Loading...
CR 2001-112 AUAR-Medica ~- . :. ... C\TY OF - HOPKINS August 17, 2001 Council Report 01-112 ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW (AUAR) -MEDICA ProDosed Action. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the following motion: Move to adopt Resolution 01-56, approving the AUAR and Mitigation Plan as found in the documents dated June 8, 2001, and July 30, 2001. 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 AUAR was distributed for the 3D-day comment period. After receiving the comments on the AU AR, an amendment was distributed. Comments on the amendment were received until August 14, 2001. The City has had Jim Benshoof review and comment on the traffic area of the AU AR and Mark Koegler comment on the land use. The City staff has also reviewed the document. Primarv Issues to Consider. . What is an AUAR? · Why is the applicant doing an AUAR? · What are comments from Mark Koegler and Jim Benshoof on the amendment to the AUAR? . What were the comments from the original AU AR? · What were the comments from the amendment to the AU AR? SUDDortin!! Documents. · Analysis of Issues . AUAR · Memo from Jim Benshoof . Memo from Mark Koegler · Resolution 01-56 Nanc S. Anderson, AICP Planner Financial Impact: $_N/A Budgeted: Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): Notes: Y/N Source: . .' CROl-112 Page 2 Primary Issues to Consider. . What i~; 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 are 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 chooses the AU AR process because an AU AR reviews a development scenario or several scenarios for an entire geographical area rather than a specific project. What are comments from Mark Koegler and Jim Benshoof on the amendment to the AUAR? Mark Koegler has reviewed the amendment to the AUAR. Attached is Mr. Koegler's memo. Jim Benshoof has reviewed the traffic portion of the AUAR. Attached is Mr. Benshoofs memo. Both Mr. Koegler and Mr. Benshoof are satisfied with the AUAR and the amendment. . What were the comments from the original AUAR? Overall, the comments from the AUAR were positive. A mitigation plan and responses to the comments will be completed. The following are the agencies that submitted comments: . Metropolitan Council · Minnehaha Watershed District . Minnesota Department of Natural Resources . Minnesota Pollution Control Agency . Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan Council Transportation - Additional evaluation of the impacts of the development on the mainline .. . . . r CROl-112 Page 3 flow of TH 169 should be done. Water Resources - Preliminary site plan map 1, the draft document, has erroneously sited trees within the footprint of both proposed stormwaterponds. The final document should correct this oversight. One of the three proposed inlets into pond 1 is located very close to the proposed outlet of the basin. The pollutant removal efficiency of the basin will be markedly reduced if the facility is constructed as proposed. Council staff recommends that basin piping be altered prior to final approval of the plans to relocate the northern inlet to the pond as far as possible from the proposed outlet. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District The proposed redevelopment of the site to include greenspace and ponding areas is a positive development change. The proposed reduction in runoff rate from the site and the potential for water quality treatment in the ponds are valuable aspects of the project. . Minnesota Department of Natural Resources More specific information in the Final AUAR about the vegetation plan for the site would be helpful. The AUAR preliminary site plan shows trees located within the boundary of the stormwater pond, and additional information about the vegetative plans for the area of the stormwater pond could be provided. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Transportation Alternatives and Transportation Management Plan The AUAR document includes a discussion of transportation alternatives, including public transit and the regional trail system in the development area. The development and implementation of a Transportation Management Plan is also recommended to help reduce the number of trips generated by the proposed development during the peak hour periods. The :MPCA encourages alternatives to the single occupancy vehicle including transit, car and vanpooling, biking and walking, and telecommuting. Minnesota Department of Transportation For your information, Trunk Highway 169 between Interstate 494 and Interstate 94 is identified as an improvement corridor between 2005 and 2025. At this time, there are no projects scheduled for this area with the exception of shoulder improvement for bus service. As a reminder, Second Street NE is Municipal State Aid route #350, S1. Louis Street is Hopkins Municipal State Aid route #342 and Excelsior Boulevard is Hennepin County State Aid Highway #3. Any work on an MSA route must meet State Air rules and policies. Also, the City must review any changes to its Municipal State Air System so that they stay within .. . CROI-112 Page 4 its system limitations. Work on the Huchinson Spur Trail should be designed to current Minnesota Bicycle standards. . What were the comments from the amendment to the AUAR? The Metropolitan Council responded to the amendment with the following statement: the Metropolitan Council staff review has concluded that the amended AU AR is complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns and raises no major issues of consistency with Council policies. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources responded to the amendment with the following statement: The DNR does not offer any objection to the Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan as provided by Minnesota Rules part 4410.3610, subpart 5D. The Minnesota Department of Transportation responded to the amendment with the following statement: The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has reviewed the above referenced Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) amendment and has no additional comments beyond those provided in our July 11, 2001, letter. .. > CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 01-56 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HOPKINS ADOPTING THE AMENDlMENT TO THE ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW (AUAR) FOR THE lMEDIA DEVELOPlMENT WHEREAS, the Hopkins City Council directed the preparation of an AU AR for the Supervalu North Annex site; WHEREAS, an amendment alternative urban area wide review (AUAR) has been prepared which includes responses to comments received in connection with the draft AUAR, as will as a mitigation plan; and WHEREAS, there were no objections to the amended AUAR; and WHEREAS, the amended AU AR is information document that will assist the City of Hopkins in guiding development of the subject area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Hopkins hereby accepts the amended AUAR for the proposed Medica project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the reviewing agencies are provided with copies of the amended AU AR with revision for their files. Adopted by the Hopkins City Council this 21st day of August. Eugene 1. Maxwell, Mayor ATTEST: Terry Obermaier, City Clerk . ~. MEMORANDUM 11111 liD Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Nancy Anderson FROM: Mark Koegler SUBJECT: Medica Corporate Office Development AUAR DATE: August 7, 2001 I have had a chance to review the Amendment to the Alternative Urban Areawide Review for the Medica Corporate Office Development prepared by RLK Kuusisto Ltd. dated July 30, 2001. The amendment supplements the original AUAR document that is dated June 8, 2001. The following comments are offered. Process At the present time, the review period for the Amendment is still open. Public comments can be received through August 14, 2001. At the close of the comment period, two options are available. First, if objections are filed with the city of Hopkins (RGU), the Rules allow another 30 day period of time plus five working days to resolve disputes, conduct negotiations and for the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) to act. A more likely course in the case of the Medica AUAR is that no objections will be offered and the review will terminate. The assumption that this is the probable outcome is supported by the fact that the City received minimal comments on the original AUAR. If no objections are noted, the city of Hopkins is free to conduct its final review and as appropriate, adopt the AU AR document and the associated Mitigation Plan. Recommendation Assuming that no objections are :filed, the current AUAR and Mitigation Plan adequately address the comment issues that that were raised during the initial AUAR review. It is assumed that Benshoof and Associates is providing comments on the traffic mitigation measures as a parallel to our review of land use and site planning related issues. Assuming concurrence by Benshoof and Associates, it would be appropriate for Hopkins' city staff to offer recommendations to both the Planning Commission and City Council suggesting approval of the AUAR and Mitigation Plan as found in the two documents dated June 8, 2001 and July 30, 2001. Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 "w BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS 10417 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD, SUITE TWO / HOPKINS, MN 55343/ (952) 238-1667/ FAX (952) 238-1671 August 17, 2001 Refer to File: 00-92 MEMORANDUM TO: Nancy Anderson FROM: Jim Benshoofl ~ RE: Comments Regarding Traffic Component of AUAR for Medica Development In response to your request, we have reviewed the traffic component of the AU AR for the proposed Medica Development. For the purpose oftrus "final" review, we specifically have addressed the following two documents: a) Alternative Urban Areawide Review dated June 8, 2001, and b) Amendment to the Alternative Urban Areawide Review dated July 30, 2001. Our review of the current document represents the culmination of our efforts during the past months to represent the City's interests in addressing pertinent questions regarding potential traffic implications of the proposed Medica Development. During this period of time, we have had extensive communications with City staff and representatives of the development team to discuss the traffic study and findings for the Medica project. Our prior written communications regarding the traffic study addressed in the AUAR have included the following items: . Note to Nancy Anderson on July 18 expressing one comment regarding the Draft Traffic Management Plan. . Memorandum to Steve Stadler and Miles Lindberg of the URS/BR W firm on June 7, with comments on the updated traffic study report. · Memorandum to Nancy Anderson, Jim Kerrigan, and Steve Stadler on May 23, with comments on the traffic study report. . Listing of preliminary comments dated May 14 regarding the draft traffic study report. . Memorandum to Steve Stadler dated April 4, with comments regarding the partial draft traffic study report. Based on our review of the two current AUAR documents, in the context of our prior comments as described above, we have the following further comments: The traffic study presented in the Alternative Urban Areawide Review dated June 8, 2001, is complete and demonstrates that no significant adverse traffic , ' ~ Ms. Nancy Anderson -2- August 17, 2001 impacts will be caused by the proposed Medica Development. The traffic study is summarized under item 21, with further detail presented in Attachment A, Traffic Impact Report, and Attachment D, Alliant Tech Trip Generation. The traffic documentation and results presented in the AU AR effectively respond to comments we made earlier in the process. . The Amendment to the Alternative Urban Areawide Review dated July 30, 2001, includes a response to comments expressed by staff of the Metropolitan Council regarding potential effects of the Medica Development on TH 169. We believe that an appropriate response has been presented in the document; further, we believe the response confirms that the Medica Development will not cause adverse impacts on TH 169. . The Amendment to the Alternative Urban Areawide Review dated July 30, 2001, includes a Transportation Management Plan as Exhibit D. Weare strongly supportive of this plan and believe that follow-through according to the plan is highly important to fulfill transportation policies. of the City and to provide further assurance that no significant negative traffic impacts will be experienced. We recommended one wording change to Nancy Anderson on July 18, which is not yet included in the document dated July 30. Our recommended change is on the eighth line of the second to last page in the document. Specifically, we would recommend replacing the word, "utilize," with, "increase usage of." After this change, the first sentence in the third dot point on this page would read, "The Facility Manager will meet with the City of Hopkins, MnlDOT, Metropolitan Council, and other large office and commercial property owners in the area to discuss alternatives to improve transit services and increase usage of existing transit service." Subject to the preceding comments, we are fully satisfied with the traffic components of the referenced AU AR documents for the proposed Medica Development. With the mitigation measures referenced in the documents (including the Transportation Management Plan), we are confident that the Medica Development will not cause any significant adverse traffic impacts.