Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04-14-14-TCAAP WS
-- Dave McClung Ed Werner www.cityofardenhills.org Arden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, wellmaintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our longstanding tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play. CALL TO ORDER AGENDA ITEMS 1.A.Financial Modeling Stacie Kvilvang, Ehlers Documents:MEMO.PDF, 1.B.Review AUAR Environmental Report Beth Kunkel, Kimley Horn Documents:MEMO.PDF, Review Of Public Comments Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director Brian Smalkoski, Kimley Horn Documents:MEMO.PDF,ATTACHMENT.PDF,DRAFT AUAR AND MITIGATION PLAN 04 14 14.PDF Schedule Of Meetings And City Approvals Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director Documents:MEMO.PDF, COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS MEMORANDUM DATE: April 14, 2014 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Sue Iverson, Acting City Administrator FROM:Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Financial Modeling for Public Utilities Requested Action Review utility funding information. Discussion The City has asked Ehlers to provide financial modeling for the construction of City utilities. Stacie Kvilvang has provided a memo describing the funding mechanisms that cities typically use to fund utilities, along with charts showing specific funding scenarios for several development projects. This information is provided as background information for a more detailed discussion on this topic on May 12, 2014. Attachments Memo from Stacie Kvilvang, Ehlers, dated April 9, 2014 Chart – Storm Water System Construction Funding Chart – Sanitary Sewer System Construction Funding 11 Page of Memo Patrick Klaers, City Administrator To: From: Stacie Kvilvang Date: April 9, 2014 Subject: Storm Water System Development Costs Ehlers was asked to review the most common ways in which municipalities cover the cost to construct storm water management systems. Of particular interest are larger projects that incorporate an area-wide or regional storm water management component. Generally speaking, most municipalities require that development pays its own way to construct any necessary storm water management system. This is typically accomplished by imposing an impact fee at the time of development, or as a direct requirement of the developer to construct and pay for the necessary system. Alternatively, cites may pay the up-front costs to build-out a larger system and recover those costs through future impact fees and/or special assessments. Once established, these systems are often turned over to the municipality for ongoing operation and maintenance. Many communities fund this ongoing expense through a storm water utility fee that then applies city-wide. Attached to this memorandum is a table providing some examples of regional or larger storm water systems that have been constructed and how they were funded. Since new sanitary sewer lines will need to be installed as developments come on line, we have also attached a chart delineating how these same cities construct and pay for these systems. As noted, there are a multitude of ways to pay for both systems and these examples were provided to provide the Council basic background and set the framework for future policy discussions with them on how to finance and pay for the construction of these systems. Please contact me at 651-697-8506 with any questions. City of Arden Hills Storm Water System Development Costs January 22, 2014 Page 2 Storm Water System Construction Funding 4-9-14 {·© ·;© {ä·; {·© ·;© ©Ò {·© ·;© {ä·; /z·ä t©;-· /·©Ò-·z CÒ7zm C;; a z·; -; CÒ7zm Blaine -The Lakes Construction of entire system at No storm water trunk fee in City-wide storm water utility -All others The Lakes paid for by the place. fee pays for the cost of developer. The system is city operation and maintenance owned and maintained. Chaska -Large Housing Developer pays impact fee at Fee ranges from $9,389 to City-wide storm water utility Developments time of development. $15,400 per acre depending fee pays for the cost of -West Creek on use. The fee is reduced operation and maintenance Corporate by 90% if developer -All other projects constructs the system. System becomes city owned. Brooklyn -Edinburgh Channel Edinburgh Channel built at city Assess trunk charges to the City-wide storm water utility -All other developer at the time of the fee pays for the cost of Park development recovered through project operation and maintenance fees/assessments. All other projects built at developer expense. Maple -Arbor Lakes and City designed and constructed No storm water trunk fee in No storm water utility fee in former gravel mining an area wide system ahead of place. place. Covenants with land Grove area development occurring. Costs owners addressing ; are being recovered through future maintenance. special assessments to benefiting properties. Chanhassen -Extension of system City system is funded with water Water Quantity Fee: $4,273- Storm water utility fee for new development quantity and quality charges and $9,136 per acre with credits - All land use quarterly storm water revenues. provided for existing outlets. No financing anticipated. Water Quality Fee: $2,986 - $6,235 per acre with up to 50% credit for on- site ponding. Inver Grove -Northwest Area City is expanding its regional $10,870 to $12,485 per net Storm water utility fee higher system and on-site rain gardens developable acre. Regional in Northwest Area than other Heights as development occurs in the system is City owned. Fees parts of the City to pay for Northwest Area, a geographic are being re-evaluated in additional maintenance of area to which the City is 2014 because they may not rain gardens. extending water and sewer, generate enough revenue opening it up for higher density for land acquisition. development. No storm water costs assessed to land owners. Woodbury - Extension of system Funded with Storm Water Trunk Typical charge for residential Storm water utility fee for new development Fund. property per acre is $13,987. - All land use Commercial property pays an average of $27,154 per acre. There are no natural outlets in City. All has to be infiltrated or directed through ravines. Sanitary Sewer System Construction Funding 4-9-14 { z· ©ä {;Þ;© {ä·; { z· ©ä {;Þ;© ©Ò { z· ©ä {;Þ;© {ä·; /z·ä t©;-· /·©Ò-·z CÒ7zm C;; a z·; -; CÒ7zm Blaine -The Lakes Oversizing paid for from Sewer Paid by developer when plat Sanitary sewer utility fee pays -All others Fund. is approved. $3,500 for the cost of operation and $6,000 per acre maintenance Chaska - Extension of system Funded with cash in Sewer $1,264 per acre is paid for by Sanitary sewer utility fee pays for new development Trunk Fund. the developer when the land for the cost of operation and - All land use is platted. maintenance Brooklyn -By St. Vincent church; Special Assessment bonds &/or Assess trunk charges to the Sanitary sewer utility fee pays petitioned by cash on hand. developer at the time of the for the cost of operation and Park developer project maintenance Maple Extension of trunks Funded with cash on hand in $2,500 per acre for Sanitary sewer utility fee pays and laterals for new enterprise funds. commercial; $630/unit for for the cost of operation and Grove development residential. maintenance - All land use Chanhassen -Extension of trunks Funded with cash in Sewer $2,213 per SAC unit. A Sanitary sewer quarterly fee and laterals for new Trunk Fund. portion is paid when land is revenue. development platted, and the remainder - All land use paid with building permit. Inver Grove -Northwest Area Extension of sewer lines into a $3,190 - $19,140 per Sanitary sewer quarterly fee previously unsewered quadrant developable acre paid at revenue. Heights of City. Initial phase financed time of plat. Additional city and installed by the City in 2007-sewer connection fee of 2010. No sewer costs assessed $4,405 per SAC unit paid to landowners. with building permit. City is re-evaluating fees in 2014. Developer feedback is that fees are barrier to new development. Woodbury -Extension of trunks Funded with cash in Sewer Connection charge paid up Sanitary sewer utility fee pays and laterals for new Trunk Fund. front up to $880 per unit for for the cost of operation and development residential. Area charge maintenance - All land use ranges from $2,590 $5,545 per acre. Either paid with permit or assessed over four years. MEMORANDUM DATE: April 14, 2014 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Sue Iverson, Acting City Administrator FROM:Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Draft AUAR and Mitigation Plan Requested Action Provide comments and feedback on the draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) and Mitigation Plan. Discussion Kimley-Horn has prepared a draft AUAR and Mitigation Plan. A memo describing the purpose of the AUAR and Mitigation Plan, the City’s role as the Responsible Government Unit (RGU), and the proposed review and approval schedule is attached. The City Council will review the final AUAR and Mitigation Plan, including responses to public comments, on June 30. Final City Council approval is scheduled for July 28. Attachments Memo from Jessica Laabs, Kimley-Horn and Associates, dated April 14, 2014 Draft AUAR and Mitigation Plan 11 Page of Memorandum Suite 238N Date: April 14, 2014 2550 University Avenue West St. Paul, Minnesota To: Arden Hills City Council 55114 From: Jessica Laabs, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Subject: TCAAP Draft AUAR Update and Next Steps The purpose of this memo is to provide an overview of the TCAAP AUAR evaluation process, the impacts and mitigation plan, and the key steps in the review and approval process. An AUAR is a form of environmental documentation through Minnesota State Rules that evaluates development scenarios for a geographical area rather than a specific project. In October 2013, the City of Arden Hills issued an order for an AUAR for the TCAAP study area, which Ramsey County is preparing for redevelopment. Two development scenarios were identified, loosely based on anticipated and maximum development allowed under the comprehensive plan and other site constraints. This AUAR is not intended to evaluate any specific development plan, rather it is to assume worst-case impacts of the defined scenarios to determine at what level of development impacts would occur and when mitigation of impacts is required. This provides the city information to make informed decisions about development density and required mitigation. The city, as the responsible government unit, is responsible for approving and adopting the Final AUAR and Mitigation plan. This Mitigation Plan is submitted as part of the Draft AUAR to provide reviewers and regulators with an understanding of the actions which are advisable, recommended, or necessary to protect the environment and minimize potential impacts by the proposed development scenarios. The Draft Mitigation Plan will be revised and updated based on comments received during the Draft AUAR comment period. This Mitigation Plan is intended to satisfy the AUAR rules that require the preparation of a mitigation plan that specifies measures or procedures that will be used to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the potential impacts of development within the AUAR study area. The mitigation plan will be formally adopted by the city as its action plan to prevent potentially significant environmental impacts. The AUAR follows the state EAW worksheet format, addressing a standard range of environmental issues. In addition to the standard regulatory permits and approvals, the areas that have been identified as requiring mitigation include water resources, contamination, sensitive ecological resources and transportation. Arden Hills City Council, April 14, 2014, Pg. 2 The impacts and corresponding mitigation requirements are itemized in the Draft Mitigation Plan section of the Draft AUAR. Key steps to adopting the AUAR and Mitigation Plan April 21: Submit Draft AUAR to EQB Monitor for publication April 28: EQB Monitor publication; start of 30-day comment period May 28: End of public comment period June 30: City Council authorizes Final AUAR distribution to state agencies and Met Council for final 10-day comment period July 28: If no agency objections are received, City Council passes a resolution adopting the Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan and distributes decision. MEMORANDUM DATE: April 14, 2014 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Sue Iverson, Acting City Administrator FROM:Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Draft AUAR and Mitigation Plan Requested Action Provide comments and feedback on the draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) and Mitigation Plan. Discussion Kimley-Horn has prepared a draft AUAR and Mitigation Plan. A memo describing the purpose of the AUAR and Mitigation Plan, the City’s role as the Responsible Government Unit (RGU), and the proposed review and approval schedule is attached. The City Council will review the final AUAR and Mitigation Plan, including responses to public comments, on June 30. Final City Council approval is scheduled for July 28. Attachments Memo from Jessica Laabs, Kimley-Horn and Associates, dated April 14, 2014 Draft AUAR and Mitigation Plan 11 Page of Memorandum Suite 238N Date: April 14, 2014 2550 University Avenue West St. Paul, Minnesota To: Arden Hills City Council 55114 From: Jessica Laabs, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Subject: TCAAP Draft AUAR Update and Next Steps The purpose of this memo is to provide an overview of the TCAAP AUAR evaluation process, the impacts and mitigation plan, and the key steps in the review and approval process. An AUAR is a form of environmental documentation through Minnesota State Rules that evaluates development scenarios for a geographical area rather than a specific project. In October 2013, the City of Arden Hills issued an order for an AUAR for the TCAAP study area, which Ramsey County is preparing for redevelopment. Two development scenarios were identified, loosely based on anticipated and maximum development allowed under the comprehensive plan and other site constraints. This AUAR is not intended to evaluate any specific development plan, rather it is to assume worst-case impacts of the defined scenarios to determine at what level of development impacts would occur and when mitigation of impacts is required. This provides the city information to make informed decisions about development density and required mitigation. The city, as the responsible government unit, is responsible for approving and adopting the Final AUAR and Mitigation plan. This Mitigation Plan is submitted as part of the Draft AUAR to provide reviewers and regulators with an understanding of the actions which are advisable, recommended, or necessary to protect the environment and minimize potential impacts by the proposed development scenarios. The Draft Mitigation Plan will be revised and updated based on comments received during the Draft AUAR comment period. This Mitigation Plan is intended to satisfy the AUAR rules that require the preparation of a mitigation plan that specifies measures or procedures that will be used to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the potential impacts of development within the AUAR study area. The mitigation plan will be formally adopted by the city as its action plan to prevent potentially significant environmental impacts. The AUAR follows the state EAW worksheet format, addressing a standard range of environmental issues. In addition to the standard regulatory permits and approvals, the areas that have been identified as requiring mitigation include water resources, contamination, sensitive ecological resources and transportation. Arden Hills City Council, April 14, 2014, Pg. 2 The impacts and corresponding mitigation requirements are itemized in the Draft Mitigation Plan section of the Draft AUAR. Key steps to adopting the AUAR and Mitigation Plan April 21: Submit Draft AUAR to EQB Monitor for publication April 28: EQB Monitor publication; start of 30-day comment period May 28: End of public comment period June 30: City Council authorizes Final AUAR distribution to state agencies and Met Council for final 10-day comment period July 28: If no agency objections are received, City Council passes a resolution adopting the Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan and distributes decision. Table of Contents DRAFT ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW ................................................................. 1 1. Project Title ................................................................ 1 2. Proposer ................................................................ 1 3. Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) ................................................................ 1 4. Reason for EAW Preparation ................................................................ 1 5. Project Location ................................................................ 1 6. Description ................................................................ 1 7. Cover Types ................................................................ 5 8. Permits and Approvals Required ................................................................ 5 9. Land Use ................................................................ 6 10. Geology, Soils, and Topography/Land Forms ................................................................ 8 11. Water Resources ................................................................ 10 12. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes ................................................................ 15 13. Fish, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources ............................................... 17 14. Historic Properties ................................................................ 19 15. Visual ................................................................. 21 16. Air ................................................................ 21 17. Noise ................................................................. 22 18. Transportation................................................................ 23 19. Cumulative Potential Effects ................................................................ 33 20. Other potential environmental effects: ................................................................ 34 DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN ................................................................ 1 8. Permits And Approvals Required ................................................................ 2 11. Water Resources ................................................................ 3 12. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Solid Wastes ................................................................ 4 13. Fish, Plant Communities, And Sensitive Ecological Resources ................................................................ 4 18. Transportation................................................................ 5 { RD "TCAAP AUAR final draft_4.3.14.docx" \f }{ RD "TCAAP AUAR Mitigation Plan final 4.3.14.docx" \f } Appendix A. Correspondence Appendix B. County Well Index Information for Wells within the A Appendix C. TCAAP Traffic Study April 2014 1 DRAFT ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW 1.PT: Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant (TCAAP) Redevelopment Project ROJECT ITLE 2.P: CAH ROPOSER ITY OF RDEN ILLS CP: Jill Hutmacher ONTACT ERSON T: Community Development Director ITLE A: 1245 West Highway 96 DDRESS C,SZIP: Arden Hills, MN 55112 ITY TATE P : 651-792-7819 HONE F: 651-634-5137 AX E: jhutmacher@cityofardenhills.org MAIL 3.RGU(RGU): CAH ESPONSIBLE OVERNMENTAL NIT ITY OF RDEN ILLS C: Jill Hutmacher ONTACT PERSON T: Community Development Director ITLE A: 1245 West Highway 96 DDRESS C,SZIP: Arden Hills, MN 55112 ITY TATE P: 651-792-7819 HONE F: 651-634-5137 AX E: jhutmacher@cityofardenhills.org MAIL 4.REAWP EASON FOR REPARATION AUAR Guidance: Not applicable to AUAR. 5.PL ROJECT OCATION C:C/T: Ramsey Arden Hills OUNTYITYOWNSHIP AEAW: TTACH EACH OF THE FOLLOWING TO THE C (see Figure 5-1) OUNTY MAP SHOWING THE GENERAL LOCATION OF THE PROJECT U.S.GS7.5,1:24,000 EOLOGICAL URVEY MINUTE SCALE MAP INDICATING PROJECT BOUNDARIES () (see Figure 5-2) PHOTOCOPY ACCEPTABLE P (Figure 5-3) ROPOSED LAND USE PLAN S (Figures 5-4, 7-1 and 7-2) ITE PLAN SHOWING ALL SIGNIFICANT PROJECT AND NATURAL FEATURES 6.D ESCRIPTION AUAR Guidance: Instead of the information called for on the form include the following elements for each major development scenar Anticipated types and intensity (density) of residential and com development throughout the AUAR area; April 2014 Draft 1 Infrastructure planned to serve development (roads, sewers, wate Roadways intended primarily to serve as adjoining land uses with AUAR area are an optional inclusion in the AUAR analysis; if the of review, generally including an analysis of alternative routes Information about the anticipated staging of various development infrastructure, and how the infrastructure staging will influenc The AUAR study area is 427 acres owned by Ramsey County and loca Hills (Figures 5-1 and 5-2). An additional 2.5 acres south of CR H that is owned by Ramsey County Parks has also been evaluated for future development. The County may consi to allow development on the west side of the study area for road Ramsey County/Parks would gain parkland in a more beneficial area of the study area. Therefore, the AUAR study area evaluated throughout this docum boundary. The AUAR study area is bounded by County Road (CR) 96 on the south, on the west by Trun (TH) 10 and Interstate 35W (I-35W), on the north by State of Min Guard property (see Figure 5-3). The TCAAP site was property of the US Department of the Army fro and test munitions. The full TCAAP site is approximately 2,400 a licensed to the National Guard and are used for training purpose vacant, with 44 abandoned buildings that were demolished in 2013. The AUAR stud western portion of the TCAAP site, was purchased by Ramsey Countto undertake contamination clean up necessary to allow development. The County intends to sell off parcels for development as market demand is generated. The City of Arden Hills, as the governing body, is in Development Authority (JDA) has been established between the Cit interests in future development. The JDA was created to implemen activities. The JDA will be the decision making body for develop approved mitigation plan. JDA members include two County Commissioners, two City Councilmembers, and additional non-elected City appointee. As part of the site development process, the City of Arden Hills including development of a site Master Plan, and creation of sit the site. The Master Plan will confirm and refine the vision for site development, establish where land uses occur, and introduce the character and image of development. The refine the character and image of the development and codify the final mitigation plan from this AUAR will be incorporated into t Based on the existing Arden Hills zoning code, allowed uses with commercial (i.e., office, light industrial), residential, and pa. The AUAR Order approved by the City of Arden Hills defined two scenarios to be evaluated in the Zoning Scenario approved comprehensive plan and the associated development current zoning code. It includes up to 1,500 residential units, retail, and 1,700,000 square feet of non-retail commercial (Figure 5-3). The second scenario, referred to as the Maximum Development Scenario, uses the same land use framework but increases the amount of development to maximum density based on transportation network. This scenario includes up to 2,500 resid 1,950,000 square feet of non-retail commercial (Figure 5-3). April 2014 Draft 2 In either scenario, infrastructure improvements are proposed on the site to serve the needs of future development. There will be two points of vehicle access to the site, one at Cand the other at CR H. Ramsey County proposes to construct a roadway through the site, connecting the access roadway, the city can develop a logical system of streets The proposed County Road will carry the majority of traffic volumes a low- speed, four-lane divided section with a trail on one side and sidewalk on tee Figure 5-4). It will be designed to County State Aid Highway (CSAH) standards. A supportive network o road will provide access to neighborhoods and businesses. Off-si both scenarios can be found in Item 18: Transportation. The site will also contain a system of wet and dry utilities that wil corridor. The City of Arden Hills will construct the public util way will be made available for private utilities (gas, electric,. The City will be reimbursed for its infrastructure expenditures through special assessments to deve are required to be installed underground per the City of Arden Hills Zoning Code (Section 1320.135). Regional stormwater management and wetland mitigation facilities will be d treatment, and to serve as an integral amenity/green corridor wi Resources for more information). Due to the presence of contaminated soils and groundwater in the ammunition plant, the redevelopment will be preceded by environmental cleanup efforts an work began in March 2013 and is ongoing; it is anticipated to be completed by October 2015. Infrastructure improvements are expected to be constructed in 2015 - 2016, including site access, County Roadway, mass site grading, and trunk utilities. Site preparation for future develo anticipated completion date of 2016. Development of individual lots would then move forward in a ph approach dependent on demand over an anticipated 10 to 20 year t 6.1Project Magnitude Data For a summary of the two development scenarios, see Table 6-1. T: OTAL PROJECT ACREAGE N: UMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS UNATTACHED ATTACHED MAXIMUM UNITS PER BUILDING C,,(): OMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL OR INSTITUTIONAL BUILDING AREA GROSS FLOOR SPACE TOTAL SQUARE FEET I(): NDICATE AREAS OF SPECIFIC USES IN SQUARE FEET O: M: FFICEANUFACTURING R: O: ETAIL THER INDUSTRIAL W: I: AREHOUSE NSTITUTIONAL L: A: IGHT INDUSTRIAL GRICULTURAL O(): THER COMMERCIAL SPECIFY B: I2,: UILDING HEIGHT F OVER STORIES COMPARE TO HEIGHTS OF NEARBY BUILDINGS Building heights of up to 5 stories are allowed under the curren other development adjacent to the adjacent I-35W corridor. April 2014 Draft 3 AUAR Guidance: No changes from the EAW form, except that the inf development scenario. Table 6-1. Scenario Component Totals Component Zoning Scenario Maximum Development Scenario Residential Units 1,500 2,500 Retail (square feet) 500,000 550,000 Non-Retail Commercial (square 1,700,000 1,950,000 feet) Acreage 429 429 Building Height Up to 5 stories Up to 5 stories There are no specific development plans for any of the land use site infrastructure. This AUAR recognizes that the density of la scenarios being evaluated. In the 10 to 20 year development time and the site must be positioned to respond to those changes. The intent of the AUAR document is to identify the worst case potential impacts and the mitigation required to comp The key factor driving site density is traffic capacity of the t, and the site generated traffic volumes are driven by the mix of land use types. Table 6-2 lists to traffic generation. The unit rates have been blended for each for each use (i.e., single family, multi-family, or senior housi generates the same number of trips per day as 0.17 units of reta what is covered in the defined scenarios, the following table ca development plans are proposed and approved, so as not to exceed In other words, land use densities could be adjusted as long as the total traffic generated under the Maximum Development Scenario is not exceeded. However, it is noted that e ven though land use densities are flexible to facilitate development, the AUAR study area is planned as a mult Equivalency exchange examples: 20 units of residential (20 dwelling units) can be replaced with 1 square feet) (20 x 0.75 = 15) 10 units of retail (10,000 square feet of gross leasable area) can be (60 dwelling units) (10 x 6 = 60) Table 6-2. Land Use Equivalency Matrix Residential Retail Non-Retail Commercial 0.75 units of non-retail 1 Unit of Residential = 1 unit of residential0.17 units of retail 1 commercial 4.5 units of non-retail 1 Unit of Retail =6 units of residential1 unit of retail 2 commercial 1 Unit of Non-Retail 1 unit of non-retail 1.33 units of residential 0.22 units of retail Commercial= commercial 3 1 1 Unit of Residential Development = 1 dwelling unit 2 1 Unit of Retail Development = 1,000 square feet gross leasable 1 Unit of Non-Retail Commercial Development = 1,000 square feet 3 April 2014 Draft 4 7.CT OVER YPES AUAR Guidance: The following information should be provided inst a.Cover type map, at least at the scale of a USGS topographic map, Wetlands identified by type (Circular 39) Watercourses rivers, streams, creeks, ditches Lakes identify public waters status and shoreland management classifi Woodlands breakdown by classes where possible Grassland identify native and old field Cropland Current development See Figure 7-1 for a map of existing cover types. b. in relation to the cover types; this map should also maps for each major development scenario should generally be pro See Figure 7-2 shows the proposed green corridor with respect to existing cove. 8.PAR ERMITS AND PPROVALS EQUIRED L,,,, IST ALL KNOWN LOCAL STATE AND FEDERAL PERMITS APPROVALS AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE .I,, PROJECT NCLUDE MODIFICATIONS OF ANY EXISTING PERMITS GOVERNMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANS AND ALL ,TI DIRECT AND INDIRECT FORMS OF PUBLIC FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE INCLUDIES AX NCREMENT F,.A INANCING AND INFRASTRUCTURE LL OF THESE FINAL DECISIONS ARE PROHIBITED UNTIL ALL APPROPRIATE .SMR,C4410.3100. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW HAS BEEN COMPLETED EE INNESOTA ULES HAPTER Anticipated permits and approvals are listed in Table 8-1. On December 28, 2011, Ramsey County executed a $28.5 million Off Services Administration for the TCAAP property. The county is fi $6 million transfer from its solid waste fund and $2 million in In February 2012, the County Board approved a fixed-price agreement for hazardous material abatement, demolition and site remediation. Remediation costs are anticipat sold for private development. The City will be reimbursed for its infrastructure expenditures through special assessments to developers and/or property owners. April 2014 Draft 5 Table 8-1. Permits and Approvals Required Unit of Government Type of Application/Approval Status National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Stormwater To be applied for Permit for Construction Activities Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit To be applied for Soil and Groundwater Remediation To be applied for, if needed Plan Approval Abandonment of Water Wells To be applied for Minnesota Department of Health Water Main Installation Permit To be applied for, if needed Minnesota Department of Natural Groundwater Appropriation Permit To be applied for, if needed Resources (Construction) Metropolitan Council Comprehensive Plan Amendment To be applied for Stormwater Management, Erosion Rice Creek Watershed District Control, Floodplain Alteration, To be applied for Wetland Alteration Preliminary and Final Plat approvals Joint Development Authority Pending, by developers Development reviews/approvals Boundary Plat approval To be applied for AUAR Approval In process Comprehensive Plan Amendment To be applied for Zoning Change Approval To be applied for City of Arden Hills Grading, Excavation and To be applied for Foundation Permits Building and Utility Permits To be applied for Erosion Control Permits To be applied for Utility permits in County Road right- To be applied for of-way Access permits (connection to Ramsey County To be applied for County Road) Hazardous waste permits Approved 9.LU AND SE a.D: ESCRIBE i.E, XISTING LAND USE OF THE SITE AS WELL AS AREAS ADJACENT TO AND NE INCLUDING ,,. PARKS TRAILS PRIME OR UNIQUE FARMLANDS The 429 acre AUAR study area is a portion of a larger 2,400 acre area TCAAP. The existing land use for the entire area within the AUAR boundary Public & Institutional by the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Areas west and north of the AUAR boundary 1 are also Public & Institutional. Rice Creek Regional Park cuts a contains a regional trail. There is a MnDOT facility adjacent to Figure 6-1). South of the site are single family residential properties as we City of Arden Hills, 2030 Comprehensive Plan, September 2009 1 April 2014 Draft 6 site is a manufactured home community and commercial and office Hills Army Training Site (AHATS), Arden Hills City Hall, and a R. AHATS is a military training area under the control of the Minnesota National Guard and is utilized for small unit military training. ii.P.D() LANS ESCRIBE PLANNED LAND USE AS IDENTIFIED IN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IF AVAILABLE AND ,,, ANY OTHER APPLICABLE PLAN FOR LAND USE WATER OR RESOURCES MANAGEMENT BY A LOCAL ,,. REGIONAL STATE OR FEDERAL AGENCY The City of Arden Hills 2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies the a MB Mixed Business and MR Mixed Residential. Both are described in greater detail in Table 8-1. Table 9-1. Future Land Uses Identified in City of Arden Hills 20 2030 Future Land Use Description Provides for a variety of housing types and densities in close proximity, including single-family detached homes, single-attached homes, condominiums, townhomes, apartments, and senior housing options. The anticipated average density is 10.4 units per acre Mixed Residential (MR) with a minimum average density of six units per acre up to a maximum density of 46 units per acre. This land use is designated for the proposed TCAAP redevelopment, and the density is subject to change once a final land use plan is selected. Areas designated for a variety of businesses, including commercial, certain light industrial uses, warehousing, Mixed Business (MB) office, general business, retail. This designation will be used for the future business uses on the TCAAP property. In 1996 the TCAAP Framework Plan (commonly referred to as the Ve TCAAP Reutilization Commission appointed by Congressman Bruce Ve Hills worked with a private developer on a redevelopment plan th economic infeasibility in the recession of 2008. The 1998 Rice Creek North Master Plan identified 113 acres of prRice Creek regional trail corridor. Located directly north of the AUA Rice Creek, an archaeological area, and wildlife habitat. This p County in 2006 by the National Park Service as part of the Feder County is obligated to make the site available for public recrea protect the one acre archeological site located on the property. constructed on this property. The 2003 Rice Creek North Regional Trail Master Plan Amendment a System Plan identified an additional 49 acres of TCAAP property This property, which in the process of being acquired (by end of 2014), is located adjacent to the east edge of the AUAR study area. The wildlife corridor was considered a critical link to the 1, acre Arden Hills Army Training Site (AHATS). April 2014 Draft 7 Under the 2013 Rice Creek Regional Trail Master Plan Amendment, an additional 60 acres is proposedto be transferred to Ramsey County Parks and Recreation for the North Regional Trail Corridor to be added to the wildlife corridor areThis area extends to County Road I and will facilitate the construction ofa trailhead entry driveway and additional trails. Also added is 150 footcorridor that will establish a trail / prairie connection south iii.Z,,, ONING INCLUDING SPECIAL DISTRICTS OR OVERLAYS SUCH AS SHORELAND FLOODPLAIN WILD AND ,,,. SCENIC RIVERS CRITICAL AREA AGRICULTURAL PRESERVES ETC The Arden Hills Zoning Map, July 2013, identifies the area withiB Mixed Business and M-R Mixed Residential. As shown in Figure 7-1-year floodplain is within the AUAR study area. The study area is within the Rice Creek Watershed District rules on floodplain alteration. Fill within the floodplain is pr storage volume is provided within the floodplain of the same wat obtained from RCWD. b.D,,I9 ISCUSS THE PROJECTS COMPATIBILITY WITH NEARBY LAND USES ZONING AND PLANS LISTED IN TEM A ,. ABOVE CONCENTRATING ON IMPLICATIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The project area is an isolated piece of land that is separated from r by TH 96, TH 10, I-35, CR I, and the AHATS property and has no cur Improvements to the site will make the site compatible with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and/or zoning by allowing mixed use development of residential, retail, and non-r surrounding the project will experience an increase in traffic. c.I DENTIFY MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT TO MITIG I9. INCOMPATIBILITY AS DISCUSSED IN TEM B ABOVE The Master Plan generally locates residential uses to the east o the site along major roadways. This orientation puts less noise highways and the more noise sensitive residential uses. The gree floodplain area within the AUAR study area, allowing it to be av will also provide regional storrmwater management and wetland mi 10.G,S,T/LF EOLOGY OILS AND OPOGRAPHYAND ORMS a.G-D EOLOGY ESCRIBE THE GEOLOGY UNDERLYING THE PROJECT AREA AND IDENTIFY AND ,, SUSCEPTIBLE GEOLOGIC FEATURES SUCH AS SINKHOLES SHALLOW LIMESTONE FORMATIONS /,.D UNCONFINEDSHALLOW AQUIFERS OR KARST CONDITIONS ISCUSS ANY LIMITATIONS OF THESE FEATURES .I FOR THE PROJECT AND ANY EFFECTS THE PROJECT COULD HAVE ON THESE DENTIFY ANY . PROJECT DESIGNS OR MITIGATION MEASURES TO ADDRESS EFFECTS TO GEO According the Geologic Atlas of Ramsey County (Minnesota Geologi study area consists of Prairie du Chien Group underlain by Jorda Franconia Formations. Prairie du Chien is commonly sandy or oolitic and thin-bedded do the lower portion generally being massive or thick bedded dolost Jordan Sandstone is medium- to coarse-grained, friable, quartzose sandstone on the upper part and primarily fine-grained, feldspathic sandstone on the lower part; it ranges April 2014 Draft 8 and Franconia Formations are dolomitic shale and siltstone (rang fine-grained, feldspathic sandstone, generally well-cemented wit There are no karst or sinkhole features in the AUAR study area. b.S-D,NRCS(SCS) OILS AND TOPOGRAPHY ESCRIBE THE SOILS ON THE SITE GIVING CLASSIFICATIONS AND ,.D, DESCRIPTIONS INCLUDING LIMITATIONS OF SOILS ESCRIBE TOPOGRAPHY ANY SPECIAL SITE CONDITIONS ,,,, RELATING TO EROSION POTENTIAL SOIL STABILITY OR OTHER SOILS LIMITATIONS SUCH AS STEEP SLOPES .P/ HIGHLY PERMEABLE SOILS ROVIDE ESTIMATED VOLUME AND ACREAGE OF SOIL EXCAVATION ANDOR .D( GRADING ISCUSS IMPACTS FROM PROJECT ACTIVITIES DISTINGUISH BETWEEN CONSTRUCTION AND ).I OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES RELATED TO SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY DENTIFY MEASURES DURING AND AFTER ,, PROJECT CONSTRUCTION TO ADDRESS SOIL LIMITATIONS INCLUDING STABI SOIL CORRECTIONS OR .E/ OTHER MEASURES ROSIONSEDIMENTATION CONTROL RELATED TO STORMWATER RUNOFF SHOULD BE I11... ADDRESSED IN RESPONSE TO TEM BII Soil data was obtained from the NRCS Web Soil Survey. As shown in Table 10-1, the study area contains 2 nine soils types but is predominately made up of soil identified Table 10-1. Soils in the AUAR Study Area Map Unit Map Unit Name Acres Percent of Study Area Symbol 132C Hayden fine sandy loam, 6-12% slopes 1.1 0.2% 158B Zimmerman loamy fine sand, 0-6% slopes 23.4 5.5% 158C Zimmerman loamy fine sand, 6-12% slopes 1.9 0.4% 859B Urban land-Zimmerman complex, 1-8% slopes 12.8 3.0% 860C Urban land-Hayden-Kingsley complex, 3-15% slopes 22.4 5.2% 861C Urban land-Kingsley complex, 3-15% slopes 20.2 4.7% 863 Urban land-Lino complex, 0-3% slopes 0.1 0.0% 1039 Urban land 338.4 78.9% 1813B Lina variant loamy fine sand, 2-6% slopes 8.2 1.9% W Water 0.3 0.1% According to the Geologic Atlas of Ramsey County (Minnesota Geol the study area are primarily buried, coarse meltwater stream sed with small areas of till and organic sediment. The surficial dep in the study area, are frequently covered by thick artificial fi The topography of the AUAR study area is generally flat (see Figure 5-2) with the exception of the southeast corner which has moderate to steep slopes. Stabilization on thes vegetation establishment, erosion control blankets, or other sta devices. The earthwork associated with the development will consist of ex infrastructure improvements, followed by site grading for the de topographic information indicates that a large amount of earthwo southeast side of the site is significantly higher than the rest http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed November 18, 2013 2 April 2014 Draft 9 more varied topography and steep slopes. It is assumed that the on site. 11.WR ATER ESOURCES D..... a. ESCRIBE SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER FEATURES ON OR NEAR THE SITEI AND AII BELOW i. S-,,,,/ URFACE WATER LAKES STREAMS WETLANDS INTERMITTENT CHANNELS AND COUNTYJUDICIAL .I,/, DITCHES NCLUDE ANY SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS SUCH AS PUBLIC WATERS TROUT STREAMLAKE ,/, WILDLIFE LAKES MIGRATORY WATERFOWL FEEDINGRESTING LAKE AND OUTSTANDING RESOURCE .I VALUE WATER NCLUDE WATER QUALITY IMPAIRMENTS OR SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS LISTED MPCA303IWL1.I CURRENT D MPAIRED ATERS IST THAT ARE WITHIN MILE OF THE PROJECT NCLUDE DNRPWI(),. UBLIC ATERS NVENTORY NUMBERS IF ANY One stream, Rice Creek, crosses through the AUAR study area. Ric A wetland delineation conducted by Ramsey County found 58 areas th considered wetland within the 429 acre AUAR study area. The 58 approximately 14.4 acres, of which approximately 6.5 acres are l or were created as a result of site grading and runoff from impe considered jurisdictional wetlands (see Figure 7-1). However, for purposes of this analysis, all areas meeting the wetland criteria (14.4 acres) were assumed jurisdict Within one mile of the AUAR study Waters List: Rice Creek, Long Lake (PWI #67P), and Valentine Lak Creek receives runoff from the site. Round Lake is not listed as impaired by the MPCA but is known to have impaired sediment. ii. G,,.I:1);2) ROUNDWATER AQUIFERS SPRINGS SEEPS NCLUDE DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER IF PROJECT MDH;3)/ IS WITHIN A WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREA IDENTIFICATION OF ANY ONSITE ANDOR NEARBY ,.I WELLS INCLUDING UNIQUE NUMBERS AND WELL LOGS IF AVAILABLE F THERE ARE NO WELLS KNOWN ,. ON SITE OR NEARBY EXPLAIN THE METHODOLOGY USED TO DETERMINE THIS According to historical observations by Ramsey County, groundwater is shallowest in the area directly south of Rice Creek where it is approximately 4 to 5 feet deep. The AUAR study area is within a wellhead protection area for dri Figure 11-1). A wellhead protection area is a recharge area to a public well and water supplier, as identified in the wellhead protection plan, t public wells. Additional guidance will be required from the Minn proposed stormwater infiltration projects that are located withi The Army established an extensive network of monitoring wells, g houses, and associated piping within the AUAR study area in the continuously, pumping contaminated groundwater to a treatment fa area (see Figure 12-1). The Army will continue to own and operate the system regardless in land ownership, and will continue to conduct all required groun April 2014 Draft 10 and monitoring of groundwater treatment facilities and associate remediation infrastructure. 3 According to the Minnesota County Well Index, there are 170 well 64 of which have not been field verified but are based on the mi locations reported by the driller. Of these 170 wells, 150 are listed as active. Table 11-1 provide summary of the uses recorded for the wells within the study area, locations see Figure 11-1). Additional information on the wells, including the unique wel be found in Appendix B. Many of the wells are active water quality monitoring wells, wh 4 others have no specific information recorded. Table 11-1. Well Uses within the AUAR Study Area Well Use Number of Wells within Study Area Sealed/Abandoned 20 Monitoring Well 60 Industrial 3 Domestic 2 Remedial 3 Other 45 Unknown 37 b.D ESCRIBE EFFECTS FROM PROJECT ACTIVITIES ON WATER RESOURCES AND M I..I... MITIGATE THE EFFECTS IN TEM BI THROUGH TEM BIV BELOW i.W-F,, ASTEWATER OR EACH OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBE THE SOURCES QUANTITIES AND ,/ COMPOSITION OF ALL SANITARY MUNICIPALDOMESTIC AND INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER PRODUCED OR . TREATED AT THE SITE 1) I, F THE WASTEWATER DISCHARGE IS TO A PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT FACI IDENTIFY ANY PRETREATMENT MEASURES AND THE ABILITY OF THE FACILITY TO HANDLE ND ,,, WASTE LOADINGS INCLUDING ANY EFFECTS ON OR REQUIRED EXPANSION OF MUNICIPAL . WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) operates the MCES provides wastewater service to the AUAR study area via a li interceptors. The MCES lift station that serves the AUAR study area and southeast Mounds View is located approximately one-third mile west of CR 10 on CR H. The City of Mounds View has a 21 inch trunk sanitary sewer that runs to the northeast quadrant of the County intersection. The City also has an 18-inch trunk sanitary sewer and under Rice Creek in a dual inverted siphon, and into the AUAR study area. The MCES lift station has a flow capacity of 5.8 million gallons flow pumped at this lift station between 2005 and 2010 ranged fr Wenck Associates, Inc. Response Action Plan/Development Response Action Plan, 2013. 3 Minnesota Geological Survey & Minnesota Department of Health. C 4 December 2011. April 2014 Draft 11 corresponding allowable peak flow, reached during precipitation ely 3.8 mgd. Based on the MCES Sewer Available Charge (SAC) Program, the estimated pea Zoning Scenario and Maximum Development Scenario are 2.42 mgd an Therefore, in the Maximum Development Scenario approximately 1.0 remain at the lift station after the development of the AUAR stu regional interceptors serving the study area and southeast Mound accommodate the additional flow required in each Scenario. Regional wastewater collection and treatment facilities and muni study area have sufficient long-term capacity to handle the addi by both the Zoning and Maximum Development Scenarios. Sanitary sewer will need to be extended into the AUAR study area various lots. The use of a small lift station may be required de system will primarily be gravity-based. 2) I(SSTS), F THE WASTEWATER DISCHARGE IS TO A SUBSURFACE SEWAGE TREATMENT S ,, DESCRIBE THE SYSTEM USED THE DESIGN FLOW AND SUITABILITY OF SITE CONDITIONS FOR SUCH . A SYSTEM No subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS) are anticipated wi 3) I, F THE WASTEWATER DISCHARGE IS TO SURFACE WATER IDENTIFY THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT METHODS AND IDENTIFY DISCHARGE POINTS AND PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMIE .D IMPACTS ISCUSS ANY EFFECTS TO SURFACE OR GROUNDWATER FROM WASTEWATER . DISCHARGES No wastewater discharge to surface waters is anticipated. ii. S-D TORMWATER ESCRIBE THE QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF STORMWATER RUNOFF AT THE SIT .I TO AND POST CONSTRUCTION NCLUDE THE ROUTES AND RECEIVING WATER BODIES FOR RUNOFF FROM (). THE SITE MAJOR DOWNSTREAM WATER BODIES AS WELL AS THE IMMEDIATE RECEIVING D.D ISCUSS ANY ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FROM STORMWATER DISCHARGES ESCRIBE STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLANS INCLUDING TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT RUN BMP.I POTENTIAL SITE LOCATIONS TO MANAGE OR TREAT STORMWATER RUNOFF DENTIFY SPECIFIC , EROSION CONTROL SEDIMENTATION CONTROL OR STABILIZATION MEASURES TO ADDRESS SOIL . LIMITATIONS DURING AND AFTER PROJECT CONSTRUCTION Stormwater will be managed on-site, maintaining the current drai outfalls to Rice Creek and Round Lake. The site will require com District (RCWD) rules for water quality, volume control, runoff As required by RCWD, the quantity of stormwater runoff in post-d existing conditions. The runoff rate will be reduced to 80% of t area is located within a Flood Management Zone as defined by RCW. There are three existing outfalls to Rice Creek with an approximate capacity of 500 cubic feet per sec Lake with a capacity of approximately 200 cubic feet per second. include the rehabilitation or replacement of existing outfalls t April 2014 Draft 12 The required treatment volume is determined by the Watershed Dis area. The estimated treatment volumes required based on assumed Zoning scenario and Maximum Build scenarios are 42 acre-feet and 43 acre-feet, respectively. The primary method of treatment will be the use of multiple ponds fo total suspended solids. Water reuse, bio-filtration, filtration, for treatment within the AUAR study area. The northwest portion of the AUAR study area located north of Ri with highly permeable soils and is well-suited for infiltration feasible in some areas located south of Rice Creek, depending on remediation achieved. Rice Creek Watershed District considers infiltration infeasible per Table C2 of the District rules. Given the site history, the use of infiltration practices should be used on a cby-case basis in areas where geotechnical and environmental testing indicates that soil conta Stormwater will be conveyed to Round Lake and Rice Creek by mean vegetated swales, and wetlands. Conveyance systems will be desig industry standards and in conformance with jurisdictional requir iii.W-D ATER APPROPRIATION ESCRIBE IF THE PROJECT PROPOSES TO APPROPRIATE SURFACE OR ().D,,, GROUNDWATER INCLUDING DEWATERING ESCRIBE THE SOURCE QUANTITY DURATION USE AND DNR.D PURPOSE OF THE WATER USE AND IF A WATER APPROPRIATION PERMIT IS REQUIRED ESCRIBE .I, ANY WELL ABANDONMENT F CONNECTING TO AN EXISTING MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY IDENTIFY THE ,, WELLS TO BE USED AS A WATER SOURCE AND ANY EFFECTS ON OR REQUIRED EXPANSION OF .D MUNICIPAL WATER INFRASTRUCTURE ISCUSS ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FROM WATER , APPROPRIATION INCLUDING AN ASSESSMENT OF THE WATER RESOURCES AVAILABLE FOR .I,, APPROPRIATION DENTIFY ANY MEASURES TO AVOID MINIMIZE OR MITIGATE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS . FROM THE WATER APPROPRIATION Temporary dewatering may be required during project construction constructed with lower levels, for which caissons could be used foundations. All water pumped during construction dewatering activities wil compliance with City, Watershed, and Minnesota Department of Nat requirements and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sy with approved Response Action Plans, as necessary. No discharge waters without prior retention in a temporary settling basin and exists. The developer will determine if groundwater is contamina discharge to storm sewer, sanitary sewer, or through a treatment groundwater treatment facilities. Temporary construction dewatering will require a Temporary Water Appropriations General Permit 1997-0005 if less than 50 million g in duration. iv. SW URFACE ATERS a) W-D ETLANDS ESCRIBE ANY ANTICIPATED PHYSICAL EFFECTS OR ALTERATIONS TO WETLA ,,, FEATURES SUCH AS DRAINING FILLING PERMANENT INUNDATION DREDGING AND VEGETATIVE .D REMOVAL ISCUSS DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FROM PHYSICAL , MODIFICATION OF WETLANDS INCLUDING THE ANTICIPATED EFFECTS THAT ANY PROPOSED .I(.., WETLAND ALTERATIONS MAY HAVE TO THE HOST WATERSHED DENTIFY MEASURES TO AVOID EG April 2014 Draft 13 ),, AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVES THAT WERE CONSIDERED MINIMIZE OR MITIGATE ENVIRONMENTAL .D EFFECTS TO WETLANDS ISCUSS WHETHER ANY REQUIRED COMPENSATORY WETLAND MITIGATION , FOR UNAVOIDABLE WETLAND IMPACTS WILL OCCUR IN THE SAME MINOR OR . AND IDENTIFY THOSE PROBABLE LOCATIONS Impacts: Given the scattered location of the site wetlands and the absenc the specific extent of wetland impacts cannot be estimated. Therefor evaluation it was assumed that all 14.4 acres of wetland identif waters of the US and under US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) ju jurisdiction of the Rice Creek Watershed District as the local g Conservation Act. It was assumed for this analysis that all wetl development. However, some wetland may be preserved within the Mitigation Requirements: Based on compatible needs (wetlands neea water source, stormwater management needs a receiving area), the stormwater management areas and wetland replacement would be combined to the extent possible under curre number of constraints (topography, site grading) and challenges need to be addressed in order for these functions to work on-site and work together. The County and City are currently in the planning stage to design the regio plan. The USACE and Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) mitigation requirem USACE oversees Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Rice Creek implements the WCA or MN Rule 8420. Wetland impacts are assumed to be replaced at a 2:1 ratio, meani impacted by the project, 2 acres will either be created or wetla state wetland bank. Given the site constraints, it is anticipatof wetland impacts would be replaced on site with the other half beoff-site by purchasing credits from the state wetland bank. The current WCA requiremen replacement is any new wetland created onsite would receive 75% reach 14.4 acres of onsite replacement, 19.2 acres of wetland wo buffers. This amount could be decreased if not all the wetland is impacte jurisdictional, or if RCWD allows more replacement within the ad other off-site locations. The purchase of off-site wetland credits would include 14.4 acres. The wetland bank sites where these credits will be withdrawn from would be required to be loc Area (BSA 7) and major watershed 20 (Mississippi River (Metro)). b) O-D THER SURFACE WATERS ESCRIBE ANY ANTICIPATED PHYSICAL EFFECTS OR ALTERATIONS TO (,,,, SURFACE WATER FEATURES LAKES STREAMS PONDS INTERMITTENT CHANNELS /),,,, COUNTYJUDICIAL DITCHES SUCH AS DRAINING FILLING PERMANENT INUNDATION DREDGING ,,,. DIKING STREAM DIVERSION IMPOUNDMENT AQUATIC PLANT REMOVAL AND RIPARIAN ALTERATION D ISCUSS DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FROM PHYSICAL M .I,, WATER FEATURES DENTIFY MEASURES TO AVOID MINIMIZE OR MITIGATE ENVIRONMENTAL ,-BMP EFFECTS TO SURFACE WATER FEATURES INCLUDING INWATER EST ANAGEMENT RACTICES / THAT ARE PROPOSED TO AVOID OR MINIMIZE TURBIDITYSEDIMENTATION WHILE PHYSICALLY .D ALTERING THE WATER FEATURES ISCUSS HOW THE PROJECT WILL CHANGE THE NUMBER OR TYPE April 2014 Draft 14 , OF WATERCRAFT ON ANY WATER BODY INCLUDING CURRENT AND PROJECTED WATERCRAFT . USAGE A new crossing of Rice Creek is needed at CR H for a site access road. The crossing is assumed to be via a bridge that spans the creek, wetlands and floodplain underneath. A trail crossing at this location may also be consid assumed that the bridge will be designed to have no impact on th The project will not change the number or type of watercraft on 12.C/HM/W ONTAMINATIONAZARDOUS ATERIALSASTES a.P--D REPROJECT SITE CONDITIONS ESCRIBE EXISTING CONTAMINATION OR POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS ON OR IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE PROJECT SITE SUCH AS SOI ,,,, CONTAMINATION ABANDONED DUMPS CLOSED LANDFILLS EXISTING OR ABANDONED STORAGE TANKS AND .D- HAZARDOUS LIQUID OR GAS PIPELINES ISCUSS ANY POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FROM PRE PROJECT SITE CONDITIONS THAT WOULD BE CAUSED OR EXACERBATED BY P .I,, OPERATION DENTIFY MEASURES TO AVOID MINIMIZE OR MITIGATE ADVERSE EFFECTS FROM EXISTING .IC CONTAMINATION OR POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS NCLUDE DEVELOPMENT OF A ONTINGENCY PRAP. LAN OR ESPONSE CTION LAN TCAAP was constructed in 1941 to produce small-caliber ammunitio levels varied over time and ceased in 2005. The production opera substances into the environment, and in 1983 the site was placed Brighton/Arden Hills Superfund Site. 5 According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the w volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (including Trichloroethylene o polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), cyanide, pesticides, and explo surrounding communities has resulted from VOC contamination of t AUAR study area is located in what is known as Operable Unit 2 ( (ROD) for OU2 was signed, and by summer 2002 remedial and removal actions were largely complete. The remaining cleanup action required by the OU2 ROD was excavation and Site C (within the AUAR study area) which was completed in 2009. groundwater was discovered around Building 102 (see Figure 12-1), and the removal action was implemented and completed in 2009. An extensive long-term monito water, and sediments is currently in place and will continue int 6 The US Army is the responsible party for the Superfund site. In 2010, the EPA and MPCA approved the ) document. The land use controls were aimed at areas with residual groundwater contamination, areas with residual soi but above levels allowing unlimited use or unrestricted exposure above the cleanup levels (areas with covers). 5 Wenck Associates, Inc. Operable Unit 2 (OU2) Land Use Control Remedial Design (LUCRD) N 5 Superfund Site. September 2010. US Environmental Protection Agency. Region 5 Superfund: New Bri 6 Accessed 6 January 2014. http://www.epa.gov/region5/superfund/npl/minnesota/MN7213820908.. April 2014 Draft 15 Additional cleanup and remediation efforts are underway for the 2015. In accordance with MPCA Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC Response Action Plan (RAP) and Development Response Action Plan AUAR study area site. The RAP/DRAP addresses hot spots previousl exceeding residential standards, any new contamination discovere remediation conducted on newly discovered sites, and petroleum c address Site I, Site K, Building 101, and Building 102 in detail under a separate review process. Previous sampling on the AUAR study area site has revealed eleva Metals (antimony, arsenic, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercur Carcinogenic PAHs (expressed as benzo(a)pyrene equivalents) Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Petroleum-related contamination related to historical site opera All of these soil contaminants will be remediated to comply with Thirty-six hot spots that were previously identified or identifill be remediated through excavation. According to the approved site response action plan,ted contaminated soils will be shipped with trucks to an industrial waste facility in Rosemount will be used to confirm remediation. If an excavated site soil s the site will be excavated until samples clear residential stand with be filled with off-site soil. All above-grade and subgrade structures and utilities will be re instances where the contractor feels contamination is possible. excavation and sampling detailed above will be implemented. There is currently a groundwater treatment and recovery system w under Item 11b. The groundwater recovery system will remain as will and 14 extraction wells. To accommodate development, some of the piping AUAR study area, but the piping along the western edge of the si Figure 12-1). b.P/-D ROJECT RELATED GENERATIONSTORAGE OF SOLID WASTES ESCRIBE SOLID WASTES //.I GENERATEDSTORED DURING CONSTRUCTION ANDOR OPERATION OF THE PROJECT NDICATE METHOD OF .D, DISPOSAL ISCUSS POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FROM SOLID WASTE HANDLING STORAGE AND .I, DISPOSAL DENTIFY MEASURES TO AVOID MINIMIZE OR MITIGATE ADVERSE EFFECTS FROM THE /. GENERATIONSTORAGE OF SOLID WASTE INCLUDING SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING AUAR Guidance: For b, generally only the estimated total quantit information about any recycling or source separation programs of April 2014 Draft 16 Construction of the future development would generate constructi packaging, excess materials, and other wastes, which would be ei facilities. The U.S. EPA11 publication Municipal Solid Waste in the United States was consulted as a basis for Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) generation for the proposed developm40 pounds of MSW will be generated per person per day. An average household o estimated residential units based on US Census Bureau 2008-2012 referenced with a factor of 1.59 applied to the trips generated Occupancy Rates for 2010. The resulting range of MSW generated per year based upon the Zoning and Maximum Development Scenarios is 27,300 to 31,900 tons, respectively. The City of Arden Hills provides weekly curbside recycling servi residential homes, including townhomes. All apartment and multi- required to provide a recycling collection program for tenants. c.P/-D/ ROJECT RELATED USESTORAGE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ESCRIBE CHEMICALSHAZARDOUS // MATERIALS USEDSTORED DURING CONSTRUCTION ANDOR OPERATION OF THE PROJECT INCLUDING .I, METHOD OF STORAGE NDICATE THE NUMBER LOCATION AND SIZE OF ANY ABOVE OR BELOW GROUND .D TANKS TO STORE PETROLEUM OR OTHER MATERIALS ISCUSS POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FROM .I,, ACCIDENTAL SPILL OR RELEASE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DENTIFY MEASURES TO AVOID MINIMIZE OR // MITIGATE ADVERSE EFFECTS FROM THE USESTORAGE OF CHEMICALSHAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCLUDING .I. SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING NCLUDE DEVELOPMENT OF A SPILL PREVENTION PLAN Not required for an AUAR. d.P/-D ROJECT RELATED GENERATIONSTORAGE OF HAZARDOUS WASTES ESCRIBE HAZARDOUS WASTES //.I GENERATEDSTORED DURING CONSTRUCTION ANDOR OPERATION OF THE PROJECT NDICATE METHOD OF .D,, DISPOSAL ISCUSS POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FROM HAZARDOUS WASTE HAND STORAGE .I,, AND DISPOSAL DENTIFY MEASURES TO AVOID MINIMIZE OR MITIGATE ADVERSE EFFECTS FROM THE /. GENERATIONSTORAGE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE INCLUDING SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCL Not required for an AUAR. 13.F,PC,SER(RF) ISH LANT OMMUNITIES AND ENSITIVE COLOGICAL ESOURCES ARE EATURES a.D. ESCRIBE FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES AS WELL AS HABITATS AND VEGE According to the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLC within the AUAR study area: grassland, woodland, and impervious/ The grassland and 7 impervious/developed areas are spread through the AUAR study are area (see Figure 7-1). The Minnesota Biological Survey does not show any sites of biod native plant communities within the AUAR study area. Land cover types were grouped based on similarity. Grassland in 7 sparse deciduous trees, short grasses on upland soils, shrubland grasses. Woodland includes only upland deciduous woodland. Imper perennial grasses, 76-90% impervious cover, buildings with 76-90 cover. April 2014 Draft 17 Just east side of the AUAR study area is the proposed Rice Creek North Regional Trail. The 2003 Rice Cree North Regional Trail Master Plan Amendment and 2006 Ramsey Count TCAAP property to be acquired as a wildlife corridor. According Plan Amendment (July 9, 2013 Draft), an additional 60 acres is p (Figure 7.1). This wildlife corridor provides habitat for birds, small mamm osprey nesting platforms. It is also provides a wildlife habitat the open space of Rice Creek. b.D-(,) ESCRIBE RARE FEATURES SUCH AS STATELISTED ENDANGERED THREATENED OR SPECIAL CONCERN ,,MCBSSB SPECIES NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITIES INNESOTA OUNTY IOLOGICAL URVEY ITES OF IODIVERSITY S,. IGNIFICANCE AND OTHER SENSITIVE ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES ON OR WITHIN CLOSE PRO P(LA-____)/(ERDB ROVIDE THE LICENSE AGREEMENT NUMBER ANDOR CORRESPONDENCE NUMBER _20140096)NH FROM WHICH THE DATA WERE OBTAINED AND ATTACH THE ATURAL ERITAGE LETTER FROM THE DNR.I NDICATE IF ANY ADDITIONAL HABITAT OR SPECIES SURVEY WORK HAS BEE . AND DESCRIBE THE RESULTS A DNR database search for the AUAR study area and surrounding ar known to occur near the AUAR study area, and general ecological are no state or federal listed threatened or endangered species the AUAR study area in the DNR NHIS database. State-listed occur area in or near Marsden Lake on the AHATS (Emydoidea blandingii state-listed threatened species); trumpeter swans (Cygnus buccinator state-listed species of special concern); and a population of the plains pock Perognathes flavescens state- listed species of special concern, between the gravel pit and Ma The preferred habitat for this species includes calm, shallow wetlands (Type 1-3) with vegetation (e.g., cattails, water lilies). Nesting occurs in open (grassy or brushy) sandy uplands, often u a mile from water bodies. The majority of the wetlands within the AU support turtles (ditches), and most of the soils are disturbed uThere is no record of the turtle within the AUAR study area; however, turtles are known to occur the project boundary. A turtle fact sheet that describes the ha with 2 lists of recommendations for avoiding and minimizing impa Appendix A. Trumpeter swans (Cygnus buccinator), a state-listed species of special concern, have been observed nesting within the AHATS site on Marsden Lake. Nesting habitat includes lakes and ponds with 100 meters of open water for take-off, stable levels of unpolluted water, emergent vegetation and disturbance. The AUAR study area does not contain any suitable The plains pocket mouse (Perognathus flavescens), which is a state-listed species of special concern, has also been documented within the AHATS site. There are no known o AUAR study area; however the northwestern corner of the site was containing suitable habitat for the mouse. Suitable habitat is restricted to open, well-drained areas, typically on sandy soils with sparse, grassy or brushy vegetation. The gra site may be too dense for this species and too far from the grav (Birney, 1999). The DNR Central Region (in partnership with the Metropolitan Cou identified two Regionally Significant Ecological Areas (RSEA) wi April 2014 Draft 18 (Appendix A). One area overlaps with the portion of the site that is north of overlaps with the eastern edge of the site near the existing sub. RSEA designations are based on the size and shape of the ecological area, land cover within the ecol connectivity to other ecological areas. These two areas are desibeing part of a large expanse of vacant land within an urban area and their co respectively. The purpose of the RSEA designation is to inform especially as it relates to balancing development and natural re The AUAR study area is also located within the AHATS Rice Creek Important Bird Area (IBA). IBAs are identified by Audubon Minnesota in partnership with the DNR, are aimed at conserving critical bird habitats. IBAs are voluntary a demonstrate the biological value of this area. This particular I grasslands, and provides important habitat for waterfowl, raptor landscape. A minimum of 166 bird species have been observed with encompasses the original 2,400 acre TCAAP parcel. In 2013, four of five osprey nests/nesting platforms were removed from th County under a DNR permit. Platforms were relocated to adjacent platform remains on the powerpole at the pumphouse near the east pumphouse and pole will remain within the site. There is a repor of Round Lake, which is approximately 0.5 miles from the southwe bird species nest near lakes. c.D,,, ISCUSS HOW THE IDENTIFIED FISH WILDLIFE PLANT COMMUNITIES RARE FEATURES AND ECOSYSTEMS MAY BE .I AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT NCLUDE A DISCUSSION ON INTRODUCTION AND SPREAD OF INVASIVE SPECI .S THE PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION EPARATELY DISCUSS EFFECTS TO KNOWN THREATENED AND . ENDANGERED SPECIES Habitat for the three listed species within the AUAR study area is poor compared to the habitat present within the adjacent AHATS site. No direct or indirect effects ar impleme It is anticipated that creation of a green corridor through the for turtles, birds and other wildlife. This corridor will provi The development of the AUAR study area will not impact existing prevent nesting activity. d.I,,, DENTIFY MEASURES THAT WILL BE TAKEN TO AVOID MINIMIZE OR MITIGATE ADVERSE EFFECTS TO FISH ,,. WILDLIFE PLANT COMMUNITIES AND SENSITIVE ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES approvals. Specific measures are outlined in the draft mitigatio 14.HP ISTORIC ROPERTIES D,,/ ESCRIBE ANY HISTORIC STRUCTURES ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES ANDOR TRADITIONAL CULTURAL PROPERTIES ON .I:1),2),3) OR IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE SITE NCLUDE HISTORIC DESIGNATIONS KNOWN ARTIFACT AREAS AND .ASHPO ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES TTACH LETTER RECEIVED FROM THE TATE ISTORIC RESERVATION FFICE (SHPO).D ISCUSS ANY ANTICIPATED EFFECTS TO HISTORIC PROPERTIES DURING PRO April 2014 Draft 19 .I,, OPERATION DENTIFY MEASURES THAT WILL BE TAKEN TO AVOID MINIMIZE OR MITIGATE ADVERSE EFFECTS TO . HISTORIC PROPERTIES SHPO conducted a search of the Minnesota Archaeological Inventor Sections 9 and 16 of Township 30, Range 23 in Arden Hills (dated Appendix A). The sites listed in Table 14-1 are those that are located in quarter sections that intersect w This does not necessarily mean that the identified sites are wit locations are not identified in the inventory. All sites possibl section identifications, are listed below and were evaluated for Table 14-1. Scenario Component Totals Site/ Quarter Name Twp Range Section Acres Section Inventory # Archaeological Sites 21RA0022 Trap Shooting Area 30 23 9 SW-SE-NW 0.5 21RA0056 Historic artifact scatter 30 23 16 SW-SE 0.1 21RA0058 Prehistoric lithic scatter 30 23 9 NW-SW-SW 1.5 21RA0059 Prehistoric lithic scatter 30 23 9 SE-SW-NW 1.4 21RA0060 Historic artifact scatter 30 23 16 NW-NW-NW 0.1 21RA0061 Prehistoric flake 30 23 9 SE-SW-NE 0.1 Historical/Architectural Sites RA-AHC-006 Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant 30 23 9, 16 RA-AHC-007 Special Weapons Plant (Building 104) 30 23 9 SW-SW General Purpose Storage Building RA-AHC-008 30 23 9 SE-SW (Building 152) General Purpose Storage Building RA-AHC-009 30 23 16 NW-NE (Building 174) RA-AHC-010 Maintenance Shop (Building 176) 30 23 16 NW-NE RA-AHC-014 General Purpose Storage (Building 190) 30 23 9 SW-SE Peroxide Resinate Cake Drying House RA-AHC-015 30 23 9 SW-NE #1 (Building 192A) Peroxide Resinate Cake Drying House RA-AHC-016 30 23 9 SW-NE #1 (Building 192B) RA-AHC-017 Office Building (Building 199) 30 23 9 SW-NE RA-AHC-035 Sub/SWIT Station (Building 567A) 30 23 16 NW-SE RA-AHC-036 Sub/SWIT Station (Building 567B) 30 23 16 NW-SE RA-AHC-037 Lumber Shed (Building 717) 30 23 9 SW-SE RA-AHC-038 General Purpose Storage (Building 908) 30 23 9 SW-SE RA-AHC-039 General Purpose Storage (Building 909) 30 23 9 SW-SE RA-AHC-040 General Purpose Storage (Building 961) 30 23 16 SW-SE In previous site investigations, the Trap Shooting Area (21RA002 Indian habitation/resource procurement site of approximately 0.3 Creek in the Rice Creek Corridor, an area undisturbed by plowing conducted at the TCAAP site. It sits just outside of the AUAR study area, within the county p found at the site include pottery and lithics. The other five archaeological sites identified in the SHPO file search were previously evaluated as part of the 2011 Environmental Asse Administration (GSA) for the same study area. The archaeologica April 2014 Draft 20 sites were eligible for listing on the National Register of Hist Office (SHPO) concurred with this determination, as captured in Based on these previous findings, no impacts to archaeological p development of the AUAR study area. In the same 2011 EA, six World War II-era structures on the TCAAP site that were con inclusion on the NRHP were expected to be demolished . The documentation performed on those six buildings met the requirements for Section 106 compliance, and the Memoran adequately addressed and satisfied their obligations to comply w Preservation Act. All but one building within the AUAR study are building (#502) is set to be demolished in 2014. Thus, there will be no structu impacts to historic/architectural properties will occur from the 15.V ISUAL D.D ESCRIBE ANY SCENIC VIEWS OR VISTAS ON OR NEAR THE PROJECT SITE ESCRIBE ANY PROJECT RELATED .D VISUAL EFFECTS SUCH AS VAPOR PLUMES OR GLARE FROM INTENSE LIGHTS ISCUSS THE POTENTIAL VISUAL .I,,. EFFECTS FROM THE PROJECT DENTIFY ANY MEASURES TO AVOID MINIMIZE OR MITIGATE VISUAL EFFECTS The structures within the AUAR study area have been or will be d study area. Building heights under the proposed development scenone to six stories in the larger part of the site and up to eight stories within the s redevelopment would occur in an urbanized area, surrounded by mu (across which are residential, church, and commercial properties Regional Trail and a MnDOT facility to the north. Lighting requirements for future development will be outlined in the forthcoming Development Regulations and Policies for the site. 16.A IR a.S-D,,, TATIONARY SOURCE EMISSIONS ESCRIBE THE TYPE SOURCES QUANTITIES AND COMPOSITIONS OF ANY .I EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY SOURCES SUCH AS BOILERS OR EXHAUST STA NCLUDE ANY HAZARDOUS ,,.D AIR POLLUTANTS CRITERIA POLLUTANTS AND ANY GREENHOUSE GASES ISCUSS EFFECTS TO AIR QUALITY ,,.I INCLUDING ANY SENSITIVE RECEPTORS HUMAN HEALTH OR APPLICABLE REGULATORY CRITERIA NCLUDE A DISCUSSION OF ANY METHODS USED ASSESS THE PROJECTS EFFECT ON AIR QUALITY AND THE RESULTS OF .I THAT ASSESSMENT DENTIFY POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT AND OTHER MEASURES THAT WILL ,,. TO AVOID MINIMIZE OR MITIGATE ADVERSE EFFECTS FROM STATIONARY SOURCE EMISSIONS AUAR Guidance: This item is not applicable to an AUAR. Any stati to merit environmental review requires individual review. b.V-D. EHICLE EMISSIONS ESCRIBE THE EFFECT OF THE PROJECTS TRAFFIC GENERATION ON AIR EMISSIONS D-.I(.. ISCUSS THE PROJECTS VEHICLERELATED EMISSIONS EFFECT ON AIR QUALITY DENTIFY MEASURES EG ,) TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS DIESEL IDLING MINIMIZATION PLAN THAT WILL BE TAKEN TO MINIMIZE -. OR MITIGATE VEHICLERELATED EMISSIONS Typical of most developments, the proposed development will gene motor vehicle activity. Motor vehicles emit a variety of air pol hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and particulates. The primary pol byproduct of the combustion process of motor vehicles. CO concen for extended periods of time. For this reason, CO concentrations signalized intersections where vehicles are delayed and emitting April 2014 Draft 21 approaching state air quality standards are found within about 1 the road, the CO in the air is dispersed by the wind such that c The Indirect Source Permit (ISP) rule 7023.9010 was terminated i for the proposed development. A hot spot air quality screening w The EPA has approved a screening method to determine which intersection spot air quality impacts. The screening analysis consists of two intersection analysis would be required. The first criterion is to determine whether the total daily appr 79,400 AADT. If it does, then an analysis would be required. Theach volumes at all of the signalized intersections near the AUAR study area are below approximately 4 the intersection of Lexington Avenue and CR 96, and all are well the first criterion is not met. The second criterion compares the AUAR study area to the locatio identified as having the highest volumes in the metro area. If a either development scenario then analysis would be required. The miles away, at the intersection of TH 252 and 66 Street in Brooklyn Center, and would not be impacted by th the development; therefore, the second criterion is not met. As no measurable change in air quality is anticipated under either No air quality mitigation is required. c.D-D,,,, UST AND ODORS ESCRIBE SOURCES CHARACTERISTICS DURATION QUANTITIES AND INTENSITY OF .(F DUST AND ODORS GENERATED DURING PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATI UGITIVE DUST MAY BE 16).D DISCUSSED UNDER ITEM A ISCUSS THE EFFECT OF DUST AND ODORS IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJE .I INCLUDING NEARBY SENSITIVE RECEPTORS AND QUALITY OF LIFE DENTIFY MEASURES THAT WILL BE TAKEN . TO MINIMIZE OR MITIGATE THE EFFECTS OF DUST AND ODORS AUAR Guidance: Dust and odors need not be addressed in an AUAR, to do so. The RGU might want to discuss as part of the mitigatio ordinances in effect. 17.N OISE D,,,, ESCRIBE SOURCES CHARACTERISTICS DURATION QUANTITIES AND INTENSITY OF NOISE GENERATED DURING .D PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION ISCUSS THE EFFECT OF NOISE IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT 1)/,2),3) INCLUDING EXISTING NOISE LEVELSSOURCES IN THE AREA NEARBY SENSITIVE RECEPTORS ,4).I CONFORMANCE TO STATE NOISE STANDARDS AND QUALITY OF LIFE DENTIFY MEASURES THAT WILL BE TAKEN . TO MINIMIZE OR MITIGATE THE EFFECTS OF NOISE AUAR Guidance: Noise need not be addressed in an AUAR, unless th RGU might want to discuss as part of the mitigation plan, howeve the area will include or adjoin major noise sources, a noise ana excel of standards would occur, and if so, to identify appropria generated noise, the noise analysis should be based on the traff As stated in the AUAR guidelines, construction noise need not be reason to do so. No unusual circumstances have been identified t analysis. It should also be noted that all county roads are exem April 2014 Draft 22 A sound increase of three dBA is barely noticeable by the human and a 10 dBA increase is heard as twice as loud. For example, ifi.e., the amount of traffic doubles), there is a three dBA increase in noise, whi other hand, if traffic increases by a factor of 10, the resultin heard as twice as loud. Traffic volumes in the project area are either on roadways that or, the traffic levels attributable to the project are well belo that could be noticeable. Residential areas exist on US 10 betwe96 and I-35W, as well as along CR 96 to the east of the project. The highest traffic volume generated by the project is projecte vehicles per day on US10 between CR 96 and I-35W, which is approximately 10 percent of the background total daily traffic volume of approximately 50,000 that will exist on generated by the project on CR 96 east of the project area is pr day, which is approximately 40 percent of the background total d will exist on this roadway segment. Noise walls are currently beand along US 10 for a short distance north of CR 96, as part of the The AUAR study area will be developed such that any land use act sufficient setbacks from existing noise sources to thereby reduc details will be determined as the project development proceeds. Construction within the AUAR study area will result in increases sound levels of three dBA is barely noticeable by the human ear. not anticipated to be readily perceptible. To the extent possible, construct such that noise levels are minimized, and that nighttime constru 18.T RANSPORTATION AUAR Guidance: For AUAR reviews a detailed traffic analysis will guidance as listed on the EAW form. The results of the traffic a 22 and in the noise aspect of section 24. NOTE: Refer to the Traffic Study for the AUAR study area (includ numbers starting with T (e.g., Figure T4). a.D-.I:1) ESCRIBE TRAFFICRELATED ASPECTS OF PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION NCLUDE EXISTING ,2), AND PROPOSED ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES ESTIMATED TOTAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC GENERATED 3),4) ESTIMATED MAXIMUM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC GENERATED AND TIME OF OCCUR INDICATE SOURCE ,5)/ OF TRIP GENERATION RATES USED IN THE ESTIMATES AND AVAILABILITY OF TRANSIT ANDOR OTHER . ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION MODES Parking The number of parking spaces in each scenario is estimated in Table 18-1. The parking generation is based on the 4 Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation (2010), and is based on th the land use information for the Minimum and Maximum Development Trip Generation section of this document. The existing site has The proposed land uses are expected to generate parking demand w weekday peak parking demand for the residential, retail, and off development was calculated based on blended rates. For non-retai industrial was used. For residential parking, the rates use esti townhouses and single family homes. The residential uses are pro April 2014 Draft 23 parking spaces are not proposed to be shared with public parking development. Table 18-1. Parking Demand Estimate Summary Land Use ITE Land Use Average Peak Parking Parking Demand Size Description Code Rate (stalls) (stalls) Minimum Development Scenario Residential 210/221 1,500 DU 1.6 2,400 Retail 820 500 ksf 3.8 1,900 Non-retail 110/701 1,700 ksf 2.2 3,800 Commercial Total 8,100 Maximum Development Scenario Residential 210/221 2,500 DU 1.6 3,900 Retail 820 550 ksf 3.8 2,100 Non-retail 110/701 1,950 ksf 2.2 4,400 Commercial Total 10,400 Transportation Network Analysis Scenarios Due to increases in background traffic and the proposed AUAR stu network changes are anticipated to occur in the future. Several considered by Ramsey County and MnDOT adjacent to the AUAR study 35W interchange will influence trip distribution for the propose shown in Figure 18-1. A description of the various transportation networks assumed u included below. Internal Site Development Roadway System The internal roadway system will consist of a north/south spine County in addition to a network of local streets. The spine road Standards (CSAH) for intersection spacing which is ¼ mile minimu and / minimum spacing for right-in/right-out accesses. The intent of 1 8 roadway classified as a Class A Minor Arterial Highway Expander. access to residences and private businesses accesses. As the sit system will be modified to provide access, while also satisfying reasonable mobility. Local and Regional Roadway System Connections The transportation network analysis for the surrounding system h conditions: Existing The existing roadway geometry is shown on Figure T4 (Appendix C). This scenario considers existing traffic and existing roadway geometry including the recently comruction of the TH 10/CR 96 interchange completed in 2013. April 2014 Draft 24 2030 No Build The 2030 No Build roadway geometry is shown on Figure T5 (Appendix C). This scenario considers 2030 background traffic and 2030 roadway geometry that include programmed improvements. The between existing and 2030 is the addition of Highway Safety Impr improvements at the intersection of TH10 at County Road H. 2030 Baseline for the Minimum Development Scenario The 2030 Baseline geometry is shown on Figure T6 (Appendix C). This scenario considers infrastructure improvements at the CR 96 and I-35W interchange, Old Highway 8 a, CR H and I35W interchange, and CR 10 and CR H intersection 2030 Baseline for Maximum Development Scenario The infrastructure improvements for this scenario are the same a Traffic Study Area Figure T4(Appendix C)shows the 14 intersections that were analyzed. Local Roadway System Traffic Operations Analysis Methodology The traffic operations analysis for the local roadway system was software program that applies the methodologies of the Highway C evaluate intersection volume/capacity ratio, delay, and level of service, and queuing. Capacity analysis results identify a Level of Service (LOS) which indicates how well an given a ranking from LOS A through LOS F. LOS A indicates the be an intersection that is operating over capacity. LOS A through D hour conditions in an urban area. The traffic operations were an properly identify potential impacts and recommended mitigation m This study used the LOS D/E boundary as an indicator of satisfac displays the LOS thresholds for signalized and unsignalized inte April 2014 Draft 25 Regional Roadway System The regional roadway system is expected to include many improvements in the near future. Changes include reconstruction of I-35W interchanges at CR H and CR 96. included for purposes of regional trip distribution and anticipa freeway operations will be conducted as part of the Interstate A these interchange projects. Any significant changes in the AUAR be analyzed as either an AUAR update, or the applicable regional Existing Conditions Traffic Analysis The existing conditions analysis includes both unsignalized and level analysis, signal timing for all scenarios have been optimi operational conditions. The results are presented in Table 18-2. April 2014 Draft 26 An operations analysis was conducted for the 14 intersections in operational issues within the AUAR study area. Current volumes w Redevelopment Traffic Study, performed by SEH dated August 29, 2s for this analysis were based on field verified existing intersec Trip Generation A summary of the Minimum and Maximum Development Scenario trip generation calcula and PM peak hours are shown in Table 18-3 and Table 18-4. Table 18-3. Minimum Development Scenario Trip Generation Total AM Units / K AM AM PM Trips PM Trips PM Use Daily Trips sq. ft. Trips In Trips In Out Trips Trips Out Residential 1,500 11,050 210 650 860 660 405 1,065 Retail 500 21,350 300 180 480 890 965 1,855 Non-retail 1,700 16,480 1,995 280 2,275 370 1,815 2,185 Commercial Total 48,880 2,505 1,110 3,615 1,920 3,185 5,105 15% Transit and Multi- 41,550 2,130 945 3,075 1,630 2,710 4,340 use Reduction Factor Table 18-4. Maximum Development Scenario Trip Generation Total AM Units / K AM AM PM Trips PM Trips PM Use Daily Trips sq. ft. Trips In Trips In Out Trips Trips Out Residential 2,500 18,395 350 1,085 1,435 1,100 675 1,775 Retail 550 23,485 325 200 525 980 1,060 2,040 Non-retail 1,950 18,285 2,195 305 2,500 415 2,010 2,425 Commercial Total 60,165 2,870 1,590 4,460 2,495 3,745 6,240 15% Transit and Multi- 51,140 2,440 1,350 3,790 2,120 3,185 5,305 use Reduction Factor Trip Distribution The anticipated directional trip distribution for site users is included as Appendix C. Transit Transit service exists in areas adjacent the project area, and t the project evolves, Metro Transit will be engaged to evaluate pto potentially consider the addition of park and ride lots within t April 2014 Draft 28 The City of Arden Hills and Ramsey County are also interested in Snelling Avenue from Minneapolis to Roseville (Rosedale Center) extension of the A Line from Rosedale Center to the TCAAP site i Council. Existing Park and Ride Lots: There are two existing park and ride stations along CR H. One i and the other is in the northwest quadrant of CR H at TH 10, als Parking Lot. Existing Transit Service: The area is currently served by the following transit routes: Route 860 (County Road 10, and accessing the Mermaid Park and Ri Route 250 (I-35W, and accessing the CR H park and ride) Routes 252 and Route 288 pass the area on I-35W without any stop Route 261 travels along Lexington Avenue and Tanglewood Drive, to the east of the project boundary. b.D ISCUSS THE EFFECT ON TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON AFFECTED ROADS AND DE .T IMPROVEMENTS NECESSARY HE ANALYSIS MUST DISCUSS THE PROJECTS IMPACT ON THE REGIONAL . TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I250 F THE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC GENERATED EXCEEDS VEHICLES OR THE TOTAL DAILY TRIPS EXCEEDS 2,500,EAW.U A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY MUST BE PREPARED AS PART OF THE SE THE FORMAT AND MDTAM PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN THE INNESOTA EPARTMENT OF RANSPORTATIONS CCESS ANAGEMENT M,C5(: ANUAL HAPTER AVAILABLE AT ://....//.). HTTPWWWDOTSTATEMNUSACCESSMANAGEMENTRESOURCESHTML OR A SIMILAR LOCAL GUIDANCE Detailed documentation of the traffic forecasts and associated a Analysis in Appendix C. The following sections include summaries of the information in Traffic Forecasts The No Build Year 2030 background traffic forecasts were previou Redevelopment. Figure T10 shows the peak hour turning movement volumes. Traffic forecasts 2030 that include the AUAR study area traffic were developed by adding the AUAR study trips to the future year 2030 background traffic forecasts. Proj AM and PM peak periods were calculated for each proposed develop land use type and size. Trip generation rates from the 9th Editi Trip Generation were used to calculate development-generated tra related to internal trip capture (trips that are made on-site be (trips already existing within the AUAR study area that make use development land uses), and mode split (trips by transit, walking, on typical rates found in the general project area, United State showed a reduction of approximately 15 percent of trips due to t capture rates. April 2014 Draft 29 No Build Conditions Traffic Analysis The operations analysis was conducted for the 14 intersections i will operate within the AUAR Study Area in the 2030 forecast yea implemented. Future Year 2030 background traffic as shown in Figure T10 was obtained from the Draft TCAAP Redevelopment. Compared to existing conditions, the only geometric changes in t improvements at CR H at TH 10, where HSIP funds are presumed to shown in Figure T5. These planned improvements include reconstructing the east and CR 10 / TH 10 / County Road H intersection to include dedicated each direction. Therefore the only tangible change for this oper shared through/left lane to one exclusive through lane and one e During the 2030 AM No Build scenario, all but one intersection i better. The intersection of CR 96 and I-35W NB ramps is expected delay occurring on the NB movements. During the 2030 PM No Build scenario, six of the intersections a other seven intersections are expected to operate at LOS C or be Table 18-5). Table 18-5. 2030 Peak Hour Traffic Analysis Results LOS Intersection 2030 No Build 2030 Baseline Min 2030 Baseline Max AM PM AM PM AM PM Old Hwy 8 and CR 96 C F C E C E CR 96 and SB I-35W Ramp A F C C B C CR 96 and NB I-35W Ramp F F C C B C Round Lake Rd W and CR C F B C B C 96 Old Hwy 10 and CR 96 B F C D C C CR 96 at US 10 NB Ramp A A A A A A CR 96 and TCAAP Property/North Heights A F F F F F Church Access CR H and US-10 B C D F E F CR H and SB I-35W A A B B C E CR H and NB I-35W A A A A A C CR I and SB I-35W D C C C C C CR I and NB I-35W A A A B B B CR I and Old Hwy 8 A A A C A B CR I and N Fairview Ave A A A A A A Baseline Roadway Network Scenario Analyses Minimum Development Scenario The minimum baseline development scenario turning movements were generated traffic to the 2030 No Build traffic volumes. These tu April 2014 Draft 30 Figure T15. The improvements that were considered between the baseline ando Build scenarios primarily were discussed previously. Overall the baseline improvements hel better at almost all of the intersections with the exception of the entrance to the AUAR study area site in the AM peak (LOS F). The major movement LOS F is the westbound movements. Due to a high westbound throug traffic conditions deteriorate causing high delays. During the PM peak three intersections are expected to operate a Table 18-5). Maximum Development Scenario The maximum baseline development scenario turning movements were generated traffic to the 2030 No Build scenario turning movement for this scenario are shown in Figure T17. The improvements that were considered between the baseline and No Build scenarios primarily consisted of signalizing the CR-96 and I-35W ramps as well as some geometric changes discussed previously. Similarly to the Minimum intersections that are operating at LOS E or F (see Table 18-5). c.I DENTIFY MEASURES THAT WILL BE TAKEN TO MINIMIZE OR MITIGATE PROJ . EFFECTS Mitigated Roadway Network Scenario Traffic Analyses Minimum Development Scenario Results The analysis for this 2030 Minimum scenario incorporated the 203 following recommended mitigation measures: TH 96 westbound auxiliary lane from east of the project boundary Re-introduction of CR H southbound loop access to I-35W (removed as part of the bas which remains barrier separated from I-35W southbound exit ramp 35W after joining the TH 10 southbound access ramp to I-35W southbound. At the I-35W/CR 96 west ramp intersection, an additional southbo At the I-35W/CR 96 east ramp intersection, an additional northbo provide one exclusive left turn lane, one shared left, through, At the intersection of Round Lake Road W at CR 96, the lane use recommended to be modified from an existing shared left/through lane. At the intersection of CR H at TH 10, an additional eastbound le With these mitigation measures incorporated, all intersections w anticipated operational issues in the AM and PM scenarios. The a Table 18- 6. Table 18-6. 2030 Minimum Development Scenario Peak Hour Mitigation Traff 2030 Baseline Min Mitigated AM 2030 Baseline Min Mitigated PM Intersection LOS LOS Old Hwy 8 and CR 96 C C CR 96 and SB I-35W Ramp C C CR 96 and NB I-35W Ramp B C Round Lake Rd W and CR 96 C C April 2014 Draft 31 2030 Baseline Min Mitigated AM 2030 Baseline Min Mitigated PM Intersection LOS LOS Old Hwy 10 and CR 96 C D CR 96 at US 10 NB Ramp A A CR 96 and TCAAP Property/ C C North Heights Church Access CR H and US-10 D D CR H and SB I-35W B B CR H and NB I-35W A A CR I and SB I-35W C C CR I and NB I-35W B B CR I and Old Hwy 8 A A CR I and N Fairview Ave A A Maximum Development Scenario Results The analysis for this 2030 Maximum scenario incorporated the 203 plus recommended mitigation measures as follows: The addition of a new northbound I-35W exit to CR H, with a sing CR H. An additional southbound left turn lane at the southbound exit f With these mitigation measures incorporated, all intersections w no anticipated operational issues in the AM and PM scenarios. Th Table 18-7 . Table 18-7. 2030 Maximum Development Scenario Peak Hour Mitigation Traffic Analysis 2030 Baseline Max Mitigated AM 2030 Baseline Max Mitigated PM Intersection LOS LOS Old Hwy 8 and CR 96 C C CR 96 and SB I-35W Ramp C C CR 96 and NB I-35W Ramp C C Round Lake Rd W and CR 96 C C Old Hwy 10 and CR 96 C C CR 96 at US 10 NB Ramp A A CR 96 and TCAAP Property/ C D North Heights Church Access CR H and US-10 C D CR H and SB I-35W B B CR H and NB I-35W A C CR I and SB I-35W C C CR I and NB I-35W B B CR I and Old Hwy 8 A A CR I and N Fairview Ave A A April 2014 Draft 32 CPE 19.(P UMULATIVE OTENTIAL FFECTS REPARERS CAN LEAVE THIS ITEM BLANK IF CUMULATIVE POTENTIAL EFFEC EAWI) ARE ADDRESSED UNDER THE APPLICABLE TEMS AUAR Guidance: Because the AUAR process by its nature is intende from all future developments within the AUAR area, it is presume form automatically encompass the impacts from all anticipated de the total impact on the environment with respect to any of the sections on the EAW form may also be influenced by past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects out effect descriptions may be provided as part of the responses to to this section. a.D ESCRIBE THE GEOGRAPHIC SCALES AND TIMEFRAMES OF THE PROJECT RELA . COULD COMBINE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS RESULTING IN CUMU The following projects have been identified as reasonably forese either Scenario as to cause varying degrees of reasonably forese identified projects is or has elements that are geographically p Past projects are incorporated via existing conditions identifie specifically with regard to traffic analysis. b.D( ESCRIBE ANY REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE PROJECTS FOR WHICH A BASIS OF EXPECTATION HAS ) BEEN LAID THAT MAY INTERACT WITH ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PR . GEOGRAPHIC SCALES AND TIMEFRAMES IDENTIFIED ABOVE Interstate 35W at County Road 96 interchange Ramsey County will be leading an effort to replace the current C purpose of this project will be to expand capacity at the interc Preliminary concepts show a six-lane cross section with two thro turn lanes. Construction is projected to be complete in 2015. Th design and environmental review. Interstate 35W at County Road H interchange Ramsey County will be leading an effort to replace the current C purpose of this project will be to expand capacity at the interc additional ramps to access I-35W to and from CR H. Preliminary concepts show a 5-lane cross section with two through lanes in both directions and a left turn. Additional northbound to CR H and from CR H to I-35W southbound. Construction is projected to be complete Phases 1 and 2 of these improvements are planned by Ramsey Count are mitigation measures that would be required by the AUAR study County Road 10/Highway 10 at County Road H intersection Funding for safety improvements at the intersection of CR H and CR 10/Highway 10 has been identified and is included in the MnDOT Highway Safety Improvement Plan. Additi intersection with development at the AUAR study area site. The t coordinated in the future. April 2014 Draft 33 Roadway Connections to County Road I Ramsey County has indicated that at some future time a roadway cto County Road I may be deemed necessary. Extending Old Highway 8 w parcel north of the AUAR study area that includes a driving faci 80 feet east of the I-35W east ramp/Rice Creek Parkway intersection. Extending North south into the northeast corner of the site is another possible relief to the intersection at the east ramps of I-35W and County emergency vehicle access to the AUAR study area, however, is not traffic studies (thru 2030). Relevant traffic and environmental completed in a separate document, if and when it is determined n c.D ISCUSS THE NATURE OF THE CUMULATIVE POTENTIAL EFFECTS AND SUMMAR INFORMATION RELEVANT TO DETERMINING WHETHER THERE IS POTENTIAL F . EFFECTS DUE TO THESE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Impacts resulting from the development of the AUAR study area in and traffic. Impacts of the future road projects may have impact road improvements will result in a cumulative benefit to traffic projects will be addressed via regulatory permitting and approva to ensure no cumulative impacts occur to resources such as wetla 20.O: THER POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS I119, F THE PROJECT MAY CAUSE ANY ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS NOT TO ,, DESCRIBE THE EFFECTS HERE DISCUSS THE HOW THE ENVIRONMENT WILL BE AFFECTED AND IDENTIFY . MEASURES THAT WILL BE TAKEN TO MINIMIZE AND MITIGATE THESE EFFEC No additional environmental effects are anticipated. April 2014 Draft 34 Circle Pines Lino Lakes ANOKA Hugo Blaine WASHINGTON Mounds ViewI North Oaks Dellwood Grant 51 H Fridley Shoreview 96 Arden Hills £ ¤ 10 New Brighton Mahtomedi Gem Lake Vadnais Heights White Bear Lake § ¨¦ 694 § ¨¦ 694 §¦¨ 35W Little Canada RAMSEY Roseville Maplewood Falcon Heights Oakdale § ¨¦ 35E Minneapolis §¨ ¦ 94 §¨ ¦ 94 HENNEPIN Saint Paul Woodbury West Saint Paul DAKOTA South Saint Paul Mendota Heights Richfield Newport Copyright: ©2013 Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ Figure 5-1. Project Location AUAR Study AreaCounty Boundary TCAAP AUAR ´ TCAAP Site 012 Miles § ¨¦ 35W £ ¤ 10 AUAR Study Area H § ¨¦ 35W £ ¤ 10 96 Rush Figure 5-2. USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map TCAAP AUAR ´ 05001,000 Feet 35WLegend AUAR Study Area 10 Site Access Points Proposed County Road Potential Xcel Substation Relocation Ramsey County Regional Trail and Wildlife Corridor Anticipated Mixed-Use Development Residential Retail Non-Retail Commercial Multi-Use Public/Open Space H Arden Hills Army Training Site (AHATS) Proposed public (sanitary, stormwater, water) and private (gas, electric, telecommunications) facilities will follow the proposed county road alignment 10 35W Maximum Development Zoning Scenario Scenario 96 Residential Units 1,5002,500 Rush Retail (square feet) 500,000550,000 Lake 10 Non-Retail Commercial 1,700,0001,950,000 (square feet) Figure 5-3. Anticipated Development TCAAP AUAR 05001,000 Feet Legend I 35W AUAR Study Area 10 Ramsey County Park Ramsey County Regional Trail and Wildlife Corridor MnDOT Existing Gas Facility Existing Sanitary Ramsey County Existing Storm Sewer Park Existing Telecomunications Existing Xcel Substation Existing Interceptor Station 10 H Additional Area Arden Hills Army Studied Training Site (AHATS) 35W 96 Rush Lake 10 Round Lake Figure 6-1. Project Area and Existing Utilities TCAAP AUAR 06001,200 Feet I 35W Legend 10 AUAR Study Area Grassland/Shrubland Woodland Impervious/Developed Area Ramsey County Regional Trail and Wildlife Corridor PWI Basins PWI Watercourses FEMA 100-Year Floodplain Regional Parks Type 1/2 Surveyed Wetland Boundaries Type 2/3 Surveyed Wetland Boundaries 10 Rice Creek H 35W 96 Rush Lake (DNR# 68P) Round Lake (DNR# 70P) Long Lake 10 Regional Park Round Lake Figure 7-1. Existing Cover Types TCAAP AUAR 05001,000 Feet I 35W Legend 10 AUAR Study Area Ramsey County Regional Trail and Wildlife Corridor Anticipated Public/Open Space Development PWI Basins PWI Watercourses FEMA 100-Year Floodplain Type 1/2 Surveyed Wetland Boundaries Type 2/3 Surveyed Wetland Boundaries 10 Rice Creek H 35W 96 Rush Lake (DNR# 68P) Round Lake (DNR# 70P) Long Lake 10 Regional Park Round Lake Figure 7-2. Green Corridor TCAAP AUAR 05001,000 Feet Legend 35W AUAR Study Area 10 Wellhead Protection Areas Well Use Abandoned Domestic Industrial Monitoring Well Remedial Other Unknown H 35W 96 Rush Lake 10 Source: County Wells Index (MnGeo & MDH, 2011); Wellhead Protection Areas (MDH, 2014) Figure 11-1. County Well Index TCAAP AUAR 05001,000 Feet § ¨¦ 35W Legend £ ¤ AUAR Study Area 10 Soil Contamination above Tier 2 Industrial Values Areas with Separate RAP Documentation Groundwater Recovery Infiltration Gallery Groundwater Recovery System Piping to Remain Groundwater Recovery System Piping to be Relocated " Groundwater Treatment Building "Extraction Wells Site K H Building 102 " Building 101 " " " " " " § ¨¦ " 35W " Site I " " " " " Rush Lake " 96 £ ¤ 10 Source: Wenck, 2011 Figure 12-1. Site Remediation ´ TCAAP AUAR 05001,000 Feet 10 Legend AUAR Study Area 35W Roads Proposed CR H and I-35W Improvements Background Improvements Phase 1 Phase 2 Zoning Scenario Mitigation Phase 3 Maximum Development Scenario Mitigation Phase 4 H 10 35W Figure 18-1. County Road H and I-35W Interchange Improvements 0300600 TCAAP AUAR Feet DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN This Mitigation Plan is submitted as part of the Draft AUAR to p understanding of the actions which are advisable, recommended, o minimize potential impacts by the proposed development scenarios updated based on comments received during the Draft AUAR comment period. This Mitigation Plan is intended to satisfy the AUAR rules that specifies measures or procedures that will be used to avoid, min development within the AUAR study area. Although mitigation stra document, this plan will be formally adopted by the RGU as their environmental impacts. The primary mechanism for mitigation of environmental impacts is regulations. The plan does not modify the regulatory agencies re regulatory programs, nor create additional regulatory requiremenitigation Plan specifies the legal and institutional arrangements that will assure that the adopted mit There were no impacts identified in Sections 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, mitigation and are not included in the Draft Mitigation Plan. Th requirements and/or mitigation measures that reduce the level of area. The plan is formatted consistent with the sections of the April 2014 Draft 1 8.PERMITSANDAPPROVALSREQUIRED Unit of Government Type of Application/Approval Status National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Stormwater To be applied for Permit for Construction Activities Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit To be applied for Soil and Groundwater Remediation To be applied for, if needed Plan Approval Abandonment of Water Wells To be applied for Minnesota Department of Health Water Main Installation Permit To be applied for, if needed Minnesota Department of Natural Groundwater Appropriation Permit To be applied for, if needed Resources (Construction) Metropolitan Council Comprehensive Plan Amendment To be applied for Stormwater Management, Erosion Rice Creek Watershed District Control, Floodplain Alteration, To be applied for Wetland Alteration Preliminary and Final Plat approvals Joint Development Authority Pending, by developers Development reviews/approvals Boundary Plat approval To be applied for AUAR Approval In process Comprehensive Plan Amendment To be applied for Zoning Change Approval To be applied for City of Arden Hills Grading, Excavation and To be applied for Foundation Permits Building and Utility Permits To be applied for Erosion Control Permits To be applied for Utility permits in County Road right- To be applied for of-way Ramsey County Access permits (connection to To be applied for County Road) Hazardous waste permits Approved April 2014 Draft 2 11.WATERRESOURCES Potential impacts and mitigation measures are the same under bot Potential Impacts Regional wastewater collection and treatment facilities and muni Area have sufficient long-term capacity to handle the additional Zoning and Maximum Development Scenarios. Sanitary sewer will need to be extended into the Study Area to p Temporary dewatering may be required during project construction constructed with lower levels, for which caissons could be used d foundations. All water pumped during construction dewatering activities will Watershed, and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) r Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and site R Up to 14.4 acres of wetland may be impacted by development. Wetlshould be avoided where preservation of wetland is feasible. A new crossing of Rice Creek would be required for site access. Mitigation Strategies The use of a small lift station may be required depending on fut will primarily be gravity-based. Stormwater will be managed on-site, maintaining the current drai outfalls to Rice Creek and Round Lake. Stormwater will be conveyed to Round Lake and Rice Creek by mean vegetated swales, and wetlands. Conveyance systems will be desig industry standards and in conformance with jurisdictional requir The runoff rate will be reduced to 80% of the existing rate beca Management Zone as defined by the RCWD. The primary method of stormwater treatment will be the use of mu phosphorous and total suspended solids. Water reuse, bio-filtrat also suitable for treatment within the Study Area. No discharge water will be directed to surface waters without pr and a determination that no contamination exists. The developer contaminated as a basis for determining discharge to storm sewer process such as the existing groundwater treatment facilities. T require a Temporary Water Appropriations General Permit 1997-000 and less than one year in duration. Wetland impacts will be replaced at a 2:1 ratio, through a combi through plans/permit approved by the RCWD and Army Corps of Engi The crossing would be via a bridge that spans the creek, wetland cross underneath. A trail crossing at this location may also be bridge will be designed to avoid impact on the floodplain. How Mitigation will be Applied and Assured Water resources mitigation will be regulated through the RCWD, A processes. Other water resource mitigation will be regulated thrA review process. Proposed PUD and/or site plans must address relevant mitigation measures April 2014 Draft 3 Involvement by Other Agencies, if applicable Metropolitan Council Environmental Services The site will require compliance with Rice Creek Watershed Distr runoff control and erosion control. All water pumped during construction dewatering activities will and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) requirements Elimination System (NPDES) permit and site RAP. 12.CONTAMINATION/HAZARDOUSMATERIALS/SOLIDWASTES The potential to encounter contaminants is the same under both D Potential Impacts The soil on site is currently being remediated to residential st Construction of the future development would generate constructi packaging, excess materials, and other wastes. The range of municipal solid waste generated per year based upon Scenarios is 27,300 to 31,900 tons, respectively. Mitigation Strategies Handling of site contaminants is addressed in the overall RAP ap subarea RAPs addressing key hot spot remediation. Construction materials would be either recycled or disposed in t Solid waste recycling will be required by city code for resident future for commercial users. How Mitigation will be Applied and Assured Mitigation will be regulated through the JDA review process. Proposed PUD and/or site plans must address relevant mitigation measures prior to final approval by the JDA. Involvement by Other Agencies, if applicable The developer will coordinate with the MPCA regarding the requir 13.FISH,PLANTCOMMUNITIES,ANDSENSITIVEECOLOGICALRESOURCES Potential Impacts Two Regionally Significant Ecological Areas (RSEA) within portio One osprey nest will remain on site Mitigation Strategies DNR recommendations for minimizing impacts to turtles during co development activities Creation of a green corridor through the AUAR study area will pr adjacent wildlife corridor and is compatible with the RSEA and I April 2014 Draft 4 The nesting platform at the water treatment building will be avo How Mitigation will be Applied and Assured Mitigation will be regulated through the JDA review process. Proposed PUD and/or site plans must address relevant mitigation measures prior to final approval by the JDA. Involvement by Other Agencies, if applicable The developer will coordinate with the DNR regarding minimizing coordinate with the DNR regarding the creation/design of the gre 18.TRANSPORTATION Potential Impacts Increased traffic on the regional roadway network surrounding th Mitigation Strategies Minimum Development Scenario TH 96 westbound auxiliary lane from east of the project boundary Re-introduction of CR H southbound loop access to I-35W (removed a which remains barrier separated from I-35W southbound exit ramp 35W after joining the TH 10 southbound access ramp to I-35W sout At the I-35W/CR 96 west ramp intersection, an additional southbo At the I-35W/CR 96 east ramp intersection, an additional northbo provide one exclusive left turn lane, one shared left, through, At the intersection of Round Lake Road W at CR 96, the lane use recommended to be re-striped from an existing shared left/through lane to a shared l lane. At the intersection of CR H at TH 10, an additional eastbound le Maximum Development Scenario In addition to the Minimum Development Scenario mitigation descr measures are recommended for the Maximum Development Scenario: The addition of a new northbound I-35W exit to CR H, with a sing CR H. An additional southbound left turn lane at the southbound exit f How Mitigation will be Applied and Assured Mitigation will be regulated through the JDA approval and permit plans, planned unit development and subdivision applications, pl mitigation measures prior to final approval by the JDA. Implemen addressed through developer agreements with the JDA, which may r improvements and/or revoke the right to acquire building permits addressed. April 2014 Draft 5 Involvement by Other Agencies, if applicable The City of Arden Hills will continue to work with Ramsey County an efficient transportation system. April 2014 Draft 6 Appendix A. Correspondence Haase, Rachel Haase, Rachel From: Monday, October 28, 2013 2:22 PM Sent: 'review.NHIS@state.mn.us' To: TCAAP NHIS Data Review Request Subject: TCAAP NHIS Data Request.pdf; USGS Map.pdf; Aerial Map.pdf; Proje Attachments: To whom it may concern, The City of Arden Hills has a redevelopment project that is in need of NHIS review. The project is located in Township 30, Range 23, Sections 9 and 16, in Arden Hills, Ramsey County, Minnesota. The review request, an aerial of the project site, a USGS map, and a project location map are attached for review. The Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plan (TCAAP) is a 427 acre site that was used for the production of conventional ammunition and weapons components from 1941-1976, and now contains over 100 vacant and unoccupied structures and numerous access roads and parking lots which are in the process of being removed and remediated. The area surrounding the site is a moderately developed suburban mix of commercial, retail, industrial, and residential buildings. The site is being redeveloped to become a mixed-use development. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best, Rachel Haase Rachel Haase Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. | 2550 University Avenue West | Suite 238N | St. Paul, MN 55114 Direct: 651.643.0412 | Office: 651.645.4197 |rachel.haase@kimley-horn.com | www.kimley-horn.com 1 Rice Creek AUAR Study Area MOUNDS VIEW ARDEN HILLS NEW BRIGHTON Rush ´ TCAAP AUAR 05001,000 Aerial Map Feet §¦¨35W BLAINE £ ¤ 10 Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Park Reserve SHOREVIEW § ¨¦ 35W 3 £ ¤ 10 Rice Creek Turtle Lake MOUNDS VIEW AUAR Study Area Marsden Lake ARDEN HILLS 51 Sunfish Lake Long Lake 96W Regional Park Rush Lake £ ¤ NEW BRIGHTON Karth Lake 10 Round Lake § ¨¦ 35W Long Lake § ¨¦ 694 ´ TCAAP AUAR 00.250.5 Project Location Miles Rice Creek AUAR Study Area Rush ´ TCAAP AUAR 05001,000 USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map Feet Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Ecological and Water Resources, Box 25 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4025 Phone: (651) 259-5109 E-mail: lisa.joyal@state.mn.us Correspondence # ERDB 20140096 February 18, 2014 Ms. Rachel Haase Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2550 University Avenue West, Suite 238N St. Paul, MN 55114 RE: Natural Heritage Review of the proposed Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant AUAR, T30N R23N Sections 9 & 16, Ramsey County Dear Ms. Haase, As requested, the Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System has been queried to determine if anyrare species or other significant natural features are known to occur within an approximate one-mile radius of the proposed project. Based on this query, rare features have been documented within the rare features be adversely affected search area. Please note that the following may by the proposed project and should be addressed in the Alternative Urban Areawide Review: The project boundary overlaps portions of two Central Region Regionally Significant Ecological Areas (RSEA; see enclosed map). The DNR Central Region (in partnership with the Metropolitan Council for the 7-county metro area), identified these ecologically significant terrestrial and wetland areas by conducting a landscape-scale assessment based on the size and shape of the ecological area, land cover within the ecological area, adjacent land cover/use, and connectivity to other ecological areas. The purpose of the data is to inform regional scale land use decisions, especially as it relates to balancing development and natural resource protection. A GIS shapefile of this data layer can be downloaded from the DNR Data Deli at http://deli.dnr.state.mn.us. Additional information, including pdf versions of the RSEA maps, is available at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsea/index.html. If you would like help interpreting the RSEA data or would like assistance with designing the project’s greenspace, please contact Hannah Texler, Regional Plant Ecologist for DNR’s Central Region, at 651-259-5811 or hannah.texler@state.mn.us. The proposed project is within the AHATS – Rice Creek Important Bird Area (IBA; see enclosed map). Important Birds Areas, identified by Audubon Minnesota in partnership with the DNR, are part of an international conservation effort aimed at conserving critical bird habitats. They are voluntary and non-regulatory, but the designation does demonstrate the biological value of this area. This particular IBA contains varied habitat, including extensive grasslands, and provides important habitat for waterfowl, raptors, and passerines within an urban landscape. A minimum of 166 species have been observed within the IBA boundaries, including several Species of Greatest Conservation Need as identified in Minnesota’s State Wildlife Action Plan (http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/cwcs/index.html). www.mndnr.gov AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER There are multiple observations of trumpeter swans (Cygnus buccinator), a state-listed species of special concern, nesting within the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant. During the breeding season, trumpeter swans select small ponds and lakes with extensive beds of cattails, bulrush, sedges, and/or horsetail. Ideal habitat includes about 100 m of open water for take-off, stable levels of unpolluted water, emergent vegetation, low levels of human disturbance, and the presence of muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) houses and American beaver (Castor canadensis) lodges for use as nesting platforms. Threats to the trumpeter swan population in Minnesota include lead poisoning, illegal shooting, the loss or degradation of wetland habitat, and collisions with transmission lines. Of particular concern would be any habitat destruction or construction disturbance during the breeding season. However, based on aerial photographs, the proposed project boundary does not appear to contain any suitable nesting habitat. Plains pocket mouse (Perognathus flavescens), a state-listed species of special concern, was documented within the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant in the 1990’s. This population is the largest known plains pocket mouse population in the state. In Minnesota, this species is restricted to open, well-drained areas, typically on sandy soils with sparse, grassy, or brushy vegetation. Threats to the plains pocket mouse include habitat destruction and natural succession. While there are no known occurrences of this species within the project boundary, it is possible that portions of the project include suitable habitat (e.g., the northernmost section which is within a Central Region Regionally Significant Ecological Area). The proposed project is within an area of statewide importance to the Blanding’s turtle (Emydoidea blandingii), a state-listed threatened species. There are 15 such areas in the state. These areas are relied upon to maintain the species’ security within Minnesota, and the DNR considers them of the highest priority for Blanding’s turtle research and management activities. Although we have no records from directly within the project site, turtles are known to occur in the vicinity of the project (including within Rice Creek) and may occur within the project boundary. Blanding’s turtles not only use wetlands, but also upland areas up to and over a mile distant from wetlands. Uplands are used for nesting, basking, periods of dormancy, and traveling between wetlands. Because of the tendency to travel long distances over land, Blanding’s turtles regularly travel across roads and are therefore susceptible to collisions with vehicles. Any added mortality can be detrimental to populations of Blanding’s turtles, as these turtles have a low reproduction rate that depends upon a high survival rate to maintain population levels. Other factors believed to contribute to the decline of this species include wetland drainage and degradation, and the development of upland habitat. For your information, I have attached a Blanding’s turtle fact sheet that describes the habitat use and life history of this species. The fact sheet also provides two lists of recommendations for avoiding and minimizing impacts to this rare turtle. The first list is relevant for all areas inhabited by Blanding’s turtles while the second list contains additional protective measures for areas known to be of statewide importance to this species. Because the proposed project please refer to both lists of recommendations is within one of these areas, . In particular, there are specific recommendations regarding roads, utilities, landscaping, timing of construction, and sediment and erosion control that will pertain to this project. In addition, please refer to the enclosed fact sheet for recommendations on the use of wildlife friendly erosion control. For further assistance regarding the Blanding’s turtle, please contact Erica Hoaglund, DNR Regional Nongame Specialist, at 651-259-5772. Page 2 of 3 Minnesota’s endangered species law (Minnesota Statutes, section 84.0895) and associated rules (Minnesota Rules, part 6212.1800 to 6212.2300 and 6134) prohibit the taking of threatened or endangered species without a permit. Given the protected status of this species and given that the proposed project is within an area of statewide importance to this species, the DNR requests that a Blanding’s Turtle Avoidance and Minimization Plan be submitted for DNR review prior to any construction activities . The plan should identify potential impacts to the Blanding’s turtle and document any measures that will be implemented to avoid and minimize disturbance to this species. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the Avoidance and Minimization Plan. If it is determined that a Public Waters Work Permit is needed for the potential crossing of Rice Creek, additional requirements/conditions may be included in the Permit. The Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS), a collection of databases that contains information about Minnesota’s rare natural features, is maintained by the Division of Ecological and Water Resources, Department of Natural Resources. The NHIS is continually updated as new information becomes available, and is the most complete source of data on Minnesota's rare or otherwise significant species, native plant communities, and other natural features. However, the NHIS is not an exhaustive inventory and thus does not represent all of the occurrences of rare features within the state. Therefore, ecologically significant features for which we have no records may exist within the project If additional information becomes available regarding rare features in the vicinity of the area. project, further review may be necessary. For environmental review purposes, the Natural Heritage letter is valid for one year; it is only valid for the project location (noted above) and the project description provided on the NHIS Data Request Form. Please contact me if project details change or for an updated review if construction has not occurred within one year. The Natural Heritage Review does not constitute review or approval by the Department of Natural Resources as a whole. Instead, it identifies issues regarding known occurrences of rare features and potential effects to these rare features. To determine whether there are other natural resource concerns associated with the proposed project, please contact your DNR Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist (contact information available at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/ereview/erp_regioncontacts.html). Please be aware that additional site assessments or review may be required. Thank you for consulting us on this matter, and for your interest in preserving Minnesota's rare natural resources. An invoice will be mailed to you under separate cover. Sincerely, Lisa Joyal Endangered Species Review Coordinator enc. Map Blanding’s Turtle Fact Sheet and Flyer Wildlife Friendly Erosion Control cc: Brooke Haworth Erica Hoaglund Hannah Texler Molly Shodeen Link: DNR Rare Species Guide (info on the biology, habitat use, and conservation of rare species) http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/index.html www.mndnr.gov AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER CAUTION BLANDING’S TURTLES MAY BE ENCOUNTERED IN THIS AREA The unique and rare Blanding’s turtle has been found in this area. Blanding’s turtles are state-listed as Threatened and are protected under Minnesota Statute 84.095, Protection of Threatened and Endangered Species. Please be careful of turtles on roads and in construction sites. For additional information on turtles, or to report a Blanding’s turtle sighting, contact the DNR Nongame Specialist nearest you: Bemidji (218-308-2653); Grand Rapids (218-327-4518); New Ulm (507-359-6033); Rochester (507-206-2820); or St. Paul (651-259-5772). DESCRIPTION : The Blanding’s turtle is a medium to large turtle (5 to 10 inches) with a black or dark blue, dome-shaped shell with muted yellow spots and bars. The bottom of the shell is hinged across the front third, enabling the turtle to pull the front edge of the lower shell firmly against the top shell to provide additional protection when threatened. The head, legs, and tail are dark brown or blue-gray with small dots of light brown or yellow. A distinctive field mark is the bright yellow chin and neck. BLANDING’S TURTLES DO NOT MAKE GOOD PETS IT IS ILLEGAL TO KEEP THIS THREATENED SPECIES IN CAPTIVITY SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AVOIDING AND MINIMIZING IMPACTS TO BLANDING’S TURTLE POPULATIONS (see Blanding’s Turtle Fact Sheet for full recommendations) This flyer should be given to all contractors working in the area. Homeowners should also be informed of the presence of Blanding’s turtles in the area. Turtles that are in imminent danger should be moved, by hand, out of harm’s way. Turtles that are not in imminent danger should be left undisturbed to continue their travel among wetlands and/or nest sites. If a Blanding’s turtle nests in your yard, do not disturb the nest and do not allow pets near the nest. Silt fencing should be set up to keep turtles out of construction areas. It is critical that silt fencing be removed after the area has been revegetated. Small, vegetated temporary wetlands should not be dredged, deepened, or filled. All wetlands should be protected from pollution; use of fertilizers and pesticides should be avoided, and run-off from lawns and streets should be controlled. Erosion should be prevented to keep sediment from reaching wetlands and lakes. Roads should be kept to minimum standards on widths and lanes. Roads should be ditched, not curbed or below grade. If curbs must be used, 4" high curbs at a 3:1 slope are preferred. Culverts under roads crossing wetland areas, between wetland areas, or between wetland and nesting areas should be at least 36 in. diameter and flat-bottomed or elliptical. Culverts under roads crossing streams should be oversized (at least twice as wide as the normal width of open water) and flat-bottomed or elliptical. Utility access and maintenance roads should be kept to a minimum. Because trenches can trap turtles, trenches should be checked for turtles prior to being backfilled and the sites should be returned to original grade. Terrain should be left with as much natural contour as possible. Graded areas should be revegetated with native grasses and forbs. Vegetation management in infrequently mowed areas -- such as in ditches, along utility access roads, and under power lines -- should be done mechanically (chemicals st should not be used). Work should occur fall through spring (after October 1 and st before June 1). Compiled by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Ecological and Water Resources, Updated August 2012 Endangered Species Review Coordinator, 500 Lafayette Rd., Box 25, St. Paul, MN 55155 / 651-259-5109 Environmental Review Fact Sheet Series Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Species of Minnesota BlandingÏs Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) 1 Minnesota Status: Threatened State Rank: S2 1 Federal Status: none Global Rank: G4 HABITAT USE Blanding’s turtles need both wetland and upland habitats to complete their life cycle. The types of wetlands used include ponds, marshes, shrub swamps, bogs, and ditches and streams with slow-moving water. In Minnesota, Blanding’s turtles are primarily marsh and pond inhabitants. Calm, shallow water bodies (Type 1-3 wetlands) with mud bottoms and abundant aquatic vegetation (e.g., cattails, water lilies) are preferred, and extensive marshes bordering rivers provide excellent habitat. Small temporary wetlands (those that dry up in the late summer or fall) are frequently used in spring and summer -- these fishless pools are amphibian and invertebrate breeding habitat, which provides an important food source for Blanding’s turtles. Also, the warmer water of these shallower areas probably aids in the development of eggs within the female turtle. Nesting occurs in open (grassy or brushy) sandy uplands, often some distance from water bodies. Frequently, nesting occurs in traditional nesting grounds on undeveloped land. Blanding’s turtles have also been known to nest successfully on residential property (especially in low density housing situations), and to utilize disturbed areas such as farm fields, gardens, under power lines, and road shoulders (especially of dirt roads). Although Blanding’s turtles may travel through woodlots during their seasonal movements, shady areas (including forests and lawns with shade trees) are not used for nesting. Wetlands with deeper water are needed in times of drought, and during the winter. Blanding’s turtles overwinter in the muddy bottoms of deeper marshes and ponds, or other water bodies where they are protected from freezing. LIFE HISTORY Individuals emerge from overwintering and begin basking in late March or early April on warm, sunny days. The increase in body temperature which occurs during basking is necessary for egg development within the female turtle. Nesting in Minnesota typically occurs during June, and females are most active in late afternoon and at dusk. Nesting can occur as much as a mile from wetlands. The nest is dug by the female in an open sandy area and 6-15 eggs are laid. The female turtle returns to the marsh within 24 hours of laying eggs. After a development period of approximately two months, hatchlings leave the nest from mid-August through early-October. Nesting females and hatchlings are often at risk of being killed while crossing roads between wetlands and nesting areas. In addition to movements associated with nesting, all ages and both sexes move between wetlands from April through November. These movements peak in June and July and again in September and October as turtles move to and from overwintering sites. In late autumn (typically November), Blandings turtles bury themselves in the substrate (the ’ mud at the bottom) of deeper wetlands to overwinter. IMPACTS / THREATS / CAUSES OF DECLINE loss of wetland habitat through drainage or flooding (converting wetlands into ponds or lakes) loss of upland habitat through development or conversion to agriculture human disturbance, including collection for the pet trade* and road kills during seasonal movements increase in predator populations (skunks, raccoons, etc.) which prey on nests and young * It is illegal to possess this threatened species. Minnesota DNR Division of Ecological Resources Environmental Review Fact Sheet Series. Blandings Turtle.2 ’ RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AVOIDING AND MINIMIZING IMPACTS These recommendations apply to typical construction projects and general land use within Blanding’s turtle habitat, and are provided to help local governments, developers, contractors, and homeowners minimize or avoid detrimental List 1 impacts to Blanding’s turtle populations. describes minimum measures which we recommend to prevent harm List 2 to Blanding’s turtles during construction or other work within Blanding’s turtle habitat. contains recommendations which offer even greater protection for Blanding’s turtles populations; this list should be used in addition to the first list in areas which are known to be of state-wide importance to Blanding’s turtles (contact the DNR’s Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program if you wish to determine if your project or home is in one of these areas), or in any other area where greater protection for Blanding’s turtles is desired. List 1. Recommendations for all areas inhabited by List 2. recommendations for areas known to Additional Blanding’s turtles.be of state-wide importance to Blanding’s turtles. GENERAL A flyer with an illustration of a Blanding’s turtle should be Turtle crossing signs can be installed adjacent to road- given to all contractors working in the area. Homeowners crossing areas used by Blanding’s turtles to increase public should also be informed of the presence of Blanding’s awareness and reduce road kills. turtles in the area. Turtles which are in imminent danger should be moved, by Workers in the area should be aware that Blandings ’ hand, out of harms way. Turtles which are not in turtles nest in June, generally after 4pm, and should be imminent danger should be left undisturbed. advised to minimize disturbance if turtles are seen. If a Blanding’s turtle nests in your yard, do not disturb the If you would like to provide more protection for a nest.Blanding’s turtle nest on your property, see “Protecting Blanding’s Turtle Nests” on page 3 of this fact sheet. Silt fencing should be set up to keep turtles out of Construction in potential nesting areas should be limited to construction areas. It is critical that silt fencing be the period between September 15 and June 1 (this is the removed after the area has been revegetated. time when activity of adults and hatchlings in upland areas is at a minimum). WETLANDS Small, vegetated temporary wetlands (Types 2 & 3) should Shallow portions of wetlands should not be disturbed not be dredged, deepened, filled, or converted to storm during prime basking time (mid morning to mid- afternoon water retention basins (these wetlands provide important in May and June). A wide buffer should be left along the habitat during spring and summer). shore to minimize human activity near wetlands (basking Blanding’s turtles are more easily disturbed than other turtle species). Wetlands should be protected from pollution; use of Wetlands should be protected from road, lawn, and other fertilizers and pesticides should be avoided, and run-off chemical run-off by a vegetated buffer strip at least 50' from lawns and streets should be controlled. Erosion wide. This area should be left unmowed and in a natural should be prevented to keep sediment from reaching condition. wetlands and lakes. ROADS Roads should be kept to minimum standards on widths and Tunnels should be considered in areas with concentrations lanes (this reduces road kills by slowing traffic and of turtle crossings (more than 10 turtles per year per 100 reducing the distance turtles need to cross). meters of road), and in areas of lower density if the level of road use would make a safe crossing impossible for turtles. Contact your DNR Regional Nongame Specialist for further information on wildlife tunnels. Roads should be ditched, not curbed or below grade. If Roads should be ditched, not curbed or below grade. curbs must be used, 4 inch high curbs at a 3:1 slope are preferred (Blanding’s turtles have great difficulty climbing traditional curbs; curbs and below grade roads trap turtles on the road and can cause road kills). Minnesota DNR Division of Ecological Resources Environmental Review Fact Sheet Series. Blandings Turtle.3 ’ ROADS cont. Culverts between wetland areas, or between wetland areas Road placement should avoid separating wetlands from and nesting areas, should be 36 inches or greater in adjacent upland nesting sites, or these roads should be diameter, and elliptical or flat-bottomed. fenced to prevent turtles from attempting to cross them (contact your DNR Nongame Specialist for details). Wetland crossings should be bridged, or include raised Road placement should avoid bisecting wetlands, or these roadways with culverts which are 36 in or greater in roads should be fenced to prevent turtles from attempting diameter and flat-bottomed or elliptical (raised roadways to cross them (contact your DNR Nongame Specialist for discourage turtles from leaving the wetland to bask on details). This is especially important for roads with more roads).than 2 lanes. Culverts under roads crossing streams should be oversized Roads crossing streams should be bridged. (at least twice as wide as the normal width of open water) and flat-bottomed or elliptical. UTILITIES Utility access and maintenance roads should be kept to a minimum (this reduces road-kill potential). Because trenches can trap turtles, trenches should be checked for turtles prior to being backfilled and the sites should be returned to original grade. LANDSCAPING AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT Terrain should be left with as much natural contour as As much natural landscape as possible should be preserved possible.(installation of sod or wood chips, paving, and planting of trees within nesting habitat can make that habitat unusable to nesting Blanding’s turtles). Graded areas should be revegetated with native grasses Open space should include some areas at higher elevations and forbs (some non-natives form dense patches through for nesting. These areas should be retained in native which it is difficult for turtles to travel).vegetation, and should be connected to wetlands by a wide corridor of native vegetation. Vegetation management in infrequently mowed areas -- Ditches and utility access roads should not be mowed or such as in ditches, along utility access roads, and under managed through use of chemicals. If vegetation power lines -- should be done mechanically (chemicals management is required, it should be done mechanically, should not be used). Work should occur fall through as infrequently as possible, and fall through spring stst spring (after October 1 and before June 1 ). (mowing can kill turtles present during mowing, and makes it easier for predators to locate turtles crossing roads). Protecting Blanding’s Turtle Nests: Most predation on turtle nests occurs within 48 hours after the eggs are laid. After this time, the scent is gone from the nest and it is more difficult for predators to locate the nest. Nests more than a week old probably do not need additional protection, unless they are in a particularly vulnerable spot, such as a yard where pets may disturb the nest. Turtle nests can be protected from predators and other disturbance by covering them with a piece of wire fencing (such as chicken wire), secured to the ground with stakes or rocks. The piece of fencing should measure at least 2 ft. x 2 ft., and should be of medium sized mesh (openings should be about st removed before August 1 2 in. x 2 in.). It is very important that the fencing be so the young turtles can escape from the nest when they hatch! REFERENCES 1 Association for Biodiversity Information. “Heritage Status: Global, National, and Subnational Conservation Status Ranks.” NatureServe. Version 1.3 (9 April 2001).http://www.natureserve.org/ranking.htm (15 April 2001). Coffin, B., and L. Pfannmuller. 1988. Minnesota’s Endangered Flora and Fauna. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 473 pp. Minnesota DNR Division of Ecological Resources Environmental Review Fact Sheet Series. Blandings Turtle.4 ’ REFERENCES (cont.) Moriarty, J. J., and M. Linck. 1994. Suggested guidelines for projects occurring in Blanding’s turtle habitat. Unpublished report to the Minnesota DNR. 8 pp. Oldfield, B., and J. J. Moriarty. 1994. Amphibians and Reptiles Native to Minnesota. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 237 pp. Sajwaj, T. D., and J. W. Lang. 2000. Thermal ecology of Blandings turtle in central Minnesota. Chelonian ’ Conservation and Biology 3(4):626-636. Compiled by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Ecological Resources, Updated March 2008 Endangered Species Environmental Review Coordinator, 500 Lafayette Rd., Box 25, St. Paul, MN 55155 / 651-259-5109 7¨«£«¨¥¤ &±¨¤£«¸ %±®²¨® #®³±®« +®¶ 9®´± /¯³¨®² +®¶ ³§¤ , £²¢ ¯¤ o o o o 0±®³¤¢³ 7¨«£«¨¥¤ ,¨³¤± ³´±¤ 2¤¥¤±¤¢¤£ Haase, Rachel From:Laabs, Jessica Sent:Friday, January 03, 2014 1:31 PM To:Haase, Rachel Subject:FW: TCAAP AUAR data search Attachments:Archaeology.rtf; Historic.rtf Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged I;©;äÒm From: Thomas Cinadr [mailto:thomas.cinadr@mnhs.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2013 10:16 AM To: Laabs, Jessica Subject: Re: TCAAP AUAR data search THIS EMAIL IS NOT A PROJECT CLEARANCE. This message simply reports the results of the cultural resources database search you requested. The database search produced results for only previously known archaeological sites and historic properties. Please read the note below carefully. Archaeological sites and historic properties were identified in a search of the Minnesota Archaeological Inventory and Historic Reports containing the results of the search are attached. Structures Inventory for the search area requested. The result of this database search provides a listing of recorded archaeological sites and historic architectural properties that are included in the current SHPO databases. Because the majority of archaeological sites in the state and many historic architectural properties have not been recorded, important sites or structures may exist within the search area and may be affected by development projects within that area. Additional research, including field survey, may be necessary to adequately assess the area’s potential to contain historic properties. If you require a comprehensive assessment of a project’s potential to impact archaeological sites or historic architectural properties, you may need to hire a qualified archaeologist and/or historian. If you need assistance with a project review, please contact Kelly Gragg-Johnson in Review and Compliance @ 651-259-3455 or by email at kelly.graggjohnson@mnhs.org. The Minnesota SHPO Survey Manuals and Database Metadata and Contractor Lists can be found at http://www.mnhs.org/shpo/survey/inventories.htm SHPO research hours are 8:00 AM – 4:00 PM Tuesday-Friday. The Office is closed on Mondays. Tom Cinadr Survey and Information Management Coordinator 1 Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office Minnesota Historical Society 345 Kellogg Blvd. West St. Paul, MN 55102 651-259-3453 On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 3:42 PM, <Jessica.Laabs@kimley-horn.com> wrote: Hello Thomas, Per the email below, I am writing to request a database search for the TCAAP site in Arden Hills, MN located within Township 30, Range 23, Sections 9 and 16. The attached letter gives additional background information, if needed. Please let me know if there is anything else you need to complete the search. Thank you! Jessica Jessica Laabs, AICP Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2550 University Avenue West, Suite 238N St. Paul, MN 55114 651-643-0437 (direct) 651-645-4197 (main office) jessica.laabs@kimley-horn.com 2 From: Leslie Coburn [mailto:leslie.coburn@mnhs.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 3:07 PM To: Laabs, Jessica Cc: Thomas Cinadr; Kelly Gragg-Johnson Subject: TCAAP AUAR preparation Hello, Ms. Laabs-- We received your request to consult with our office on the preparation of the AUAR for the TCAAP project. The 2008 EQB guidance document is a bit misleading in that it recommends contacting our office to determine whether historical or cultural resources would be impacted by the project. What this means is that you should contact our information coordinator, Thomas Cinadr, to request a search of our resources databases. But without a federal or state agency involvement at this point in the project plans, we would not conduct a review of the project. The GSA has fulfilled the stipulations in its MOA, as your letter states. Please contact Thomas Cinadr by email at thomas.cinadr@mnhs.org for a database search. Be sure to include the Township, Range, and Section location information for the areas you'd like searched. He'll send you a report via email. Please let me know if you have questions. -- Leslie Coburn Government Programs and Compliance Technician (651) 259-3457 State Historic Preservation Office Minnesota Historical Society ~ 345 Kellogg Blvd W. ~ St. Paul, MN 55102 3 Appendix B. County Well Index Information for Wells within the AUAR Study Area Additional information on individual wells can be accessed at http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/cwi/. Unique Well Name Township Range Section Subsection Status Use Well No. 194701 01U620 30 23W 9 CDCBCA Active Monitor Well 194702 01U621 30 23W 9 CCDADA Active Monitor Well 194703 01U622 30 23W 9 CDBCDD Sealed Abandoned 194704 01U623 30 23W 9 CDCBAC Sealed Abandoned 01U634 H504U1 0W4 194716 30 23W 16 DACCBC Sealed Abandoned 1984 01U638 H508U1 0W8 194717 30 23W 16 DDBCCD Sealed Abandoned 1984 01U639 H509U1 0W9 194718 30 23W 16 DDBDBC Active Monitor Well 1984 01U640 H510U1 0W10 194719 30 23W 16 DDACCC Active Monitor Well 1984 01U631 H501U1 0W1 194720 30 23W 16 DDBABC Active Monitor Well 1984 01U632 H502U1 0W2 194721 30 23W 16 DDACBC Active Monitor Well 1984 01U635 H505U1 0W5 194722 30 23W 16 DCAACB Sealed Abandoned 1984 01U636 H506U1 0W6 194723 30 23W 16 DCADBD Active Monitor Well 1984 194725 01U612 30 23W 9 CDBCDC Active Monitor Well 194726 01U613 30 23W 9 CDBDCC Active Monitor Well 194727 01U615 30 23W 9 CDCBBD Active Monitor Well 194728 01U616 30 23W 9 CDCBDB Active Monitor Well 194729 01U617 30 23W 9 CDCBBB Active Monitor Well 194730 01U618 30 23W 9 CDCBDC Active Monitor Well 194731 01U619 30 23W 9 CDCDBB Active Monitor Well 194758 01U612 30 23W 9 CDBCDC Active Monitor Well 194759 01U613 30 23W 9 CDBDCC Active Monitor Well 194760 01U615 30 23W 9 CDCBBD Active Monitor Well 194761 01U616 30 23W 9 CDCBDB Active Monitor Well 194770 01U617 30 23W 9 CDCBBB Active Monitor Well 194771 01U618 30 23W 9 CDCBDC Active Monitor Well 194772 01U619 30 23W 9 CDCDBB Active Monitor Well 206753 TCAAP NO.6 30 23W 16 ACBDDC Sealed Abandoned 206754 TCAAP NO.1 30 23W 16 ABBBD Active Industrial 206756 TCAAP NO.2 30 23W 16 BADADC Active Industrial 206758 TCAAP NO.3 30 23W 16 BDAADC Active Industrial 233152 PSB-2 30 23W 16 CADBAB Active 233153 PSB-3 30 23W 16 DCDDBB Active 233167 PSB-17 30 23W 16 ACBDDB Active B-1 Unique Well Name Township Range Section Subsection Status Use Well No. 233171 PSB-21 30 23W 16 DBBCDD Active 234135 ST-1-U3 30 23W 16 BBCA Active 234136 ST-1-M3 30 23W 16 DBBD Active 234137 ST-1-L3 30 23W 16 BBCD Active 234138 ST-1-U4 30 23W 16 BBCD Active 234139 ST-2-U3 30 23W 16 CAAC Active 234140 ST-2-M3 30 23W 16 CAAC Active 234141 ST-2-L3 30 23W 16 CADB Active 234142 ST-3-U3 30 23W 16 DCDD Active 234143 ST-3-M3 30 23W 16 DCDD Active 234144 ST-3-L3 30 23W 16 DCDD Active 234162 ST-13-U3 30 23W 9 CCAB Active 234163 ST-13-M3 30 23W 9 CCAB Active 234176 ST-21-U3 30 23W 16 DBBC Active 234193 ST-3-U4 30 23W 16 DCDD Active 234194 ST-2-U4 30 23W 16 CADB Active 234220 PSB-50 30 23W 16 BCBA Active Other 234221 PSB-50A 30 23W 16 BCBA Sealed Abandoned 234222 PSB-51 30 23W 16 BCAC Sealed Abandoned 234224 PSB-53 30 23W 16 DCCB Active Other 234225 PSB-53A 30 23W 16 DCCB Sealed Abandoned 234226 PSB-54 30 23W 16 DCAC Active Other 234227 PSB-54A 30 23W 16 DCAC Sealed Abandoned 234228 PSB-55 30 23W 16 DCDD Active Other 234229 PSB-55A 30 23W 16 DCDD Active Other 234230 PSB-55A 30 23W 16 DCDD Active Other 234231 PSB-56 30 23W 16 DDBA Active Other 234237 PSB-62 30 23W 16 CACA Sealed Abandoned 234238 PSB-62A 30 23W 16 CADB Active Other 234240 PSB-64 30 23W 16 DDBB Active Other 234257 PSB-27 30 23W 16 DACA Active Other 234258 PSB-28 30 23W 16 DACC Active Other 234259 PSB-29 30 23W 16 DCAD Active Other 234261 PSB-31 30 23W 16 BAAA Active Other 235736 S-75 30 23W 9 CCDB Active 235737 S-76 30 23W 16 BBBA Active 235738 S-77 30 23W 16 CABB Active 235739 S-78 30 23W 16 CDAA Active 235743 S-84 30 23W 16 BCAD Active 235750 S-21-L3 30 23W 16 DBCBAA Active B-2 Unique Well Name Township Range Section Subsection Status Use Well No. 235751 S-27-L3 30 23W 16 DACACC Active 235752 S-28-L3 30 23W 16 DACCCC Active 235753 S-29-L3 30 23W 16 DCADBA Active 236069 S-84-U3 30 23W 16 BCADCA Active 236072 S-79-U3 30 23W 16 DCCACB Active 236073 S-78-U3 30 23W 16 CDADAA Active 236074 S-78-L3 30 23W 16 CDAADC Active 236075 S-77-U3 30 23W 16 CABBCD Active 236076 S-77-L3 30 23W 16 CABBCD Active 236077 S-76-U3 30 23W 16 BBBDAB Active 236078 S-75-U3 30 23W 9 CCDBDC Active 236469 S-27-PJ 30 23W 16 DACACD Active 421425 03U659-OW529 30 23W 16 DDBCBB Active Monitor Well 421438 03U671 PD-1 30 23W 16 DBCCCC Active Monitor Well 426848 03U701, 701-U3 30 23W 16 CBAAAB Active Monitor Well 426849 04U701, 701-U4 30 23W 16 CBAABA Active Monitor Well 426850 03U702, 702-U3 30 23W 16 BCDDCC Active Monitor Well 426876 0U4702, 702-U4 30 23W 16 BCDDCD Active Monitor Well 426877 04U077 077-U4 30 23W 16 CABCBD Active Monitor Well 426878 03U703, 703-U3 30 23W 16 DCCBBA Active Monitor Well 426879 03U708, 708-U3 30 23W 16 CADCCA Active Domestic 426880 04U708, 708-U4 30 23W 16 CADCCD Active Monitor Well 426881 03U709, 709-U3 30 23W 16 CACABD Active Monitor Well 426882 04U709, 709-U4 30 23W 16 CACABD Active Monitor Well 440887 03L084 30 23W 16 BCADCA Active Monitor Well 440895 01U130 30 23W 16 BBDCAB Sealed Abandoned 453829 04J708 708-U4J 30 23W 16 CADCDB Active Monitor Well 453830 04J713 713-U4J 30 23W 9 CCABBD Active Monitor Well 453832 04U714 714-U4 30 23W 16 BBCDCA Active Monitor Well 508117 04J702 702-U4J 30 23W 16 BCDDCD Active Monitor Well 508118 04J077 077-U4J 30 23W 16 CABBCD Active Monitor Well 508119 04U713 713-U4 30 23W 16 BCACBB Active Monitor Well 508120 04J714 714-U4J 30 23W 16 BBCDCA Active Monitor Well Wells With Locations That Have Not Been Field Verified 236189 01U601 OW-1-83 30 23W 9 CDCA Active Other 236190 01U602 0W-2-83 30 23W 9 CDBD Active Other 236191 01U603 0W-3-83 30 23W 9 CDBC Active Other 236192 01U604 0W-4-83 30 23W 9 CDBC Active Other 236193 01U605 0W-5-83 30 23W 9 CDBB Active Other 236194 01U524 A-4 30 23W 16 BDCC Sealed Abandoned B-3 Unique Well Name Township Range Section Subsection Status Use Well No. 236195 01U527 V-8 30 23W 16 CABA Sealed Abandoned 236196 01U525 N-5 30 23W 16 DBCD Sealed Abandoned 236197 01U526 V-12 30 23W 16 DBBC Sealed Abandoned 242127 01U607 OW-7 30 23W 9 CDBD Active Other 242128 01U608 OW-8 30 23W 9 CDCA Active Other 242129 01U609 OW-9 30 23W 9 CDCA Active Other 242130 01U610 OW-10 30 23W 9 CDCA Active Other 242131 01U611 OW-11 30 23W 9 CDCA Active Other 242132 03U647 H517U3 0W17 30 23W 16 DDAB Active Other 242133 03U648 H518U3 0W18 30 23W 16 DADC Active Other 242134 01U652 H522U1 0W22 30 23W 16 DACC Sealed Abandoned 242160 03L079 S79-L3 30 23W 16 DCCA Sealed Abandoned 242182 01U624A BP1-85A 30 23W 9 CDCB Active Other 242183 01U624B BP1-85B 30 23W 9 CDCB Active Other 242184 01U624C BP1-85C 30 23W 9 CDCB Active Other 242185 01U624D BP1-85D 30 23W 9 CDCB Active Other 242186 01U625A BP2-85A 30 23W 9 CDCB Active Other 242187 01U625B BP2-85B 30 23W 9 CDCB Active Other 242188 01U625C BP2-85C 30 23W 9 CDCB Active Other 242189 01U625D BP2-85D 30 23W 9 CDCB Active Other 242190 01U626A BP3-85A 30 23W 9 CDCB Active Other 242191 01U626B BP3-85B 30 23W 9 CDCB Active Other 242192 01U626C BP3-85C 30 23W 9 CDCB Active Other 242193 01U626D BP3-85D 30 23W 9 CDCB Active Other 242194 01U627A BP4-85A 30 23W 9 CDCB Active Other 242195 01U627B BP4-85B 30 23W 9 CDCB Active Other 242196 01U627C BP4-85C 30 23W 9 CDCB Active Other 242197 01U627D BP4-85D 30 23W 9 CDCB Active Other 242198 01U628A BP5-85A 30 23W 9 CDCB Active Other 242199 01U628B BP5-85B 30 23W 9 CDCB Active Other 242200 01U628C BP 5-85C 30 23W 9 CDCB Active Other 242201 01U628D BP 5-85D 30 23W 9 CDCB Active Other TWIN CITIES ARMY 482083 30 23W 16 D Active Monitor Well AMMUNIT TWIN CITIES ARMY 482084 30 23W 16 D Active Monitor Well AMMUNIT TWIN CITIES ARMY 482085 30 23W 16 D Active Monitor Well AMMUNIT TWIN CITIES ARMY 482086 30 23W 16 D Active Monitor Well AMMUNIT B-4 Unique Well Name Township Range Section Subsection Status Use Well No. TWIN CITIES ARMY 482087 30 23W 16 D Active Monitor Well AMMUNIT TWIN CITIES ARMY 482088 30 23W 16 D Active Monitor Well AMMUNIT TWIN CITIES ARMY 482089 30 23W 16 D Active Monitor Well AMMUNIT TWIN CITIES ARMY 482090 30 23W 16 D Active Monitor Well AMMUNIT 519956 03-L-833 30 23W 16 BCD Active Monitor Well 519957 04-U-833 30 23W 16 BCD Active Monitor Well GUCK, MICHAEL & 563028 30 23W 16 CAD Active Domestic KATHY 642161 ARMY 30 23W 9 CCD Active Monitor Well 650819 U.S. ARMY 30 23W 9 CBC Active Monitor Well 650820 U.S. ARMY 30 23W 9 CBC Active Monitor Well 650821 US ARMY 30 23W 9 CBC Active Monitor Well 650832 FIX, MIKE 30 23W 9 CBC Active Remedial 650833 FIX, MIKE 30 23W 9 CBC Active Remedial 650834 FIX, MIKE 30 23W 9 CBC Active Remedial 658728 U.S. ARMY 30 23W 9 CBC Active Monitor Well 658729 U.S. ARMY 30 23W 9 CBC Active Monitor Well 658730 U.S. ARMY 30 23W 9 CBC Active Monitor Well 658733 U.S. ARMY 30 23W 9 CBC Active Monitor Well 658734 U.S. ARMY 30 23W 9 CBC Active Monitor Well 658735 U.S. ARMY 30 23W 9 CBC Active Monitor Well 658737 U.S. ARMY 30 23W 9 CBC Sealed Abandoned 658738 U.S. ARMY 30 23W 9 CBC Sealed Abandoned B-5 Appendix C. TCAAP Traffic Study Traffic Study TCAAP Arden Hills, MN Prepared for: City of Arden Hills Prepared by: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Saint Paul, Minnesota Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. March 2014 160593006 Traffic Study TCAAP Arden Hills, MN Prepared for: City of Arden Hills Prepared by: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Saint Paul, Minnesota I certify that this Traffic Impact Analysis has been prepared by me or under my immediate supervision and that I have experience and training in the field of traffic and transportation engineering. By: Brandon J. Bourdon License No. 38510 Date: Table of Contents 1. Introduction ................................................ 2. Methodology ................................................. a. Analysis Scenario Descriptions .............................. b. Traffic Study Area .......................................... c. Local Roadway System Traffic Operations Analysis Methodology d. Regional Roadway System...................................... 3. Parking ..................................................... 4. Existing Conditions Analysis ................................ 5. No Build Conditions Analysis ................................ 6. Traffic Forecasts ........................................... 7. Trip Generation ............................................. 8. Trip Distribution............................................ a. Minimum Development Scenario Baseline Distribution .......... b. Maximum Development Scenario Baseline Distribution .......... c. Minimum Development Scenario Mitigated Distribution ......... d. Maximum Development Scenario Mitigated Distribution ......... 9. Baseline Roadway Network Scenario Analyses .................. a. Minimum Development Scenario ................................ b. Maximum Development Scenario ................................ 10. Mitigated Roadway Network Scenario Analyses ................ a. Minimum Development Scenario ................................ b. Maximum Development Scenario ................................ List of Figures in Appendix Figure T1 Project Location Map Figure T2 Site Plan with Access Roads and Regional Access Road Figure T3 Proposed CR H and I-35W Interchange Figure T4 Existing Roadway Geometry Figure T5 2030 No Build Roadway Geometry Figure T6 2030 Baseline Roadway Geometry Figure T7 2030 Minimum Development Scenario Roadway Mitigation Figure T8 2030 Maximum Development Scenario Roadway Mitigation Figure T9 Existing Traffic Figure T10 2030 No Build Traffic Figure T11 2030 Baseline Geometry Site Distribution Figure T12 2030 Minimum Development Scenario Mitigated Site Di Figure T13 2030 Maximum Development Scenario Mitigated Site Di Figure T14 2030 Minimum Development Scenario Site Traffic (Bas Figure T15 2030 Minimum Development Scenario Total Traffic (Ba Figure T16 2030 Maximum Development Scenario Site Traffic (Bas Figure T17 2030 Maximum Development Scenario Total Traffic (Ba Figure T18 2030 Minimum Development Scenario Site Traffic (Mit Figure T19 2030 Minimum Development Scenario Total Traffic (Mi Figure T20 2030 Maximum Development Scenario Site Traffic (Mit Figure T21 2030 Maximum Development Scenario Total Traffic (Mi List of Tables Table 1 Land Use Plan Scenarios .............................. Table 2 Parking Demand Estimate Summary ...................... Table 3 Existing Peak Hour Analysis Results .................. Table 4 2030 No Build Peak Hour Traffic Analysis Results ..... Table 5 Minimum Development Scenario Trip Generation ......... Table 6 Maximum Development Scenario Trip Generation ......... Table 7 2030 Minimum Development Scenario Peak Hour Baseline A Table 8 2030 Maximum Development Scenario Peak Hour Baseline A Table 9 2030 Minimum Development Scenario Peak Hour Mitigation Table 10 2030 Maximum Development Scenario Peak Hour Mitigatio TCAAP Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum4March 2014 1. Introduction This traffic analysis has been conducted as part of the preparation of an Areawide Urban Alternative Review for the TCAAP site development. This memorandum includes additional detail, and a more comprehensive summary of the analysis results than what is provided in the AUAR. To determine the impacts on the local roadway network, a traffic operations analysis was conducted for intersections within the vicinity of the Proposed Project for the various development scenarios, and mitigation Figure T1 measures are identified based on the results. The project location is shown in. A more Figure T2 detailed project area, including the AUAR Study Area boundary is shown in. 2. Methodology The traffic analysis includes two site development scenarios and roadway network scenarios to address traffic impacts found in future conditions. This section defines the scenarios to be analyzed, and the methodology toward the definition of the mitigation measures to be included in the AUAR mitigation plan. Each of the elements below include both AM and PM peak hour condition analyses. a. Analysis Scenario Descriptions Site Development Scenarios In addition to Existing and 2030 No Build Scenarios, the development scenarios include a Year 2030 Minimum Development Scenario and a Year 2030 Maximum Development Scenario. The minimum development scenario is the anticipated land use based on zoning requirements for the City of Arden Hills, which provided a constrained analysis. A year 2030 Maximum Development Scenario has also been analyzed to evaluate a land use mix that maximizes the acceptable use of available and potential infrastructure, seeking a balance of financial feasibility, while maintaining community Table 1 livability and sustainability. shows the land use that has been identified for the two land use scenarios. Table 1 Land Use Plan Scenarios Minimum ScenarioMaximum Scenario Units / K sq. ft.Units / K sq. ft. UseUse 1,5002,500 ResidentialResidential 500550 RetailRetail 1,7001,950 Non-retail CommercialNon-retail Commercial Transportation Network Analysis Scenarios Due to increases in background traffic and the proposed TCAAP redevelopment, transportation network changes are anticipated to occur in the future. Several long term improvements are being considered in the project study area. Changes at the CR H and I-35W interchange will influence trip Figure T3 distribution for the proposed TCAAP project. These projects are shown in. A description of the various transportation networks under each scenario is included below. Internal Site Development Roadway System The internal roadway system will consist of a north/south spine road, owned and operated by Ramsey County in addition to a network of local streets. The spine road will be consistent with County State TCAAP Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum5March 2014 Aid Standards (CSAH) for intersection spacing which is ¼ mile minimum spacing for full access 1 intersections and/ minimum spacing for right-in/right-out accesses. The minor streets will primarily 8 provide access to residences and private businesses accesses. As the site development is refined, the roadway system will be modified to provide access, sustaining access spacing requirements result in reasonable mobility. Local and Regional Roadway System Connections The transportation network analysis for the surrounding system has been analyzed for the following conditions: 1) Existing Figure T4 The existing roadway geometry is shown on. This scenario considers the following: Existing traffic Existing roadway geometry including the recently completed construction of the TH 10/CSAH 96 interchange completed in 2013. 2) 2030 No Build Figure T5 The 2030 No Build roadway geometry is shown on. 2030 background traffic 2030 roadway geometry that include programmed improvements. The only difference between existing and 2030 is the addition of Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funded improvements at the intersection of TH10 at County Road H. The changes include modifying the current shared westbound through/left turn lane into an exclusive westbound through lane, and an exclusive westbound left turn lane and traffic signal phase modifications. 3) 2030 Baseline for the Minimum Development Scenario Figure T6 The 2030 Baseline geometry is shown on. The following infrastructure improvements are included: Improvements described above for the 2030 No Build Scenario CR 96 and I-35W area improvements: Construct traffic signals at the: o CR 96/Old Highway 8 and I-35W Interchange ramp terminals intersections. Provide two eastbound and two westbound through lanes between Old Highway 8 o and Round Lake Boulevard Provide two eastbound and westbound left turn lanes to access I-35W o Old Highway 8 at CR 96 Intersection: o Replace shared northbound through / right turn lane with one exclusive northbound through lane and one exclusive northbound right turn lane Replace shared southbound through / left turn lane with one exclusive southbound through lane and one exclusive southbound left turn lane Figure T3 CR H and I35W interchange improvements shown in CR 10 and CR H improvements (double left WB to SB) Provide dual left turn lanes for these movements: o Westbound Northbound Southbound Provide a second through lane for eastbound and westbound approaches o Improve CR H at I-35W northbound ramps to a 2-lane roundabout with two approach lanes from the east and west, and one approach lane from the northeast and one entry lane to northbound I-35W. TCAAP Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum6March 2014 4) 2030 Baseline for Maximum Development Scenario Same infrastructure improvements as in Minimum development scenario 5) 2030 Minimum Development Scenario with Mitigation Figure T7 The geometry for this scenario is shown in.The analysis for this 2030 Minimum scenario incorporated the 2030 minimum baseline elements plus the following recommended mitigation measures: TH 96 westbound auxiliary lane from west of the project boundary to TH 10. Re-introduction of CR H southbound loop access to I-35W (removed as part of the baseline scenarios), which remains barrier separated from I-35W southbound exit ramp to TH 10 southbound, and enters I-35W after joining the TH 10 southbound access ramp to I-35W southbound. At the I-35W/CR 96 west ramp intersection, an additional southbound left turn lane is recommended At the I-35W/CR 96 east ramp intersection, an additional northbound lane is recommended in order to provide one exclusive left turn lane, one shared left, through, right lane, and an exclusive right turn lane. At the intersection of Round Lake Road W at CR 96, the lane use of the center lane is recommended to be modified from an existing shared left/through lane to a shared left/through/right lane. At the intersection of CR H at TH 10, an additional eastbound left turn lane is recommended. 6) 2030 Maximum Development Scenario with Mitigation Figure T8 The geometry for this scenario is shown in. The analysis for this 2030 Maximum scenario incorporated the 2030 minimum scenario mitigation elements plus recommended mitigation measures as follows: The addition of a new northbound I-35W exit to CR H, with a single lane approach to the roundabout on CR H. An additional southbound left turn lane at the southbound exit from I-35W to CR H. b. Traffic Study Area The roadway network that would be expected to have potential traffic impacts is generally bounded by TH 10, I-35W on the west, County Road I on the north, the eastern project boundary on the east, and County Road 96 on the southshows the 14 intersections that were analyzed. . Figure T4 c. Local Roadway System Traffic Operations Analysis Methodology The traffic operations analysis for the local roadway system was completed in Synchro/SimTraffic, a software program that applies the methodologies of the Highway Capacity Manual. This tool was used to evaluate intersection volume/capacity ratio, delay, and level of service, and queuing. Capacity analysis results identify a Level of Service (LOS) which indicates how well an intersection operates. Intersections are given a ranking from LOS A through LOS F. LOS A indicates the best traffic operation and LOS F indicates an intersection that is operating over capacity. LOS A through D is generally considered acceptable for peak hour conditions in an urban area. The traffic operations were analyzed for the AM and PM peak hours to properly identify potential impacts and recommended mitigation measures. TCAAP Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum7March 2014 This study used the LOS D/E boundary as an indicator of satisfactory traffic operations. The exhibit below displays the LOS thresholds for signalized and unsignalized intersections. d. Regional Roadway System The regional roadway system is expected to experience many changes in the near future. Changes include reconstruction of I-35W interchanges at CR H and CR 96. For this traffic study, these changes were included for purposes of regional trip distribution and anticipated intersection geometrics. An analysis of the freeway operations will be conducted as part of the Interstate Access Modification Request, and required for these interchange projects. Any significant changes in the TCAAP redevelopment plan will need to be analyzed as either an AUAR update, or the applicable regional roadway system projects. 3. Parking Table 2 The number of parking spaces in each scenario is provided in. The parking generation is th based on the 4 Edition of theInstitute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation(2010), and is based on the land use information for the Minimum and Maximum Development Scenarios as described as part of the Trip Generation section of this memorandum. The proposed land uses are expected to generate parking demand within the AUAR Study Area. The weekday peak parking demand for the residential, retail, and office/non-retail land uses of the proposed development was calculated based on blended rates. For non-retail/commercial a mix of office and light industrial was used. For residential parking, the rates use estimates of proportions of apartments, townhouses and single family homes. The residential uses are proposed to have private TCAAP Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum8March 2014 parking, and parking spaces are not proposed to be shared with public parking associated with the rest of the proposed development. Table 2 Parking Demand Estimate Summary Average PeakParking ITE Land Land Use DescriptionSizeParking RateDemand Use Code (stalls)(stalls) Minimum Development Scenario Residential210/2211,500DU1.62,400 Retail820500ksf3.81,900 Non-retail Commercial110/7011,700ksf2.23,800 Total 8,100 Maximum Development Scenario Residential210/2212,500DU1.63,900 Retail820550ksf3.82,100 Non-retail Commercial110/7011,950ksf2.24,400 Total 10,400 4. Existing Conditions Analysis The existing conditions analysis includes both unsignalized and signalized intersections. For this AUAR level analysis, signal timing for all scenarios have been optimized to provide estimates of Table 3 potential traffic operational conditions. The results are presented in. Existing geometry includes the 2013 reconstruction of the new grade separation of County Road 96 Figure T4 at TH 10, and is shown in. Figures showing the peak hour traffic volumes used in the analysis for this scenario can be found in Figure T9 . TCAAP Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum9March 2014 Table 3 Existing Peak Hour Analysis Results 2013 Existing AM2013 Existing PM Intersection LOSDelay(sec)LOSDelay(sec) Old CR H and CR 96 D2878 F CR 96 and SB I-35W Ramp E39105 F CR 96 and NB I-35W Ramp 93156 FF Round Lake Rd W and CR 96 B10D50 Lakeshore Pl and CR 96 B11C23 CR 96 at US 10 NB Ramp ANo ControlANo Control CR 96 and Property Access B10A6 CR H and US 10 C24C21 CR H and SB I-35W A3A3 CR H and NB I-35W A2A3 CR I and SB I-35W B13C15 CR I and NB I-35W B12B18 CR I and Old Hwy 8 A4A2 CR I and N Fairview Ave A5A3 An operations analysis was conducted for the 14 intersections in the analysis area to determine current operational issues within the AUAR study area. Current volumes were obtained from the Draft TCAAP Redevelopment, performed by SEH dated August 29, 2007. All geometries were based on intersection geometries. During the 2013 AM peak most of the intersections are operating at LOS C or better, with the exception of the intersections of: CR 96 and I-35W NB Ramps Northbound left turn delay exceeds 180 seconds/vehicle and northbound right turn o delay in excess of 100 seconds/vehicle. These are due to the lack of acceptable gaps in the traffic flow in the East/West direction. CR 96 and I-35 SB Ramps The westbound left turn is operating at an unacceptable LOS do to the lack of o acceptable gaps and the southbound left turn delay is 99 seconds/vehicle due to high volumes and lack of acceptable gaps on CR 96 CR 96 and Old CR H The westbound left turn delay is 65 seconds/vehicle. o During the 2013 PM peak, three intersections operate at LOS E or higher. CR-96 and I-35W NB Ramps Multiple movements fail including the northbound left and right turn due to the lack of o acceptable gaps on CR 96. The eastbound left turn fails due to the lack of acceptable gaps in the CR 96 traffic stream. CR-96 and I-35W SB Ramps TCAAP Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum10March 2014 The southbound left turn and westbound left all operate at LOS F due to a lack in o acceptable gaps and higher volumes similar to the operations experienced at the CR- 96 and I-35W NB ramps. CR-96 and Old CR-H The northbound movements fail due to high volumes being processed by an o unsignalized intersection. 5. No Build Conditions Analysis The operations analysis was conducted for the 14 intersections in the analysis area to determine how traffic will operate within the AUAR Study Area in the 2030 forecast year before the TCAAP project is Figure T10 implemented. Future Year 2030 background traffic as shown in was obtained from the Draft TCAAP Redevelopment. Compared to existing conditions, the only geometric changes in the study area were the improvements at CR H at TH 10, where HSIP funds are presumed to be utilized for improvements, as Figure T5 shown in. These planned improvements include reconstructing the east and west legs of the CSAH 10 / TH 10 / County Road H intersection to include dedicated right-turn, left-turn, and through lanes in each direction. Therefore the only tangible change for this operations analysis is changing the westbound shared through/left lane to one exclusive through lane and one exclusive left turn lane. During the 2030 AM No Build scenario, all but one intersection is expected to operate at an LOS of D or better. The intersection of CR 96 and I-35W NB ramps is expected to operate at an LOS of F with major delay occurring on the NB movements. This is attributed to increased volume in all directions. During the 2030 PM No Build scenario, six of the intersections are expected to operate at an LOS F and the other seven intersections are expected to operate at LOS C or better. The six intersections operating at LOS F are: Old CR H and CR 96 The NB right turn is expected to operate at an unacceptable LOS. The SB left turn is o also expected to operate at an unacceptable LOS. CR 96 and I-35W SB Ramps Multiple movements are expected to fail, due to an increase in background traffic o contributing to a breakdown at the unsignalized intersection. The failing movements are: SB Left turn SB Right turn WB Left turn WB Through CR 96 and I-35W NB Ramps Multiple movements are expected to fail due to an increase in traffic at an already o congested intersection. The failing movements are: NB Left turn TCAAP Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum11March 2014 NB Right turn EB Left turn WB Through WB Right turn Round Lake Road W and CR 96 This intersection is expected to have multiple movements fail due to backups from o the I-35W SB Ramps. The NB Left turn and WB movements at Round Lake Road W cannot efficiently travel due to the constraints west of the intersection. Lakeshore Place and CR 96 The WB, SB Right turns and NB Left turns are expected to experience extremely high o delays due to the backups from the I-35W interchange. CR 96 and the Property Access The NB left turn and right turn are expected to experience heavy delays, due to o queues from I-35W. The westbound movements are delayed due to the queues from I-35W as well. Table 4 Results of the analysis are shown in. Table 4 2030 No Build Peak Hour Traffic Analysis Results 2030 No Build AM2030 No Build PM Intersection LOSDelayLOSDelay Old CR H and CR 96 C1972 F CR 96 and SB I-35W Ramp A8* F CR 96 and NB I-35W Ramp ** FF Round Lake Rd W and CR 96 C32* F Lakeshore Pl and CR 96 B14145 F CR 96 at US 10 NB Ramp ANo ControlANo Control CR 96 and Property Access A6* F CR H and US-10 B16C25 CR H and SB I-35W A3A3 CR H and NB I-35W A2A4 CR I and SB I-35W D31C15 CR I and NB I-35W A9A9 CR I and Old Hwy 8 A4A3 CR I and N Fairview Ave A6A5 * Delay exceeds 180 seconds/vehicle 6. Traffic Forecasts The No Build Year 2030 background traffic forecasts were previously prepared for the Draft TCAAP Figure T10 Redevelopment. shows the peak hour turning movement volumes. Traffic forecasts for TCAAP Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum12March 2014 the year 2030 that include the TCAAP project traffic were developed by adding the project site generated trips to the future year 2030 background traffic forecasts. Project specific trip generation estimates for the AM and PM peak periods were calculated for each proposed development scenario based on the proposed land use type and size. Trip generation rates from the 9th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation were used to calculate development-generated traffic. A number of assumptions were made related to internal trip capture (trips that are made on- site between the various proposed uses), pass-by trips (trips already existing within the study area that make use of the proposed TCAAP development land uses), and mode split (trips by transit, walking, or biking). The trip reductions were based on typical rates found in the general project area, United States Census data, and commuter surveys that showed a reduction of approximately 15 percent of trips due to transit, multi-use, pass-by and internal capture rates. 7. Trip Generation A summary of the Minimum and Maximum Development Scenario trip generation calculations for the Table 5Table 6 AM and PM peak hours are shown in and. Table 5 Minimum Development Scenario Trip Generation Minimum Development Scenario AMPMPM Total DailyAMAMPM UseUnits / K sq. ft.TripsTripsTrips TripsTrips InTripsTrips OutInOut 1,50011,050210650 860 660 405 1,065 Residential 50021,350300180 480 890 965 1,855 Retail Non-retail 1,70016,4801,995 280 2,275370 1,8152,185 Commercial Total48,8802,505 1,1103,6151,920 3,1855,105 15%Transit and Multi-use Reduction41,5502,130 945 3,0751,630 2,7104,340 Factor* TCAAP Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum13March 2014 Minimum Development Scenario Trip Generation Minimum Development Scenario Avg DailyAMPM Land UseIndependentNo. ofRate AMAMPMPM Code DescriptionVariableUnits or TotalTripsTripsAMTripsTripsPM Eq TripsInOutTripsInOutTrips Senior Adult Occ. Dwelling 252Housing-150Avg515102030201535 Unit(s) Attached Residential CondominiuDwelling 230300Avg 1,74520110130 10550155 m/TownhouUnit(s) se RentalDwelling 224225Avg 1,795501051558580165 TownhouseUnit(s) Dwelling 220Apartment300Avg 1,99530120150 12065185 Unit(s) Single- FamilyDwelling 210525Avg 5,000100295395 330 195525 DetachedUnit(s) Housing Shopping1,000 Sq Ft 820500Avg 21,350 300180480 890 965 1,855 CenterGLA General 710Office1,000 Sq Ft1350 Avg 14,890 1,855 255 2,110340 1,670 2,010 Building (1) Warehousin 1501,000 Sq Ft250Avg890601575206080 g General 110Light1,000 Sq Ft100Avg700801090108595 Industrial 48,880 Total2,505 1,110 3,6151,920 3,185 5,105 41,550 2,130 945 3,0751,630 2,705 4,340 15% Transit and Multi-use Reduction Factor* Table 6 Maximum Development Scenario Trip Generation Maximum Development Scenario AMPMPM Total DailyAMAMPM UseUnits / K sq. ft.TripsTripsTrips TripsTrips InTripsTrips OutInOut 2,50018,3953501,0851,4351,100 675 1,775 Residential 55023,485325200 525 980 1,0602,040 Retail Non-retail 1,95018,2852,195305 2,500415 2,0102,425 Commercial Total60,1652,870 1,5904,4602,495 3,7456,240 15%Transit and Multi-use Reduction51,1402,440 1,3503,7902,120 3,1855,305 Factor* TCAAP Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum14March 2014 Maximum Development Scenario Trip Generation Maximum Development Scenario DailyAMPM Avg No. Land UseIndependentRate AMAMPMPM Codeof TotalAMPM DescriptionVariable or TripsTripsTripsTrips Units TripsTripsTrips Eq InOutInOut Senior Adult Occ. Dwelling 252Housing-250Avg860153045352560 Unit(s) Attached Residential Dwelling 230Condominium/T500Avg 2,90535185 220 17585260 Unit(s) ownhouse RentalDwelling 224375Avg 2,97585175 260 140 130 270 TownhouseUnit(s) Dwelling 220Apartment500Avg 3,32550205 255 200 110 310 Unit(s) Single-Family Dwelling 210Detached875Avg 8,330 165 490 655 550 325 875 Unit(s) Housing Shopping1,000 Sq Ft 820550Avg 23,485 325 200 525 980 1,060 2,040 CenterGLA General Office 7101,000 Sq Ft1450 Avg 15,995 1,990 270 2,260365 1,795 2,160 Building (1) 150Warehousing1,000 Sq Ft350Avg 1,24585201053085115 General Light 1101,000 Sq Ft150Avg 1,045 1201513520130 150 Industrial Total60,165 2,870 1,590 4,4602,495 3,745 6,240 51,140 2,440 1,350 3,7902,120 3,185 5,305 15% Transit and Multi-use Reduction Factor* TCAAP Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum15March 2014 8. Trip Distribution a. Minimum Development Scenario Baseline Distribution The directional trip distribution for the site-generated traffic was developed based on a review of existing traffic patterns and users and the Twin Cities Regional Travel Demand Model. The Figure T11 anticipated directional trip distribution for site users is shown in. For the baseline scenario, roadway improvements include items described previously for the existing, No Build and Baseline transportation networks. The associated site generated turning movement volumes for the Minimum Development Scenario Figure T14 Baseline Distribution are shown in, and the total resulting turn movement volumes for the Figure T15 scenario are shown in. For these baseline (unmitigated) development scenarios, access to I-35W southbound from the project site is not provided from County Road H. Therefore access to I-35W requires trips to continue further west to the intersection of County Road H and TH 10, to gain access to southbound I-35W. b. Maximum Development Scenario Baseline Distribution Figure T16 The associated site generated turning movement volumes are shown in, and the total Figure T17 resulting turn movement volumes for the scenario are shown in. The roadway geometry is the same as described above for the Minimum Development Scenario Baseline Distribution. c. Minimum Development Scenario Mitigated Distribution The directional trip distribution for the Maximum Development Scenario Mitigated Distribution is Figure T12 shown in. Because the mitigation scenarios were analyzed with varying transportation system networks, the site-generated traffic distribution varies by scenario. Mitigation measures described in the roadway geometry section of this document includes the re-introduction of CR H loop access to I-35W southbound (removed as part of the baseline scenarios), which remains barrier separated from I-35W southbound exit ramp to TH 10 southbound, and enters I-35W after joining the TH 10 southbound access ramp to I-35W southbound. This change impacts site trip distribution and Figure T18 the result is shown in, and the total resulting turn movement volumes for the scenario are Figure T19. shown in d. Maximum Development Scenario Mitigated Distribution The directional trip distribution for the Maximum Development Scenario Mitigated Distribution is Figure T13 shown in. In addition to the Minimum Development Scenario mitigation measure, the Maximum Development Scenario mitigation measures also include the addition of a new northbound I-35W exit to CR H, with a single lane approach to the roundabout on CR H. This change impacts site Figure T20 trip distribution and the result is shown in, and the total resulting turn movement volumes Figure T21. for the scenario are shown in 9. Baseline Roadway Network Scenario Analyses a. Minimum Development Scenario The minimum baseline development scenario turning movements were generated by adding the site generated traffic to the 2030 No Build traffic volumes. These turning movement traffic volumes are Figure T15 shown in. The improvements that were considered between the baseline and no build scenarios primarily were discussed previously. Overall the baseline improvements helped the system TCAAP Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum16March 2014 maintain an LOS D or better at almost all of the intersections with the exception of the CR 96 and the Property access located at the entrance to the TCAAP site in the AM peak (LOS F). The major movement contributing to the LOS F is the westbound movements. Due to a high westbound through volume and a lack of capacity, the traffic conditions deteriorate causing high delays. During the PM peak three intersections are expected to operate at LOS E or LOS F. Which are further described below: Old CR-H and CR-96 The traffic volumes on the southbound left and northbound right cause significant o delays and impact the overall LOS at the intersection. These movements are both operating at an unacceptable LOS. CR-96 and Property Access Similarly to the AM peak the WB through movement demand exceeds capacity o causing major delays for westbound traffic. CR-H and US-10 The high demands on the northbound through movements and the westbound o movements are causing high delays and queues that affect the overall LOS of the intersection. Table 7 The delays and LOS for this scenario can be seen in below. Table 7 2030 Minimum Development Scenario Peak Hour Baseline Analysis Results 2030 Baseline Min AM2030 Baseline Min PM Intersection LOSDelay (sec)LOSDelay (sec) Old CR H and CR 96 C25E66 CR 96 and SB I-35W Ramp C20C33 CR 96 and NB I-35W Ramp C21C27 Round Lake Rd W and CR 96 B18C22 Lakeshore Pl and CR 96 C28D42 CR 96 at US 10 NB Ramp ANo ControlANo Control CR 96 and Property Access 139116 FF CR H and US 10 D3998 F CR H and SB I-35W B13B16 CR H and NB I-35W A4A9 CR I and SB I-35W C20C20 CR I and NB I-35W A9B12 CR I and Old Hwy 8 A4C18 CR I and N Fairview Ave A6A5 b. Maximum Development Scenario The maximum baseline development scenario turning movements were generated by adding the site generated traffic to the 2030 No Build scenario turning movement volumes. The turning movement Figure T17 volumes for this scenario are shown in. The improvements that were considered between TCAAP Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum17March 2014 the baseline and no build scenarios primarily consisted of signalizing the CR-96 and I-35W ramps as well as some geometric changes discussed previously. Similarly to the Minimum Baseline Scenario there are some intersections that are operating at LOS E or F. The analysis results are summarized Table 8 in, and a summary of their operations are: Old CR-H and CR-96 The intersection overall is operating at LOS E during the AM and PM peak due to o poor operations for the northbound right and the southbound left. CR-96 and Property Access The westbound movement is operating over capacity due to the large volume of o westbound through traffic. CR-H and US-10 The intersection operates at undesirable levels during the AM and PM peak because o the northbound through movement is operating over capacity and the westbound left and through movements queues are blocking the right turn movement. CR-H and I-35W Southbound Ramps The Westbound through and right movements are failing due to queues from CR-H o and US-10. These queues block the right turn movement resulting in overall intersection failure. Table 8 2030 Maximum Development Scenario Peak Hour Baseline Analysis Results 2030 Baseline Max AM2030 Baseline Max PM Intersection LOSDelay (sec)LOSDelay (sec) Old CR H and CR 96 C22E62 CR 96 and SB I-35W B15C33 Ramp CR 96 and NB I-35W B20C30 Ramp Round Lake Rd W and CR B17C23 96 Lakeshore Pl and CR 96 C26C30 CR 96 at US 10 NB Ramp ANo ControlANo Control CR 96 and Property 142135 AccessFF CR H and US-10 E63117 F CR H and SB I-35W C32E66 CR H and NB I-35W A4C19 CR I and SB I-35W C26C23 CR I and NB I-35W B11B12 CR I and Old Hwy 8 A8B10 CR I and N Fairview Ave A6A6 TCAAP Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum18March 2014 10. Mitigated Roadway Network Scenario Analyses a. Minimum Development Scenario Based on the results under the unmitigated scenario, the intersections that were failing and or had failing movements were reevaluated with the mitigations stated previously. After mitigation all intersections were operating at LOS D or better with no anticipated operational issues in the AM and Table 9 PM scenarios. The analysis results are presented in, and the total traffic turning movement Figure T19 volumes are shown in Table 9 2030 Minimum Development Scenario Peak Hour Mitigation Analysis Results 2030 Baseline Min Mitigated AM2030 Baseline Min Mitigated PM Intersection LOSDelay (sec)LOSDelay (sec) C21C29 Old CR H and CR 96 CR 96 and SB I-35W C20C30 Ramp CR 96 and NB I-35W B19C30 Ramp Round Lake Rd W and C24C25 CR 96 Lakeshore Pl and CR C28D39 96 CR 96 at US 10 NB ANo ControlANo Control Ramp CR 96 and Property C21C29 Access D38D44 CR H and US-10 B18B11 CR H and SB I-35W A4A9 CR H and NB I-35W C25C22 CR I and SB I-35W B13B13 CR I and NB I-35W A5A5 CR I and Old Hwy 8 CR I and N Fairview A6A5 Ave b. Maximum Development Scenario Based on results under the unmitigated maximum scenario, the failing intersections and or failing movements were reevaluated with the mitigations previously described. After mitigation, all intersections were operating at LOS D or better with no anticipated operational issues in the AM and Table 10 PM scenarios. The analysis results are presented in, and the total traffic turning movement Figure T21 volumes are shown in . TCAAP Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum19March 2014 Table 10 2030 Maximum Development Scenario Peak Hour Mitigation Analysis Results 2030 Baseline Max Mitigated AM2030 Baseline Max Mitigated PM Intersection LOSDelay (sec)LOSDelay (sec) C23C23 Old CR H and CR 96 CR 96 and SB I-35W C22C24 Ramp CR 96 and NB I-35W C24C33 Ramp Round Lake Rd W C22C27 and CR 96 Lakeshore Pl and CR C27C29 96 CR 96 at US 10 NB ANo ControlANo Control Ramp CR96 and Property C29D42 Access C28D36 CR H and US-10 B18B16 CR H and SB I-35W A4C19 CR H and NB I-35W C26C22 CR I and SB I-35W B15B13 CR I and NB I-35W A6A4 CR I and Old Hwy 8 CR I and N Fairview A6A6 Ave TCAAP Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum20March 2014 Figures in Appendix: Figure T1 Project Location Map Figure T2 Site Plan with Access Roads and Regional Access Roadway System Figure T3 Proposed CR H and I-35W Interchange Figure T4 Existing Roadway Geometry Figure T5 2030 No Build Roadway Geometry Figure T6 2030 Baseline Roadway Geometry Figure T7 2030 Minimum Development Scenario Roadway Mitigation Geometry Figure T8 2030 Maximum Development Scenario Roadway Mitigation Geometry Figure T9 Existing Traffic Figure T10 2030 No Build Traffic Figure T11 2030 Baseline Geometry Site Distribution Figure T12 2030 Minimum Development Scenario Mitigated Site Distribution Figure T13 2030 Maximum Development Scenario Mitigated Site Distribution Figure T14 2030 Minimum Development Scenario Site Traffic (Baseline Distribution) Figure T15 2030 Minimum Development Scenario Total Traffic (Baseline Distribution) Figure T16 2030 Maximum Development Scenario Site Traffic (Baseline Distribution) Figure T17 2030 Maximum Development Scenario Total Traffic (Baseline Distribution) Figure T18 2030 Minimum Development Scenario Site Traffic (Mitigated Distribution) Figure T19 2030 Minimum Development Scenario Total Traffic (Mitigated Distribution) Figure T20 2030 Maximum Development Scenario Site Traffic (Mitigated Distribution) Figure T21 2030 Maximum Development Scenario Total Traffic (Mitigated Distribution) TCAAP Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum21March 2014 Circle Pines Lino Lakes ANOKA Hugo Blaine WASHINGTON Mounds View I North Oaks Dellwood Grant 51 Shoreview Fridley 96 Arden Hills £ ¤ 10 New Brighton Mahtomedi Gem Lake Vadnais Heights White Bear Lake § ¨¦ 694 § ¨¦ 694 § ¨ ¦ 35W Little Canada RAMSEY Roseville Maplewood Falcon Heights Oakdale § ¨¦ 35E Minneapolis §¨ ¦ 94 §¨ ¦ 94 HENNEPIN Saint Paul Woodbury West Saint Paul DAKOTA South Saint Paul Mendota Heights Richfield Newport Copyright: ©2013 Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ Figure T1. Project Location Map AUAR Study Area TCAAP Traffic Analysis ´ 012 County Boundary Miles § ¨ ¦ Legend I 35W AUAR Study Area £ ¤ 10 Regional Trail and Wildlife Corridor Roads ^ Site Access Locations MnDOT Facility Proposed Roadway Improvement Projects Ramsey County Park ^ Arden Hills Army H Training Site (AHATS) § ¨ ¦ 35W ^ 96 Rush Lake £ ¤ 10 Round Lake Figure T2. Site Plan with Access Roads and Regional Access Roadway System ´ 06001,200 TCAAP Traffic Analysis Feet £ ¤ 10 Legend § ¨¦ AUAR Study Area 35W Roads Proposed CR H and I-35W Improvements CR H and I35W Phase 1 CR H and I35W Phase 2 CR H and I35W Phase 3 CR H and I35W Phase 4 H § ¨ ¦ £ ¤ 10 35W Figure T3. Proposed County Road H and I-35W Interchange ´ 06001,200 TCAAP Traffic Analysis Feet !! ( !( !( ì í íì !$" ä ! ! CR I ! !$" !$" ìí ìí !( !( éè ä í ì !$" ( !( äì í ! ! ( !( ¯ CR H CR-H ! íí ! ( !( íì èé ! !( ( !( ì íé ! !( íì !$" !$" é ä !( è ä !$" CSAH 96 ! ! ! ( !( !$" é ì !( ì é !( !$" !! ( !( !( ì í íì !$" ä ! ! CR I ! !$" !$" ìí ìí !( !( éè ä í ì !$" ( !( äì í ! ! ( !( ¯ CR H CR-H ! íí ! ( !( íì èé ! !( ( !( ì íé ! !( íì !$" !$" é ä !( è ä !$" CSAH 96 ! ! ! ( !( !$" ì é !( ì é !( !$" !! ( !( !( ì í íì !$" ä ! ! CR I ! !$" ìí ìí ( !( !( éè ä í ì ( !( äì í ! ! ! !( ¯ CR H CR-H ! íí ! ( !( íì èé ! !( ( !( ì íé ! í ä ìí ( !( í è ä äí ( !( äì ä CSAH 96 ! ! ! ( !( ì é ( !( ( ì é !( !! ( !( !( ì í íì !$" ä ! ! CR I ! !$" í ì ìí ( !( !( éè ä í ì ( !( äì í ! ! ! !( ¯ CR H CR-H ! íí ! ( !( íì èé ! !( ( !( ì í éè ! ä ìí í ( !( í è ä äí ( !( äì ä CSAH 96 ! ! ! ( !( éí ì ( !( ( í ì !( éè !! ( !( !( ì í íì !$" ä ! ! CR I ! !$" ì í í ìí ( !( !( éè ä í ì ( !( äì í ! ! ! !( ¯ CR H CR-H ! íí ! ( !( íì èé ! !( ( !( ì í ! ä ìí í ( !( í è ä äí ( !( äì ä CSAH 96 ! ! ! ( !( ì éí ( !( ( íì !( éè !! 0(0)0(0) 0(0)0(0) 240(461)508(309) 401(535)587(418) !( 104(112)328(314) !( 29(8)9(0) ! CR I ! ! 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 10(34)0(6) 160(400) 0(0) !(288(488)567(302) 30(20) !( 0(0)0(0) 48(146)12(29) 226(297)457(299) !( 68(120)119(123) ! 160(400) ! 0(0) !( 0(0) ¯ CR H CR-H ! 0(0)0(0) ! 490(860)830(600) !( 80(40)100(30) ! 10(50)10(30) !( 460(770)830(740) !( 260(90)160(60) ! 0(0)0(0) 1140(1510)1650(1410) !( 10(10)10(10) 200(180) 0(0) !( 580(330) CSAH 96 ! [14,490] ! ! 0(0)730(790) 1150(1520)930(630) !( 0(0)0(0) 150(440)130(230) 0(0)0(0)430(440)800(770) !( 520(850)600(370)0(0)0(0) !( 100(140)400(470) !! 0(0)0(0) 0(0)0(0) 310(690)320(350) 420(630)700(500) !( 260(120)470(330) !( 30(10)10(0) ! CR I ! ! 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 10(40)0(10) 110(410) 0(0) !(290(580)790(420) 40(25) !( 0(0)0(0) 20(140)30(10) 180(470)530(350) !( 170(200)140(180) ! 110(410) ! 0(0) !( 0(0) ¯ CR H CR-H ! 0(0)0(0) ! 575(1000)975(700) !( 105(50)110(38) ! 15(65)15(40) !( 540(900)975(850) !( 300(95)190(75) ! 0(0)0(0) 1340(1765)1925(1655) !( 10(10)10(10) 200(140) 0(0) !( 620(470) CSAH 96 ! ! ! 0(0)850(925) 1350(1775)1085(738) !( 0(0)0(0) 150(590)800(240) 0(0)0(0)580(410)400(1010) !( 650(880)470(330)0(0)0(0) !( 180(130)500(790) !! 0% 0%0% 0% 5%5% [5%] !( 5% !( 0%0% ! CR I ! 5% ! 0%[5%]5% 0%0% 40%35% [35%] !(5%5% 0%0% [5%] !( 0%0% 0% 5% !( 0% ! 0%[20%]20% ! 60%40% [40%] !( 0%0% ¯ CR-H ! CR H 0%0% ! 10%[10%]10% !( 0%0% ! 0%0% !( 10%10% [10%] !( 0%0% 20%20% 0%0% !( 0%0% CSAH 96 ! 20% ! ! 0%[10%]10% 10%20%10% [10%] !( 0%0% 0% 0%10% [10%] !( 0%0% !( 10% [10%] !! 0% 0%0% 0% 5%5% [5%] !( 5% !( 0%0% ! CR I ! 5% ! 0%[20%] 0%0% 40% [20%] !(5%5% 0% [5%] !( 0%0% 0% 5% !( 0% ! 0%[20%]20% ! 60%40% [40%] !( 0%0% ¯ CR-H ! CR H 0%0% ! 10%[10%]10% !( 0%0% ! 0%0% !( 10%10% [10%] !( 0%0% 20%20% 0%0% !( 0%0% CSAH 96 ! 20% ! ! 0%[10%]10% 10%20%10% [10%] !( 0%0% 0% 0%10% [10%] !( 0%0% !( 10% [10%] !! 0% 0%0% 0% 5%5% [5%] !( 5% !( 0%0% ! CR I ! 5% ! 0%[20%]5% 0%0% 25%35% [20%] !(5%5% 0%0% [5%] !( 0%0% 0% 5% !( 0% ! 0%[20%]20% ! 45%40% [40%] !( 0%0% ¯ CR-H ! CR H 0%0% ! 10%[10%]10% !( 0%0% ! 0%0% !( 10%10% [10%] !( 0%0% 20%20% 0%0% !( 0%0% CSAH 96 ! 20% ! ! 0%[10%]10% 10%20%10% [10%] !( 0%0% 0% 0%10% [10%] !( 0%0% !( 10% [10%] !! 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 110(80)50(140) !( 50(140) !( 0(0)0(0) ! CR I ! ! 0(0)50(140) 0(0)0(0) 850(650)330(950) !(110(140)50(140) 0(0)0(0) !( 0(0)0(0) 0(0) 50(140) !( 0(0) ! 0(0) ! 0(0) 215(165) 160(450) !( 1065(815) 315(910) ¯ CR H CR-H ! 0(0)0(0) ! 210(160)90(270) !( 0(0)0(0) ! 0(0)0(0) !( 210(160)90(270) !( 0(0)0(0) 300(430)430(330) 0(0)0(0) !( 0(0)0(0) CSAH 96 ! ! ! 0(0)90(270) 300(430)90(270) !( 0(0)0(0) 0(0) 0(0)90(270) !( 0(0)0(0) !( 90(270) !! 0(0)0(0) 0(0)0(0) 310(690)320(350) 530(710)750(640) !( 260(120)520(470) !( 30(10)10(0) ! CR I ! ! 50(140) 0(0) 330(950)10(40)0(10) 960(1060) !(0(0)340(720)840(560) 40(25) !( 0(0)0(0) 20(140)30(10) 180(470)580(490) !( 170(200)140(180) ! 110(410) 0(0) ! 215(165) 160(450) !( 1065(815) 315(910) ¯ CR H CR-H ! 0(0)0(0) ! 780(1160)1065(970) !( 105(50)110(40) ! 20(60)15(40) !( 750(1060)1065(1120) !( 300(100)190(75) ! 300(430)430(330) 1340(1765)1925(1650) !( 10(10)10(10) 200(140) 0(0) !( 620(470) CSAH 96 ! ! ! 0(0)940(1200) 1650(2205)1175(1010) !( 0(0)0(0) 150(590)800(240) 0(0)0(0)580(410)490(1280) !( 650(880)470(330)0(0)0(0) !( 180(130)590(1060) !! 0(0) 0(0)0(0) 0(0) 120(110)70(160) !( 70(160) !( 0(0)0(0) ! CR I ! ! 0(0)70(160) 0(0)0(0) 970(850)470(1110) !(70(160)70(160) 0(0)0(0) !( 0(0)0(0) 0(0) 70(160) !( 0(0) ! 0(0) 0(0) ! 240(210) 225(530) !( 1220(1060) 450(1060) ¯ CR H CR-H ! 0(0)0(0) ! 240(210)135(320) !( 0(0)0(0) ! 0(0)0(0) !( 240(210)135(320) !( 0(0)0(0) 490(420)490(420) 0(0)0(0) !( 0(0)0(0) CSAH 96 ! ! ! 0(0)135(320) 380(420)135(320) !( 0(0)0(0) 0(0) 0(0)135(320) !( 0(0)0(0) !( 135(320) !! 0(0)0(0) 0(0)0(0) 310(690)320(350) 540(740)770(660) !( 260(120)540(490) !( 30(10)10(0) ! CR I ! ! 0(0)70(160) 10(40)0(10) 1090(1260)470(1110) !(360(740)860(580) 40(25)0(0) !( 0(0)0(0) 20(140)30(10) 180(470)600(510) !( 170(200)140(180) ! 110(410) ! 0(0) 240(210) 225(530) !( 1220(1060) 450(1060) CR H ¯ CR-H ! 0(0)0(0) ! 815(1120)1115(1020) !( 105(50)110(40) ! 15(65)15(40) !( 780(1110)1110(1170) !( 300(95)190(75) ! 380(420)490(420) 1340(1765)1925(1650) !( 10(10)10(10) 200(140) 0(0) !( 620(470) CSAH 96 ! ! ! 0(0)985(1240) 1730(2195)1220(1060) !( 0(0)0(0) 150(590)800(240) 0(0)0(0)580(410)535(1330) !( 650(880)470(330)0(0)0(0) !( 180(130)635(1110) !! 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 110(80)50(140) !( 50(140) !( 0(0)0(0) ! CR I ! ! 0(0)260(750) 0(0)0(0) 850(650)260(750) !(110(140)50(140) 0(0)0(0) !( 0(0)0(0) 0(0) 50(140) !( 0(0) ! ! 0(0) 0(0) 215(165) 160(450) !( 1065(815) 315(910) ¯ CR H CR-H ! 0(0)0(0) ! 210(160)90(270) !( 0(0)0(0) ! 0(0)0(0) !( 210(160)90(270) !( 0(0)0(0) 300(430)430(330) 0(0)0(0) !( 0(0)0(0) CSAH 96 ! ! ! 0(0)90(270) 300(430)90(270) !( 0(0)0(0) 0(0) 0(0)90(270) !( 0(0)0(0) !( 90(270) !! 0(0)0(0) 0(0)0(0) 310(690)320(350) 530(710)750(640) !( 260(120)520(470) !( 30(10)10(0) ! CR I ! ! 190(550) 0(0) 190(540) 10(40)0(10) 960(1060) 0(0) !(340(720)840(560) 40(25) !( 0(0)0(0) 20(140)30(10) 180(470)580(490) !( 170(200)140(180) ! 110(410) 0(0) ! 215(165) 160(450) !( 1065(815) 315(910) ¯ CR H CR-H ! 0(0)0(0) ! 780(1160)1065(970) !( 105(50)110(40) ! 20(60)15(40) !( 750(1060)1065(1120) !( 300(100)190(75) ! 300(430)430(330) 1340(1765)1925(1650) !( 10(10)10(10) 200(140) 0(0) !( 620(470) CSAH 96 ! ! ! 0(0)940(1200) 1650(2205)1175(1010) !( 0(0)0(0) 150(590)800(240) 0(0)0(0)580(410)490(1280) !( 650(880)470(330)0(0)0(0) !( 180(130)590(1060) !! 0(0) 0(0)0(0) 0(0) 120(110)70(160) !( 70(160) !( 0(0)0(0) ! CR I ! ! 0(0)370(875) 0(0)0(0) 600(535)370(875) !(70(160)70(160) 0(0)0(0) !( 0(0)0(0) 0(0) 70(160) !( 0(0) ! 0(0) ! 0(0) 180(160) 225(530) !( 915(800) 450(1060) ¯ CR H CR-H ! 0(0)0(0) ! 240(210)135(320) !( 0(0)0(0) ! 0(0)0(0) !( 240(210)135(320) !( 0(0)0(0) 490(420)490(420) 0(0)0(0) !( 0(0)0(0) CSAH 96 ! ! ! 0(0)135(320) 380(420)135(320) !( 0(0)0(0) 0(0) 0(0)135(320) !( 0(0)0(0) !( 135(320) !! 0(0)0(0) 0(0)0(0) 310(690)320(350) 540(740)770(660) !( 260(120)540(490) !( 30(10)10(0) ! CR I ! ! 0(0)270(640) 10(40)0(10) 715(950)270(630) !(360(740)860(580) 40(25)0(0) !( 0(0)0(0) 20(140)30(10) 180(470)600(510) !( 170(200)140(180) ! 110(410) ! 0(0) 180(160) 225(530) 915(800) !( 450(1060) ¯ CR H CR-H ! 0(0)0(0) ! 815(1210)1110(1020) !( 105(50)110(40) ! 15(65)15(40) !( 780(1110)1110(1170) !( 300(95)190(75) ! 380(420)490(420) 1340(1765)1925(1650) !( 10(10)10(10) 200(140) 0(0) !( 620(470) CSAH 96 ! ! ! 0(0)985(1240) 1730(2195)1220(1060) !( 0(0)0(0) 150(590)800(240) 0(0)0(0)580(410)535(1330) !( 650(880)470(330)0(0)0(0) !( 180(130)635(1110) MEMORANDUM DATE: April 14, 2014 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Sue Iverson, Acting City Administrator FROM:Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director SUBJECT: TCAAP Meeting and Approval Schedule Requested Action Accept the draft meeting and approval schedule. Discussion The Joint Powers Agreement states that the City will complete the AUAR within 18 months and the Master Plan within 24 months of the effective date of the JPA, December 17, 2012. In the JPA, the Master Plan is defined to include regulations and policies. The meeting and approval schedule outlined below and depicted in the attached chart allows the City to move forward on schedule. City Council approval of the master plan map will be requested on June 30, 2014, so that staff and consultants can begin working on the regulations and policies which are expected to take the remainder of this year. The attached chart highlights dates at which City Council approvals (via a vote at a regular meeting) will be needed. The master planning process will culminate with approval of zoning regulations, a future land use map, and a comprehensive plan amendment which will provide the regulatory framework for development. Council approvals of infrastructure components are also noted, although the dates of those approvals may be adjusted once a consultant is hired. Discussion topics leading up to master plan map and AUAR approval on June 30 and July 28, nd respectively, are as follows. Special City Council work sessions on the 2 and last Mondays are expected to continue for the remainder of 2014 as work progresses on regulations and policies. Staff memos will specifically state what direction or decisions are needed from the City Council at each meeting. April 14, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room Review Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) and Mitigation Plan 12 Page of Financial Modeling for Trunk Utilities Review of Public Comments on the Draft Master Plan April 21, 2014, Regular Work Session at 5:00 pm, Council Chambers Ramsey County Economic Development and Redevelopment Goals for TCAAP PTRC Recommendations for Park and Open Space City Goals for Surface Water Management April 28, 2014, Special Work Session following the regular meeting, Council Chambers I-35W/Highway 96 Interchange Design Status & Concept Review May 12, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room Infrastructure Study Update and City Cost Participation Agreement Residential Development and Densities City Utilities Financial Modeling May 27, 2014 (Tuesday), Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room Flex Space Land Use Discussion I-35W/Highway 96 Interchange Discussion June 9, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room Discussion topics to be determined (infrastructure, regulations and policies, etc.) June 16, 2014, Regular Work Session at 5:00 pm, Council Chamber Review Revised Master Plan Review Aesthetics for I-35W Bridges June 30, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room Review Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan June 30, 2014, Regular Meeting at 7:00 pm, Council Chambers Approve Master Plan Municipal Consent for I-35W/Highway 96 July 14, 2014, Regular Work Session at 5:00 pm, Council Chambers Discussion topics to be determined (infrastructure, regulations and policies, etc.) July 21, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room Discussion topics to be determined (infrastructure, regulations and policies, etc.) July 28, 2014, Regular Meeting at 7:00 pm, Council Chambers Approve Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan The meeting schedule and chart will be revised and presented to the City Council on a periodic basis over the next several months. 22 Page of