Agenda - Council - 05/27/2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Comment 7.12: For any lands within the Critical Are~WSR/MNRRA Corridor under the County's jurisdiction that may be affected by discharge, stormwater management or wetland mitigation of the RTC project, the County is subject to the same state Critical Area laws for local units of government. The County's Critical Area Plan was conditionally approved March 14, 2002, including a condition that "all f~ture uses, development, management, transportation, utility, parks, recreation, and capital improvement and public facility progrmns affecting lands under County jurisdiction within the ... Con'idor shall be consistent and permitted only in accordance with the County's Plan, the standards and guidelines of Executive Order 79-19, and other applicable local, state, and federal laws, whichever is more restrictive." For clarification, the last paragraph, the last sentence on page 14-4 should include the following: "The City will also work with Anoka County Parks to implement these standards and the County's DNR-conditionalty approved MNRRA/Critical Area Plan within MRP land controlled by the County." Response: The document has been changed to reflect the comment. Comment 7.13: While we appreciate that much has been done to minimize runoff from the developed site, we encourage additional effort to achieve pre-development volumes of runoff entering the Mississippi River. Response: Item 17 and the added Appendix J discuss the means that will be used to handle runoff fi'om the RTC site. However, the discussion of the drainage system does not include details on the specific BMPs that will be introduced into each block as it is constructed. The AUAR document looked instead at the overall need to address drainage under high flow conditions, and route that water such that flooding problems do not occur. This approach is required by the LRRWMO. Follow-up implementation of BMPs to enhance infiltration, filtration and detention will be a design detail that will likely lead to additional reduced runoff. Comment 7.14: In Appendix B, please re-check the traffic assigmnents in Figures 7 and 8. For example, in Figure 8 (PM), the difference in the through volumes (for with, and without project) on westbound TH 10 at Sunfish Lake Blvd. NW is 1,065 (3,165 - 2,100). This number also represents the traffic entering the development in the aSternoon (PM) fi'om the east on TH 10 (43 percent of 2,480). If the differences in the Left Turns, and Right Turns at Ramsey Blvd. and Armstrong Blvd. NW are added, the result is 779. It appears that there is no accounting for 286 vehicles. These figures must be double- checked for accuracy, and any revised traffic information submitted to Mn/DOT (contact given). Response: MMA r~Sp0nS~ expected Comme,t/:/8. Anoka County submitted the following set of comments: Comment 8.1: There are concerns about several issues rented to infrastructure capacity, timing, connections to existing portions of infl'astructure, and financing of improvements. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -158- 34-10