4.4. SR 11-21-2011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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