to be given to potential impacts on these streets. Specific questions that we would suggest be addressed include: . To what extent would the Medica development increase the daily and peak hour volumes on each of these three streets? . What are the effects of the Medica traffic increases on each of these streets in terms of traffic capacity, traffic safety, pedestrian and bicycle movements, and nearby land uses? . Are any improvements now planned along these streets? For instance, the City's Comprehensive Plan shows a possible sidewalk on the north side of Minnetonka Mills Road. . Are any further improvements needed on these streets to mitigate effects of the Medica development? NEED MORE CONSIDERATION REGARDING EFFECTS AT MAJOR INTERSECTIONS Traffic implications at major intersections near the Medica site are addressed in the following four major sections in the Traffic Report: . Year 2004 No-Build Conditions . Year 2004 Post-Development Conditions . Year 2020 No-Build Conditions . Year 2020 Post-Development Conditions These sections document extensive analyses and present results regarding the ability of the intersections to accommodate the projectedvolumes. While establishing these positive findings, we also identified three issues described on the next page regarding the intersection analyses: Ms. Nancy Anderson, Mr. Jim Kerrigan, 3 Mr. Steve Stadler May 23, 2001 a) Insufficient identification and discussion of possible mitigation measures for intersections that would experience level or service E or F movements under the 2004 and/or 2020 Do-build couditions. These are difficulties that would be experienced witbout the Medica development. On the other hand, since these intersections would be used by a significant number of Medica trips, we believe that greater attention should be given to possible measures that could be taken to provide better traffic operations for background traffic and for trips to/from the Medica development. For example, the report describes significant queuing and level of service difficulties for northbound Blake Road at TH 7. The report indicates that a possible improvement would be to construct double left turn lanes for the northbound approach of Blake Road~ but does not discuss the feasibility of this concept. Further, the report states that this improvement wu not usumed to be inplace for post- development conditions. We would suggest that the report address this problem in a more complete manner, with comments on the feasibility of the suggested solutio~ with consideration of other possible mitigation measures, and with suggestions on steps that the City should take to seek improvements to this situation. b) Insumcient cODsideratioD of impacts and possible mitigation measures at intersections and regarding movements for which tbe Medica tramc causes the peak.hour level of seIViee to decline to level of service E. These are circumstances where traffic operated at an acceptable level of service (D or better) under the no-build conditions, but declined to level of service E (generally an unacceptable situation) with the Medica traffic. c) Circumstances where particular traffie movemenu have a better level of len'ice UDder the build conditioD than under the no-build condition. This outcome does not seem to make sense when greater volumes are experienced under the buiid condition. Tnis questionabie outcome has been presented in the traffic report for one movement in the 2004 a.m. peak hours two movements in the 2004 p.m. peak hour, and three movements in the 2020 p.m. peak hour. Intersections for which one. or more of the above problems need to be resolved are: . TH 7 and S1h Avenue . TH 7 and Blake Road . Blake Road and 2- Street · Blake R.oad and Excelsior Boulevard · Excelsior BoulevardlMilwaukee Streetl1ackson Avenue · Excelsior Boulevard and east ramps for m 169 · Excelsior Boulevard and west ramps for m 169 TOTAL P.12I2 , .. [ .. Ms. Nancy Anderson, Mr. Jim Kerrigan, Mr. Steve Stadler 4 CONCLUSIONS May 23,2001 As noted in this memorandum, we have found that the subj ect Traffic Impact Report for the Medica Development has"addressed the relevant traffic questions to a substantial degree. If the report is expanded to address the points discussed in this memorandum, we are confident that the City will have a sufficient basis to make a final determination regarding whether the roadway system will be able to accommodate the projected post- development volumes without any significant adverse impacts being created.