08-12-24-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—AUGUST 12, 2024 8 Rachel Haase, Kimley Horn, provided a brief presentation on the TCAAP AUAR updates and mitigation plan. She explained an AUAR was an Alternative Urban Areawide Review that addressed the environmental review process under Minnesota State rules, was completed by the responsible governmental unit (RGU) and was a planning tool used to understand how different development scenarios would affect the environment. She reported an AUAR evaluates different development scenarios rather than a specific plan while identifying potential impacts and mitigation strategies. She explained AUAR's have to be updated every five years in order to identify any changes that have been made to the development scenarios. Ms. Haase reported the original AUAR was completed in 2014. She noted the AUAR was updated in 2019 and again in 2024. She reviewed the two comments that were received on the 2024 AUAR from the Met Council and DNR. The two different development scenarios that were considered within the AUAR were further discussed with the City Council, along with the changes reflected within the AUAR update. The traffic study and trip generation within the two different scenarios was further reviewed as was the mitigation plan updates. She reported next steps for the AUAR included adoption by the City Council. Councilmember Holden requested further information regarding the trip generation from the site. Jacob Rojer, Kimley Horn, explained the trip generation numbers were just for people destined to the development and do not take into account other people at the intersection traveling to different destinations. Councilmember Monson requested further information regarding the typical nature of the two different scenarios approach. Ms. Haase stated AUAR's cover a range of development that includes the proposed scenario and a worst-case scenario in order to understand the higher levels of impact. Councilmember Monson asked for further information on how the A through F ratings for the intersections worked. Mr. Rojer explained intersections were given a grade similar to grades used in school. He stated an A is the least amount of delay and an F had the highest level of delay. He reported mitigation recommendations were not made until an intersection reached a D, E or F rating. He discussed how intersections have to be right sized in order to properly moved traffic levels while also considering what were the proper service delays for the public. He commented further on the tradeoffs for overbuilding intersections. Councilmember Monson requested further information on how the changes that were made to the level of commercial uses and residential uses would impact traffic flow. Mr. Rojer stated he would recommend site specific traffic studies being completed to this level, noting he had not analyzed the traffic flow from the site to this level of detail. Councilmember Monson commented there were many improvements that happened between 2014 and after 2019. She questioned how many of these improvements were prior mitigation measures.