Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
07-28-14-R
Address: Mayor: 1245 W Highway 96 David Grant Arden Hills MN 55112 Councilmembers: Phone: Brenda Holden 651-792-7800 Fran Holmes Regular City Council Dave McClung : Website Agenda Ed Werner www.cityofardenhills.org July 28, 2014 7:00 p.m. City Hall City Vision Arden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well-maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long-standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play. CALL TO ORDER 1.APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2.PUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONAL Public inquiries/informational is an opportunity for citizens to bring to the Councils attention any items not currently on the agenda. In addressing the Council, please state your name and address for the record, and a brief summary of the specific item being addressed to the Council. To allow adequate time for each person wishing to address the Council, we ask that individuals limit their comments to three (3) minutes. Written documents may be distributed to the Council prior to the meeting, or as bench copies, to allow a more timely presentation. 3.STAFF COMMENTS 3.A.TCAAP Update Patrick Klaers, City Administrator Documents:MEMO.PDF 3.B.Transportation Update Terry Maurer, Public Works Director Documents:MEMO.PDF 3.C.Night To Unite Update Amy Dietl, City Clerk Documents:MEMO.PDF 4.APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4.A.Approval Of Minutes July 9, 2014, Special City Council Work Session July 9, 2014, Regular City Council Meeting 5.CONSENT CALENDAR Those items listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the City be no separate discussion of these items, unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event, the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its normal sequence on the agenda. 5.A.Claims And Payroll Sue Iverson, Director of Finance and Administrative Services Ashley Bertrand, Accounting Analyst Documents:MEMO.PDF 5.B.2014 2nd Quarter Actuals Sue Iverson, Director of Finance and Administrative Services Kyle Howard, Finance Analyst Documents:MEMO.PDF,ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF 5.C.Updated Credit Card Policy Sue Iverson, Director of Finance and Administrative Services Kyle Howard, Finance Analyst Documents:MEMO.PDF,ATTACHMENT A.PDF 5.D.Adopt Resolution 2014-038 Accepting Donation From The Arden Hills Foundation Sue Iverson, Director of Finance and Administrative Services Documents:MEMO.PDF,ATTACHMENT A.PDF 5.E.Approve Cost Share Agreement With Ramsey County For TCAAP Infrastructure Analysis Terry Maurer, Public Works Director Documents:MEMO.PDF,ATTACHMENT A.PDF 5.F.Award Trail Maintenance Quotes Terry Maurer, Public Works Director Documents:MEMO.PDF,ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF 6.PULLED CONSENT ITEMS Those items that are pulled from the Consent Calendar will be removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its normal sequence on the agenda. 7.PUBLIC HEARINGS Under this Public Hearing section, citizens have an opportunity to discuss ideas regarding Clerk. 8.NEW BUSINESS 8.A.Approve Resolution 2014-037 Adopting The TCAAP Final AUAR And Mitigation Plan Ryan Streff, City Planner Patrick Klaers, City Administrator Documents:CC MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF, ATTACHMENT D.PDF 8.B.Planning Case 14-017- Setback Variance - 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard Ryan Streff, City Planner Documents:CC MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF, ATTACHMENT D.PDF, ATTACHMENT E.PDF, ATTACHMENT F.PDF, ATTACHMENT G.PDF, ATTACHMENT H.PDF, ATTACHMENT I.PDF, ATTACHMENT J.PDF 9.UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10.COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURN STAFF COMMENTS 3A MEMORANDUM DATE: July 28, 2014 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Patrick Klaers, City Administrator SUBJECT: TCAAP Update General The Infrastructure Study contract was awarded to Kimley-Horn and meetings are starting to be held on various parts of the project. The Council had Kimley-Horn attend the July th 14 work session to discuss storm water and drainage/wetland issues. Kimley-Horn will next be at the August 11th work session to discuss trunk sewer and water issues. Additionally, Kimley-Horn is holding City-County staff work sessions in preparation for the City Council meetings. Part of the overall TCAAP Master Plan, the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR), is on the City Council agenda tonight for consideration. Once this environmental document is approved, a notice of this decision will be submitted to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) for publication th The Joint Development Authority (JDA) is scheduled to meet on Monday August 4 at 5:30 pm. The agenda for this meeting is still being developed, but one of the known agenda items will be to discuss the Energy Task Force applications. Future Meeting Schedule Special and regular City Council work session meetings have been scheduled to discuss issues related to the Master Plan and City infrastructure. Discussion topics are tentatively planned as follows: July 28, 2014, Regular Meeting at 7:00 pm, Council Chambers Consider approval of Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan August 11, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room Water and Sewer System Review (Infrastructure) Density/Maximum Residential Unit Discussion August 18, 2014, Regular Work Session at 5:00 pm, Council Chambers Workshop with Gateway Planning Discuss Performance Based Zoning process o Discuss zoning elements and framework o Present zoning sections 1 7 (Introduction, Components of the o Code, Administration, Definitions, Schedule of Uses, Building Form and Site Development Standards, Building Design Standards) August 25, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room Discuss Zoning Sections 1 5 (Introduction, Components of the Code, Administration, Definitions, Schedule of Uses) September 8, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room Spine Road and Grading Design Review (Infrastructure) Discuss Zoning Sections 6 7 (Building Form and Site Development Standards, Building Design Standards) September 15, 2014, Regular Work Session at 5:00 pm, Council Chambers Workshop with Gateway Planning Discuss comments and direction on Sections 1 7 (Introduction, o Components of the Code, Administration, Definitions, Schedule of Uses, Building Form and Site Development Standards, Building Design Standards) Present Zoning Sections 8 12 (Street Design Standards, Parkland o Standards, Open Space Standards, Streetscape and Landscape Standards, Sign Standards) th September 22, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:00 pm, Council Chambers (4 of 5 Mondays) Final Discussion of Zoning Sections 1 7 (Introduction, Components of the Code, Administration, Definitions, Schedule of Uses, Building Form and Site Development Standards, Building Design Standards) September 29, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room County Road I and Thumb Road Design Review (Infrastructure) Discuss Zoning Sections 8 and 11 (Street Design Standards, Streetscape and Landscape Standards) It is anticipated that additional regular and special work session meetings will be scheduled to discuss TCAAP issues. Future meeting topics will be defined as those dates draw nearer. STAFF COMMENTS 3B MEMORANDUM DATE: July 28, 2014 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: Terry Maurer, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Transportation Update Background A brief oral update will be provided at the meeting on the US Highway 10 and County Road 96 project. 11 Page of 3 STAFF COMMENTSC MEMORANDUM DATE: July 28, 2014 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: Amy Dietl, City Clerk SUBJECT: Night to Unite Background/Discussion The sixth annual Night to Unite is Tuesday, August 5, 2014, and will be held from 5 to 9 p.m. TheRamseyCountySheriffsOfficehasprovidedtheCitywithalistofthe24hoststhathave registeredtheirneighborhoodgatherings.Thosewhoregisteredwillbevisitedbycommunity officials, fire departments, and Ramsey County Sheriffs Office representatives. AlistofneighborhoodsparticipatinginNighttoUnitehasbeenincludedintheCouncilsagenda packets. 11 Page of July 28, 2014 Honorable Mayor and City CouncilMembers Patrick Klaers, City Administrator Sue Iverson, Director of Finance and Administrative Services, Ashley Bertrand, Accounting Analyst Claims & Payroll 2014 Payroll #15 ............................................................................... $ 90,503.88 Paid Claims (Check No 0 Sales Tax) ..................................................... $ 18.00 Paid Claims (Check No 43728-Check No 43787) ................................. $ 280,049.23 Paid Claims (Check No 43724-Check No 43727) ................................. $ 144,864.34 Page of Payment Method EFT FIT7,550.55 EFT SIT3,133.69 EFT FICA Oasdi4,742.714,742.71 EFT FICA Medicare1,109.211,109.21 A/P Check* Health Premium1,943.020.00 A/P Check* Dental Premium 0.00 A/P Check* FSA Health Care Reimb.238.33 A/P Check* FSA Dependent Care Reimb.442.66 HSA Health Saving 657.68(452.90) EFT Health Care Savings Plan(4.45) EFT Health Care Savings Plan-2%267.44 EFT Health Care Savings Plan-4%168.44 EFT PERA4,079.78 4,732.56 EFT ICMA3,655.31341.04 A/P Check* Central Pension Fund-Union614.40 EFT MN State Retirement System328.13 A/P Check* IUOE 49 Dues (Union)132.00 A/P Check* LTD/STD Insurance0.00 A/P Check* PERA Life Insurance32.00 A/P Check* Life/Addl/Dep Life124.450.00 EFT MN Child Support145.82 A/P Check* Public Employee Long Term Care 93.72 A/P Check* UNUM 42.55 EFT AFLAC163.96 A/P Check* Avesis-Vision Care5.22 Total Employee Deductions29,671.07 PR Check # Net Payroll0.00 EFT Direct Deposit50,364.64 Gross Payroll Tie-Out80,035.71 STD/LTD Gross - Up0.00 Plus City Paid Benefit10,468.17 ICMA Benefit Held0.00 Gross Payroll80,035.71 Less Total FSA2,624.01 Plus Employer Match ICMA0.00 Plus ICMA Benefit Held0.00 Net P/R Subject to FICA77,411.70 FICA Oasdi @ 6.20%4,742.71 FICA Medicare @ 1.45%1,109.21 Note: Federal and State Payroll Tax obligations are satisfied by means of utilizing the "Taxtel" Electronic Tax Deposit Service. Trans- fers are typically made two business days after the payroll date. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE Check Approval * A/P Checks can be found on the report. Checks may be paid this week or the following week. Ashley Bertrand From:eservices.mdor@state.mn.us Sent:Friday, July 18, 2014 11:20 AM To:Ashley Bertrand Subject:Your Recent Return Request This email is an automated notification and is unable to receive replies. Sales and Use Tax - Return Submitted Thank you, your request has been submitted. Please allow 3 business days for your return to appear online. Please allow 3 business days from 18-Jul-2014 for your payment to appear online. You can change or cancel this request until 5:00 p.m. Central time. Submitted Date and Time: 18-Jul-2014 11:19:18 AM Legal Name: ARDEN HILLS CITY OF Federal Employer ID: 41-6008992 User Who Submitted: Accounting Analyst Type of Request Return for 6/30/2014 Submitted: Account Name: ARDEN HILLS CITY OF Minnesota ID: 9047998 Return Confirmation 0-455-088-768 Number: Account Type: Sales & Use Tax Filing Period: 30-Jun-2014 Projected Amount/Credit $18.00 Due: Payment Confirmation 1-528-830-592 Number: Account Type: Sales & Use Tax Filing Period: 30-Jun-2014 Payment Amount: $18.00 Payment Type: Return Payment Date: 18-Jul-2014 Bank Name: US BANK NA Bank Account Number: ********9377 1 If you need further assistance, contact our Sales and Use Tax Division at (Metro Area) 651-296-6181, (Greater Minnesota) 800-657-3777, (TTY Users) Call 711 for Minnesota Relay, or (email) SalesUse.Tax@state.mn.us. Business hours are 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Monday - Friday. You can see copies of your requests by going to the History Tab. This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may contain nonpublic / private data. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, use, or distribution of the information included in this message and any attachments is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us and immediately and permanently delete this message and any attachments. Thank you. 2 !"#$%&'&()* :0* ;#$('$<&"*$=$<*"&.)$('$:0* ;$<&"* +#*,-�)*'1(*,",&!/ %,.!"*/-$234534675$$4-78$%9 !"#$( )*$+"#$( )*$+"#&, !"%&' !"/,$0)' ($-*" !. 1)2$- "#$% . +-5'-$)3 4 + ) :E6>?4@:9 $A*".,*B*!"$C, #"$=$76D8556237?34675 %A$F&" 0$6646616214675$@:9 $GBH) '**$%*, *!"$567%A$F&" 0$6646616214675$@:9 $GBH) '**$%*, *!"$567$485166 %A$F&" 0$6646616214675$@:9 $GBH) '*,$%*, *!"$567%A$F&" 0$6646616214675$@:9 $GBH) '*,$%*, *!"$567$>57165 C "&)$J ,$"0.#$ :E$:0* ;$J ,$K*!/ ,$6>?4-$6166$D>I165 :E6>?2@:9 $A*".,*B*!"$C, #"=$L>645?46237?34675 %A$F&" 0$6646616214675$@:9 $GBH) '**$%*, *!"%A$F&" 0$6646616214675$@:9 $GBH) '**$%*, *!"$I6?1D7 %A$F&" 0$6646616214675$@:9 $GBH) '**$<*/ ". !%A$F&" 0$6646616214675$@:9 $GBH) '**$<*/ ". !$4M?I4126 C "&)$J ,$"0.#$ :E$:0* ;$J ,$K*!/ ,$6>?2-$6166$>M>D71>7 :EID5>A'&!$N",*JJ6237?34675 62764675=AN467>$9.)*&O*$A*.B( #*B*!"467>$9.)*&O*$A*.B( #*B*!"$>5152 62764675=AN4%PQ$N HH).*#467>$9.)*&O*$A*.B( #*B*!"$2188 62764675=AN4C: %$GRH*!#*#467>$9.)*&O*$A*.B( #*B*!"$5?1D2 62764675=AN4S*(=T !*$4675$9.)*&O*$A*.B( #*B*!"467>$9.)*&O*$A*.B( #*B*!"$>415? C "&)$J ,$"0.#$ :E$:0* ;$J ,$K*!/ ,$ID5>-$6166$74>1D7 :EFUV<F !/$C, #"$N*,W. *#$: ,H6237?34675 7626? O*!"$N*,W. *#$S**$4675 O*!"$N*,W. *#$S**$4675$5I6166 4464?XU$C&R$@! ,*B*!"$S !/.!O$F !/# O*!"$N*,W. *#$S**$4675$5M866166 C "&)$J ,$"0.#$ :E$:0* ;$J ,$K*!/ ,$FUV<-$6166$IM>I6166 5>24?4I82 A%6237?34675 627I4675= A%T )'$4675$ A%$:)&##T )'$4675$ A%$:)&##$>7I166 C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>24?-$6166$>7I166 5>248 Y%@ ))*O,&$%,.!"$P$@B&O.!O6237?34675 7576?4T )'$4675$V*Z#)*""*,T )'$4675$V*Z#)*""*,$7M4>2145 C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>248-$6166$7M4>2145 5>2>6774IF )" !$P$9*!;M$@! 16237?34675 67D2I449N5$: BH).&! *9N5$: BH).&! *$D8>14I 67D2I449N5$: BH).&! *9N5$: BH).&! *$D8>14I C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>2>6-$6166$7M>?D1I6 5>2>775D7F,.O0"Z /$E.))#$X )J$: ,#*6237?34675 4675=84675$X )J$Y*## !#4675$X )J$Y*## !#$456166 C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>2>7-$6166$456166 5>2>4626D:*,".J.*/$Y&( ,&" ,.*#6237?34675 7ID4645%\[$N HH).*#%\[$N HH).*#$D??127 C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>2>4-$6166$D??127 %$:0* ;#$('$<&"*$=$<*"&.)$('$:0* ;$<&"*$\\234534675$$4-78$%9\]%&O*$7 !"#$( )*$+"#$( )*$+"#&, !"%&' !"/,$0)' ($-*" !. 1)2$- "#$% . +-5'-$)3 4 + ) 5>2>>76>4: BB*, .&)$ #H0&)"$: 16237?34675 756D>6T !*$4675$ #H0&)"$GRH*!#*T !*$4675$ #H0&)"$GRH*!#*$>M87418> 756D>6T !*$4675$ #H0&)"$GRH*!#*T !*$4675$ #H0&)"$GRH*!#*$4M7?2128 C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>2>>-$6166$DM766124 5>2>55??8: BB !."'$S "Z ,;#6237?34675 6264675=:ST )'$4675$S "$:).!. T )'$4675$S "$:).!. $786156 C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>2>5-$6166$786156 5>2>I6>>2<=A ;$:*!"*,$Y&!/# &H*$N HH)'6237?34675 7?5I%&,;$N HH).*#%&,;$N HH).*#$55166 7?5?%&,;$N HH).*#%&,;$N HH).*#$55166 C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>2>I-$6166$??166 5>2>D778IG ,*;&$A* ' ).!O6237?34675 757479&'$4675$A* ' ).!O$: #"#9&'$4675$A* ' ).!O$: #"#=DD21I8 757479&'$4675$A* ' ).!O$: #"#9&'$4675$A* ' ).!O$: #"#$2M8871?? C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>2>D-$6166$2M>45148 5>2>2II?8@!/*H*!/*!"$UJJ. .&)#$ ## .&". !M$YY:16237?34675 7>I8D34>=D34D$+BH.,.!O$N*,W. *#D34>=D34D$+BH.,.!O$N*,W. *#$I24166 7>27238=2376$+BH.,.!O$N*,W. *#238=2376$+BH.,.!O$N*,W. *#$I24166 C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>2>2-$6166$7M755166 5>2>?2I67^*))'$P$Y*BB !#M$%1 16237?34675 56255T !*$4675$%, #* ". !$:0&,O*#T !*$4675$%, #* ". !$:0&,O*#$4M7271I4 C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>2>?-$6166$4M7271I4 5>2>8687DY&;*#$: !",'$N*,W. *$: H6237?34675 :@62>=E 8=6?75 O #"$4675$E*&)"0$@!# ,&! * O #"$4675$E*&)"0$@!# ,&! *$>M6461I6 :@62>=EF2=6?75 O #"$4675$E*&)"0$@!# ,&! * O #"$4675$E*&)"0$@!# ,&! *$4M22D1I6 :@62>=EG7=6?75 O #"$4675$E*&)"0$@!# ,&! * O #"$4675$E*&)"0$@!# ,&! *$>M64?166 C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>2>8-$6166$?M?4I166 5>256IDDI9*"*,.!O$P$C* 0! ) O'$N ) ". !6237?34675 77I4\[&"*,$9*"*,$N HH).*#\[&"*,$9*"*,$N HH).*#$7MD7>16D C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>256-$6166$7MD7>16D 5>2577>649*'*,$: !",& "$@! 16237?34675 62754675=9:%&'B*!"$L7$A !/$Y&;*$A &/$ ,*&$@BH, W*B*!"%&'B*!"$L7$A !/$Y&;*$A &/$ ,*&$@BH, W*B*!"$56M8D718D 62754675=9:%&'B*!"$L7$A !/$Y&;*$A &/$ ,*&$@BH, W*B*!"%&'B*!"$L7$A !/$Y&;*$A &/$ ,*&$@BH, W*B*!"$4IMD?2177 62754675=9:%&'B*!"$L7$A !/$Y&;*$A &/$ ,*&$@BH, W*B*!"%&'B*!"$L7$A !/$Y&;*$A &/$ ,*&$@BH, W*B*!"$8IM8421I2 C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>257-$6166$7D4MI2D1D5 5>25462>79@<\[ _$SUA<6237?34675 >87758K*0. )*$L564$A*H&.,K*0. )*$L564$A*H&.,$26I12I :978D>D2%\[$A*" ,!K*0. )*$L564$A*H&.,=2I166 C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>254-$6166$D>612I 5>25>67529 !/#W.*Z$% (). $N 0 )#6237?34675 I5?>T !*$4675$S& .)."'$A*!"&)T !*$4675$S& .)."'$A*!"&)$5I1>5 %$:0* ;#$('$<&"*$=$<*"&.)$('$:0* ;$<&"*$\\234534675$$4-78$%9\]%&O*$4 !"#$( )*$+"#$( )*$+"#&, !"%&' !"/,$0)' ($-*" !. 1)2$- "#$% . +-5'-$)3 4 + ) C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>25>-$6166$5I1>5 5>255264IU!$N."*$N&!."&". !6237?34675 =I5>>47T )'$4675$A*!"&)=S) ,&)$%&,;T )'$4675$A*!"&)$I4166 =I5>>44T )'$4675$A*!"&)=E&`*)! "$%&,;T )'$4675$A*!"&)$I4166 =I5>>4>T )'$4675$A*!"&)=%*,,'$%&,;T )'$4675$A*!"&)$766166 =I5>>45T )'$4675$A*!"&)=A '&)$E.))#$%&,;T )'$4675$A*!"&)$I4166 =I5>>4IT )'$4675$A*!"&)=K&)*!".!*$%&,;T )'$4675$A*!"&)$I4166 =I5>5?6T )'$4675$A*!"&)=: BB.!O#$%&,;T )'$4675$A*!"&)$I4166 =I5>2D2T )'$4675$A*!"&)=@!O*,# !$%&,;T )'$4675$A*!"&)$I4166 C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>255-$6166$574166 5>25I6>4>%, =C* $<*#.O!M$@! 16237?34675 D2>D> *##$:&,/$A*H&., *##$:&,/$A*H&.,$>>D14I C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>25I-$6166$>>D14I 5>25D64?4A*H (). $N*,W. *#$L?886237?34675 6?88=664I6??DIT )'$4675$C,�$N*,W. *T )'$4675$C,�$N*,W. *$I>D184 6?88=664I6??DIT )'$4675$C,�$N*,W. *T )'$4675$C,�$N*,W. *$4D6148 C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>25D-$6166$282147 5>252ID6D<&,.*!$N 0.J#;'6237?34675 62624675=<N+!.J ,B$ )) Z&! *+!.J ,B$ )) Z&! *$5>18? C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>252-$6166$5>18? 5>25?Y :@NH ,"#$+!).B."*/6237?34675 62764675=Y :@K ))*'(&))$:)&##K ))*'(&))$:)&##$??12I C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>25?-$6166$??12I 5>2586>42N"&H)*#$F #.!*##$ /W&!"&O*6237?34675 >4>5?I4I>5UJJ. *$N HH).*#UJJ. *$N HH).*#$4>21>> C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>258-$6166$4>21>> 5>2I6684IC=9 (.)*6237?34675 62444675T !*$4675$C&()*"$:0&,O*#T !*$4675$C&()*"$:0&,O*#$>I8187 C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>2I6-$6166$>I8187 5>2I76>>DC1 1$N 0.J;#'$P$N !#M$@! 16237?34675 ID576 H,.)$4675$ #H0&)" H,.)$4675$ #H0&)"$77D1?I C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>2I7-$6166$77D1?I 5>2I4772ICVC$:)*&!.!O$&!/$: !# )".!OM$@V:6237?34675 4D?I?>:."'$E&))$S) ,,$9&.!"*!&! *:."'$E&))$S) ,,$9&.!"*!&! *$5I6166 C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>2I4-$6166$5I6166 5>2I>>688C,.=N"&"*$F ( &"M$@! 1=Y."")*$:&!&/&6237?34675 N7DID?:@%$@"*B-$C ) &":@%$@"*B-$C ) &"$>8MI241>8 C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>2I>-$6166$>8MI241>8 5>2I57>66+!.S.,#"$: ,H ,&". !6237?34675 686$646D2?5T !*$4675$9&"$N*,W. *T !*$4675$9&"$N*,W. *$DD1D6 686$64764D>T )'$4675$9&"$N*,W. *T )'$4675$9&"$N*,W. *$DD1D6 %$:0* ;#$('$<&"*$=$<*"&.)$('$:0* ;$<&"*$\\234534675$$4-78$%9\]%&O*$> !"#$( )*$+"#$( )*$+"#&, !"%&' !"/,$0)' ($-*" !. 1)2$- "#$% . +-5'-$)3 4 + ) C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>2I5-$6166$7>>146 5>2II\[G:CC B$\[*; 6237?34675 62774675=C\[4675$9 !/#$K.*Z$K ))*'(&))$:&BH4675$9 !/#$K.*Z$K ))*'(&))$:&BH$>M674166 C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>2II-$6166$>M674166 5>2ID6856Q**$9*/. &)$N*,W. *#6237?34675 I56III689*/. &)$N HH).*#9*/. &)$N HH).*#$4?D156 I56III689*/. &)$N HH).*#9*/. &)$N HH).*#$251I6 C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>2ID-$6166$>D6186 C "&)$J ,$237?34675-$6166$458M8D2186 :E67?8X H0*,$N"&"*$U!*=:&))M$@! 16234I34675 777655T !*$4675$Y &"*#T !*$4675$Y &"*#$44>164 777655T !*$4675$Y &"*#T !*$4675$Y &"*#$44>16> C "&)$J ,$"0.#$ :E$:0* ;$J ,$K*!/ ,$67?8-$6166$55D16I :EII?5^')*$E Z&,/6234I34675 62474675=^ET !*$4675$9.)*&O*$A*.B( ,#*B*!"T !*$4675$9.)*&O*$A*.B( ,#*B*!"$>>1D6 C "&)$J ,$"0.#$ :E$:0* ;$J ,$K*!/ ,$II?5-$6166$>>1D6 5>2I2I72>F&/O*,$9*"*,M$@! 16234I34675 766>D2>a4$4675$N*,W. *$:0&,O*#a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�$A*.B( ,#*B*!"T !*$4675$%*""'$:�$A*.B( ,#*B*!"$54142 62474675=: ET !*$4675$%*""'$:�$A*.B( ,#*B*!"T !*$4675$%*""'$:�$A*.B( ,#*B*!"$7>166 62474675=: ET !*$4675$%*""'$:�$A*.B( ,#*B*!"T !*$4675$%*""'$:�$A*.B( ,#*B*!"$7?14I C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>2D4-$6166$2>1I4 5>2D>6>78:."'$ J$A #*W.))*6234I34675 %$:0* ;#$('$<&"*$=$<*"&.)$('$:0* ;$<&"*$\\234534675$$4-78$%9\]%&O*$5 !"#$( )*$+"#$( )*$+"#&, !"%&' !"/,$0)' ($-*" !. 1)2$- "#$% . +-5'-$)3 4 + ) 647?86>T )'$4675$@C$F@))T )'$4675$@C$F@))$>M47414I 647?855T )'$4675$%0 !*$F@))T )'$4675$%0 !*$F@))$566166 C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>2D>-$6166$>MD7414I 5>2D5II82: F* ;$: !#", ". !$: BH&!'M$YY:6234I34675 626?4675=::%:$7>=67?$G# , Z$A*J !/%:$7>=67?$G# , Z$A*J !/$D>6166 C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>2D5-$6166$D>6166 5>2DI76>4: BB*, .&)$ #H0&)"$: 16234I34675 75627IT )'$4675$N",**"$9&.!"*!&! *$9&"*,.&)#T )'$4675$N",**"$9&.!"*!&! *$9&"*,.&)#$4M?84156 C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>2DI-$6166$4M?84156 5>2DD4748G)J*,.!O$P$ ## .&"*#6234I34675 78DIT !*$4675$G!O.!**,$:0&,O*#=467>$%9%T !*$4675$G!O.!**,$:0&,O*#$44I166 78DDT !*$4675$G!O.!**,$:0&,O*#=7638DT !*$4675$G!O.!**,$:0&,O*#$7MI56166 78D?T !*$4675$G!O.!**,$:0&,O*#=467>=66426T !*$4675$G!O.!**,$:0&,O*#$756166 78D8T !*$4675$G!O.!**,$:0&,O*#=467>=66?7>T !*$4675$G!O.!**,$:0&,O*#$ID6166 C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>2DD-$6166$4M5DI166 5>2D26784X,&.!O*,M$@! 6234I34675 85?7268728%\[$N HH).*#%\[$N HH).*#$>416? C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>2D2-$6166$>416? 5>2D?6>46E*&)"0$%&,"!*,#6234I34675 58>224?5 O #"$4675$<*!"&)$%,*B. B O #"$4675$<*!"&)$%,*B. B$7M4771?6 C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>2D?-$6166$7M4771?6 5>2D8EG%:E*Z)*""$%& ;&,/$: BH&!'6234I34675 I5I44664C* 0! ) O'$N HH).*#C* 0! ) O'$N HH).*#$52166 C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>2D8-$6166$52166 5>226II?8@!/*H*!/*!"$UJJ. .&)#$ ## .&". !M$YY:16234I34675 7>2D2375=2372$+BH.,.!O$N*,W. *#2375=2372$+BH.,.!O$N*,W. *#$585166 C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>226-$6166$585166 5>2276>86@VCbY$+!. !$UH*,&".!O$G!O.!**,#=+!. !$< *#6234I34675 6264675=@+UGT )'$4675$+!. !$< *#T )'$4675$+!. !$< *#$4D5166 C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>227-$6166$4D5166 5>224II85N0*.)&$^,*c .6234I34675 6D454675=N^>EA$C,&.!.!O=@W*,# !EA$C,&.!.!O=@W*,# !$8541I6 6D>64675=N^EA$: & 0.!O=: BB !."'$<*W*) HB*!"EA$: & 0.!O=: BB !."'$<*W*) HB*!"$466166 6267467=N^EA$: & 0.!O=S.!&! *S.!&! *$P$ /B.!$C,&.!.!O$466166 6267467=N^EA$: & 0.!O= /B.!S.!&! *$P$ /B.!$C,&.!.!O$566166 C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>224-$6166$7M2541I6 5>22>6475YCX$% Z*,$Gd .HB*!"6234I34675 728D44%\[$K*0. )*$L5I7$%&,"#%\[$K*0. )*$L5I7$%&,"#$555145 7?6675%\[$K*0. )*$L5I7$%&,"#%\[$K*0. )*$L5I7$%&,"#$>>1>> 7?667I%\[$K*0. )*$L5I4$%&,"#%\[$K*0. )*$L5I4$%&,"#$861I7 7?67DD%\[$K*0. )*$L5I7$%&,"#%\[$K*0. )*$L5I7$%&,"#$4617> %$:0* ;#$('$<&"*$=$<*"&.)$('$:0* ;$<&"*$\\234534675$$4-78$%9\]%&O*$I !"#$( )*$+"#$( )*$+"#&, !"%&' !"/,$0)' ($-*" !. 1)2$- "#$% . +-5'-$)3 4 + ) C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>22>-$6166$I??147 5>2259VY@9.!!*# "&$V&".W*$Y&!/# &H*#M$@! 6234I34675 76I8DT )'$4675$:."'$E&))$%,&.,.*$9&.!"*!&! *T )'$4675$:."'$E&))$%,&.,.*$9&.!"*!&! *$>56166 C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>225-$6166$>56166 5>22IID769.!!*# "&$A ,&)$\[&"*,$ ## .&". !6234I34675 62454675=9A\[ 4675$9A\[ $9*B(*,#0.H$< *#4675$9A\[ $9*B(*,#0.H$< *#$44I166 C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>22I-$6166$44I166 5>22DD>589&,'$V #*;6234I34675 675=67>T )'$4675$ E$V "*#T )'$4675$ E$V "*#$746166 C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>22D-$6166$746166 5>22267IIUJJ. *$ J$9V$@C$N*,W. *#6234I34675 \[756D6D26T !*$4675$%0 !*$F.))T !*$4675$%0 !*$F.))$27D18> C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>222-$6166$27D18> 5>22?6484UR'O*!$N*,W. *$: BH&!'M$@! 16234I34675 6>4D??27T !*$4675$%\[$A*!"&)T !*$4675$%\[$A*!"&)$7I1D6 C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>22?-$6166$7I1D6 5>228746?%,*B. B$\[&"*,#M$@! 6234I34675 D76462=6D=75T !*$4675$:."'$E&))$N HH).*#$7?I1?? D7>>72=6D=65T !*$4675$:."'$E&))$N HH).*#T !*$4675$:."'$E&))$N HH).*#$77512? C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>228-$6166$>661DD 5>2?6D26Da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e *)$G!*,O'6234I34675 57?6?5I74T !*$4675$+".)."'$F.))T !*$4675$+".)."'$F.))$>>?167 57?6?5I74T !*$4675$+".)."'$F.))T !*$4675$+".)."'$F.))$7M2I617? 57?6?5I74T !*$4675$+".)."'$F.))T !*$4675$+".)."'$F.))=7441D> 57?6?5I74T !*$4675$+".)."'$F.))T !*$4675$+".)."'$F.))$?68168 57?6?5I74T !*$4675$+".)."'$F.))T !*$4675$+".)."'$F.))$8561D? 57?6?5I74T !*$4675$+".)."'$F.))T !*$4675$+".)."'$F.))$7M8I7186 57?6?5I74T !*$4675$+".)."'$F.))T !*$4675$+".)."'$F.))=>M746166 C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>2?D-$6166$4MI5214> 5>2?2D668Q.*O)*,M$@! 16234I34675 N\[6I644654I%\[$A*H&.,%\[$A*H&.,$5M65D1I8 C "&)$J ,$:0* ;$V B(*,$5>2?2-$6166$5M65D1I8 C "&)$J ,$234I34675-$6166$>6M6?71>> A*H ,"$C "&)$\\DD$ 0* ;#\]- $6166$4?6M65814> %$:0* ;#$('$<&"*$=$<*"&.)$('$:0* ;$<&"*$\\234534675$$4-78$%9\]%&O*$2 CONSENT ITEM 5B MEMORANDUM DATE: July 28, 2014 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: Sue Iverson, Director of Finance and Administrative Services Kyle Howard, Finance Analyst nd SUBJECT: 2014 2 Quarter Actuals Background/Discussion nd Attached are the 2 Quarter Actuals for 2014. The overall City-Wide and General Fund expenditures are running close to the projected budget estimates for the year. Currently the budget expenditures show a 33.47% budget to actual City-Wide and the General Fund at 51.21%. The City-Wide percentage is lower capital projects is only currently at 4.96% of the adopted budgeted amount. Revenue estimates are also running close to budget estimates for the City-Wide and General Fund budgets. Please remember that we receive 50% of our revenue from property taxes and did not st receive the 1 half until July, and Administrative Fines are not received until the final contract number reconciliation next March. Governmental accounting is not done on an accrual basis, therefore the numbers reflect what was actually taken in as revenue or paid out as expenditures thru June 30, 2014. Accruals, deferred revenue adjustments, etc. are only done at year-end. Basically expenditures from operating activities are running close to the budget estimates, revenues are also running close to budget estimates. (Please note that the overall percentages look lower because property taxes, liquor licenses, etc are collected at year-end.) Internal Service funds are charged back to the operating departments. We have included charges through th June 30 in these reports. These costs may seem to appear double counted when you look at the organization in total, as they appear in the internal service funds and then again as charges in the departments which used them governmental accounting determines how we show this in our fund financial statements, but adjustments are made at audit time to show only the actual expenditures as any surplus or deficits in the internal service funds are rolled into the government-wide statements so actual expenditures and revenues are shown. They are meant to operate like the enterprise funds (our utility , Insurance, Engineering, and Technology. Administrative Charges from and to other funds are only booked at year end. Memo City Council Quarterly Financial Reports 2 An Investment Portfolio has also been included with these financial reports. Per the Investment Policy, our Benchmark Rate is the 4M plus Rate. At June 30, 2014 this rate was 0.05% and our portfolio is averaging 3.009% in long-term investments and 2.148% overall. All of our investments are in government secured or government backed deposits. The section listed at the top of the portfolio is the We are trying to stay diversified in this area and will be transferring between these accounts. We have had some of our high interest notes call and are working on cash flows with the PMP and other CIP projects to determine how much we can invest and for what time periods. We are also researching other liquid investment options that will possibly give us a better return, but are still determining our immediate cash flow needs. If you have any questions, please feel free to call us. You also have available to you the Detailed Summary Trial Balance which includes all transactions from the year on the Council SharePoint page. We update this report monthly. Staff Recommendation nd Staff requests that Council accept the 2 Quarter Financial Reports. Attachments Attachment A: City-Wide Budget Summary Attachment B: General Fund Summary Attachment C: Investment Portfolio Analysis Attachment A City of Arden Hills City-Wide Budget Summary 2014 Qtr. 2 Revenues BudgetAmendedYear To DateBalanceYTD FY 2014FY 201406/30/2014Avaiable% of Budgeted Operating Revenue Mayor & Council$ --$ -$ -$ 0.00% Elections -- - - 0.00% Administration 3,524,9233,524,923 126,819 3,398,104 3.60% Finance & Administrative Services68,514 68,514 4,944 63,570 7.22% TCAAP -20,820 - - 0.00% Planning & Zoning 16,97116,971 10,948 6,023 64.51% Government Buildings87,885 87,885 - 87,885 0.00% Police & Animal Control75,173 75,173 10,424 64,749 13.87% Dispatch -- - - 0.00% Fire Protection -- - - 0.00% Emergency Management -- - - 0.00% Protective Inspections249,300 249,300 129,553 119,747 51.97% Street Maintenance 75,57875,578 39,682 35,896 52.50% Park Maintenance 9,5059,505 3,472 6,033 36.53% Recreation 97,00097,000 79,476 17,524 81.93% Celebrating Arden Hills -- - - 0.00% Transfers -- - - 0.00% Total General Fund4,225,669 4,204,849 405,319 3,799,530 9.64% Cable Fund 100,000100,000 27,516 72,484 27.52% EDA General Fund 50,00050,000 3,160 46,840 6.32% EDA Revolving Fund1,300 1,300 1,780 (480) 136.89% EDA TIF #2 Round Lake250,200 250,200 1,231 248,969 0.49% EDA TIF #3 Cottage Villas44,600 44,600 2,953 41,647 6.62% EDA TIF #4 Pres Homes95,200 95,200 - 95,200 0.00% Total Special Revenue Funds541,300 541,300 36,641 504,659 6.77% GO Tax Increment Bonds of 1998A- - 17 (17) 0.00% Total Debt Service Funds- - 17 (17) 0.00% Equipment, Bldg & Replacement- - - - 0.00% Public Safety Capital42,000 42,000 18,851 23,149 44.88% Parks Fund -- - - 0.00% TCAAP Capital 20,820- 1,171 19,649 5.62% Capital Improvement Fund (PIR)2,411,669 2,420,419 1,334,800 1,085,619 55.15% Total Capital Funds2,453,669 2,483,239 1,354,822 1,128,417 54.56% Water 2,251,7092,251,709 497,885 1,753,824 22.11% Sanitary Sewer 1,728,4051,728,405 550,574 1,177,831 31.85% Recycling 150,408150,408 3,907 146,501 2.60% Surface Water Management663,522 663,522 196,383 467,139 29.60% Total Enterprise Funds4,794,044 4,794,044 1,248,749 3,545,295 26.05% Risk Management400,433 400,433 126,613 273,820 31.62% Engineering 143,313143,313 61,041 82,272 42.59% Central Garage 226,319226,319 88,673 137,646 39.18% Technology 135,977135,977 43,827 92,150 32.23% Total Internal Service906,042 906,042 320,154 585,888 35.34% Total Operating Revenues12,920,724 12,929,474 3,365,702 9,563,772 26.03% Other Financing Sources Mayor & Council -- - - 0.00% Elections -- - - 0.00% Administration -- - - 0.00% Finance & Administrative Services- - - - 0.00% TCAAP -- - - 0.00% Planning & Zoning -- - - 0.00% Government Buildings -- - - 0.00% Police & Animal Control -- - - 0.00% Dispatch -- - - 0.00% Fire Protection -- - - 0.00% Emergency Management -- - - 0.00% Protective Inspections -- - - 0.00% Street Maintenance -- 15,000 (15,000) 0.00% Park Maintenance -- - - 0.00% Recreation -- - - 0.00% Celebrating Arden Hills -- - - 0.00% Transfers -- - - 0.00% Total General Fund- - 15,000 (15,000) 0.00% Cable Fund -- - - 0.00% EDA General Fund 50,00050,000 - 50,000 0.00% EDA Revolving Fund -- - - 0.00% EDA TIF #2 Round Lake -- - - 0.00% EDA TIF #3 Cottage Villas- - - - 0.00% EDA TIF #4 Pres Homes -- - - 0.00% Total Special Revenue Funds50,000 50,000 - 50,000 0.00% GO Tax Increment Bonds of 1998A284,772 284,772 279,423 5,350 98.12% Total Debt Service Funds284,772 284,772 279,423 5,350 98.12% Equipment, Bldg & Replacement310,765 310,765 - 310,765 0.00% Public Safety Capital -- - - 0.00% Parks Fund -- - - 0.00% TCAAP Capital -- - - 0.00% Capital Improvement Fund (PIR)- 162,417 162,417 - 100.00% Total Capital Funds310,765 473,182 162,417 310,765 34.32% Water -- - - 0.00% Sanitary Sewer -- - - 0.00% Recycling -- - - 0.00% Surface Water Management- - - - 0.00% Total Enterprise Funds- - - - 0.00% Risk Management -- - - 0.00% Engineering -- - - 0.00% Central Garage -- - - 0.00% Technology -- - - 0.00% Total Internal Service- - - - 0.00% Total Other Financing Sources645,537 807,954 456,840 351,115 56.54% Prior Period Adjustment- - - - Total Revenues13,566,261$ 13,737,428$ 3,822,541$ 9,914,887$ 27.83% City of Arden Hills City-Wide Budget Summary 2014 Qtr. 2 Expenditures BudgetAmendedYear To DateBalanceYTD FY 2014FY 201406/30/2014Avaiable% of Budgeted Operating Expenses Mayor & Council$ 82,41982,419$ 38,803$ 43,616$ 47.08% Elections 18,91018,910 9,455 9,455 50.00% Administration 296,009296,009 116,594 179,415 39.39% Finance & Administrative Services167,250 167,250 85,170 82,080 50.92% TCAAP 116,099307,321 47,022 69,077 40.50% Planning & Zoning 240,595240,595 100,505 140,090 41.77% Government Buildings210,798 210,798 108,170 102,628 51.31% Police & Animal Control1,039,029 1,039,029 518,876 520,153 49.94% Dispatch 60,35260,352 25,147 35,205 41.67% Fire Protection 431,006431,006 431,006 0 100.00% Emergency Management15,496 15,496 1,550 13,946 10.00% Protective Inspections279,998 279,998 127,227 152,771 45.44% Street Maintenance469,593 469,593 195,382 274,211 41.61% Park Maintenance 492,112492,112 176,887 315,225 35.94% Recreation 235,181235,181 92,348 142,834 39.27% Celebrating Arden Hills -- - - 0.00% Reserves/Contingency -- - - 0.00% Transfers -- - - 0.00% Total General Fund4,346,069 4,154,847 2,074,142 2,080,705 49.92% Cable Fund 117,891117,891 59,985 57,906 50.88% EDA General Fund 98,51298,512 30,398 68,114 30.86% EDA Revolving Fund -- - - 0.00% EDA TIF #2 Round Lake2,300 2,300 68 2,233 2.93% EDA TIF #3 Cottage Villas4,700 4,700 68 4,633 1.44% EDA TIF #4 Pres Homes7,500 7,500 68 7,433 0.90% Total Special Revenue Funds230,903 230,903 90,586 140,317 39.23% GO Tax Increment Bonds of 1998A- - - - 0.00% Total Debt Service Funds- - - - 0.00% Equipment, Bldg & Replacement- - - - 0.00% Public Safety Capital -- - - 0.00% Parks Fund -- - - 0.00% TCAAP Capital -- - - 0.00% Capital Improvement Fund (PIR)- - - - 0.00% Total Capital Funds- - - - 0.00% Water 1,932,4911,932,491 564,413 1,368,078 29.21% Sanitary Sewer 1,533,6641,533,664 604,446 929,218 39.41% Recycling 149,574149,574 48,786 100,788 32.62% Surface Water Management427,296 427,296 167,621 259,675 39.23% Total Enterprise Funds4,043,025 4,043,025 1,385,266 2,657,759 34.26% Risk Management413,932 413,932 172,344 241,588 41.64% Engineering 143,367143,367 55,617 87,750 38.79% Central Garage 225,844225,844 87,886 137,958 38.91% Technology 135,942135,942 45,448 90,494 33.43% Total Internal Service919,085 919,085 361,295 557,790 39.31% Total Operating Expenses9,539,082 9,347,860 3,911,289 5,436,571 41.84% Capital Outlay Mayor & Council -- - - 0.00% Elections -- - - 0.00% Administration -- - - 0.00% Finance & Administrative Services- - - - 0.00% TCAAP -- - - 0.00% Planning & Zoning -- - - 0.00% Government Buildings -- - - 0.00% Police & Animal Control -- - - 0.00% Dispatch -- - - 0.00% Fire Protection -- - - 0.00% Emergency Management -- - - 0.00% Protective Inspections -- - - 0.00% Street Maintenance -- - - 0.00% Park Maintenance -- - - 0.00% Recreation -- - - 0.00% Celebrating Arden Hills -- - - 0.00% Transfers -- - - 0.00% Total General Fund- - - - 0.00% Cable Fund 17,04517,045 5,559 11,486 32.61% EDA General Fund 40,00040,000 5,650 34,350 14.13% EDA Revolving Fund -- - - 0.00% EDA TIF #2 Round Lake159,481 159,481 - 159,481 0.00% EDA TIF #3 Cottage Villas- - - - 0.00% EDA TIF #4 Pres Homes -- - - 0.00% Total Special Revenue Funds216,526 216,526 11,209 205,317 5.18% GO Tax Increment Bonds of 1998A- - - - 0.00% Total Debt Service Funds- - - - 0.00% Equipment, Bldg & Replacement340,000 340,000 218,214 121,786 64.18% Public Safety Capital49,280 49,280 26,311 22,969 53.39% Parks Fund -- 582 (582) 0.00% TCAAP Capital 206,222- 87,466 118,756 42.41% Capital Improvement Fund (PIR)2,695,287 2,695,287 133,559 2,561,728 4.96% Total Capital Funds3,084,567 3,290,789 466,132 2,824,657 14.16% Water 326,800326,800 4,048 322,752 1.24% Sanitary Sewer 569,060569,060 - 569,060 0.00% Recycling -- - - 0.00% Surface Water Management449,000 449,000 - 449,000 0.00% Total Enterprise Funds1,344,860 1,344,860 4,048 1,340,812 0.30% Risk Management -- - - 0.00% Engineering -- - - 0.00% Central Garage -- - - 0.00% Technology -- - - 0.00% Total Internal Service- - - - 0.00% Total Capital Outlay4,645,953 4,852,175 481,388 4,370,787 9.92% Debt Service GO Tax Increment Bonds of 1998A284,772 284,772 279,423 5,350 98.12% Total Debt Service284,772 284,772 279,423 5,350 98.12% Other Financing Uses Mayor & Council -- - - 0.00% Elections -- - - 0.00% Administration -- - - 0.00% Finance & Administrative Services- - - - 0.00% TCAAP -15,000 - - 0.00% Planning & Zoning -- - - 0.00% Government Buildings -- - - 0.00% Public Safety -- - - 0.00% Emergency Management -- - - 0.00% Police & Animal Control -- - - 0.00% Dispatch -- - - 0.00% Fire Protection -- - - 0.00% Street Maintenance -- - - 0.00% Park Maintenance -- - - 0.00% Recreation -- - - 0.00% Celebrating Arden Hills -- - - 0.00% Transfers 212,41750,000 162,417 50,000 76.46% Total General Fund65,000 212,417 162,417 50,000 76.46% Cable Fund -- - - 0.00% EDA General Fund -- - - 0.00% EDA Revolving Fund -- - - 0.00% EDA TIF #2 Round Lake284,772 284,772 279,422 5,350 98.12% EDA TIF #3 Cottage Villas- - - - 0.00% EDA TIF #4 Pres Homes -- - - 0.00% Total Special Revenue Funds284,772 284,772 279,422 5,350 98.12% GO Tax Increment Bonds of 1998A- - - - 0.00% Total Debt Service Funds- - - - 0.00% Equipment, Bldg & Replacement- - - - 0.00% Public Safety Capital -- - - 0.00% Parks Fund -- - - 0.00% TCAAP Capital 15,000- - 15,000 0.00% Capital Improvement Fund (PIR)50,000 50,000 - 50,000 0.00% Total Capital Funds50,000 65,000 - 65,000 0.00% Water 68,39668,396 - 68,396 0.00% Sanitary Sewer 96,87096,870 - 96,870 0.00% Recycling -- - - 0.00% Surface Water Management65,499 65,499 - 65,499 0.00% Total Enterprise Funds230,765 230,765 - 230,765 0.00% Risk Management -- - - 0.00% Engineering -- - - 0.00% Central Garage -- - - 0.00% Technology -- - - 0.00% Total Internal Service- - - - 0.00% Total Other Financing Uses630,537 792,954 441,839 351,115 55.72% Total Expenditures15,100,344$ 15,277,761$ 5,113,939$ 10,163,822$ 33.47% City of Arden Hills General Fund Summary 2014 QTR. 2 Revenues BudgetAmendedYear To DateBalanceYTD ActivityFY 2014FY 201406/30/2014Avaiable% of Budgeted Taxes 101-41300-31010Current Ad Valorem Taxes3,257,456$ 3,257,456$ -$ 3,257,456 0.00% 101-41300-31011Payments in Lieu of Taxes- - - - 0.00% 101-41300-31020Delinquent Ad Valorem Taxes22,000 22,000 - 22,000 0.00% 101-41300-31030Mobile Home Tax7,500 7,500 - 7,500 0.00% 101-41300-31040Fiscal Disparities -- - - 0.00% 101-41300-31510Aggregate Removal Tax600 600 - 600 0.00% 101-41300-31910Penalties & Interest on Taxes- - - - 0.00% 101-41300-31920Forfeited Tax Sales- - - - 0.00% Total Taxes3,287,556 3,287,556 - 3,287,556 0.00% Licenses and Permits 101-41300-32110Liquor, On Sale & Sunday24,000 24,000 19,154 4,846 79.81% 101-41300-32111Liquor, Off Sale -- 462 (462) 0.00% 101-41300-32150Inspection Fees2,000 2,000 948 1,052 47.40% 101-41300-32160Contractors 6,7506,750 5,927 823 87.81% 101-41910-32170Rental Regulation Fee3,400 3,400 3,402 (2) 100.06% 101-41300-32180Business Licenses13,650 13,650 8,834 4,816 64.72% 101-41300-32181Other Business Lic/Permits1,500 1,500 158 1,342 10.53% 101-41300-32182Tabacco License1,300 1,300 1,342 (42) 103.23% 101-42400-32210Plan Review & Bldg Permits133,000 133,000 63,252 69,748 47.56% 101-42400-32220Mechanical Permits26,000 26,000 11,692 14,308 44.97% 101-42400-32230Plumbing Permits10,000 10,000 6,952 3,048 69.52% 101-41300-32240Animal Licenses2,200 2,200 2,380 (180) 108.16% 101-41910-32250Sign Permits 893893 1,202 (309) 134.60% 101-41300-32250Sign Permit Renewal2,100 2,100 1,428 672 68.00% 101-42400-32260Electrical Permits20,000 20,000 10,099 9,901 50.50% 101-42400-32270Utility Permit Fees300 300 2,209 (1,909) 736.33% 101-42400-32275Fire Suppression Permits6,000 6,000 3,475 2,525 57.91% 101-42400-32278Fire Permit Plan Check Fee3,000 3,000 1,771 1,229 59.05% 101-41910-32279Erosion/Grading Permit1,680 1,680 790 890 47.02% 101-41300-32280Other Nonbusiness Lic/Permits2,100 2,100 50 2,050 2.38% Total Licenses and Permits259,873 259,873 145,526 114,347 56.00% Intergovernmental Revenues 101-41300-33402Market Value Homestead Credit- - - - 0.00% 101-41300-33403Mobile Home Homestead Credit- - - - 0.00% 101-41300-33420State PERA Aid5,179 5,179 - 5,179 0.00% 101-41500-33421Local Preformance Aid- - - - 0.00% 101-42100-33416Police Aid 37,07337,073 1 37,072 0.00% 101-43100-33418MSA Maintenance75,028 75,028 39,643 35,385 52.84% 101-41910-33422State Grants -- - - 0.00% 101-41600-33610County Grants & Aids20,820 - - - 0.00% 101-41410-33621Other County Grants & Aids- - - - 0.00% Other Intergovernmental138,100 117,280 39,644 77,636 33.80% Charges for Services 101-41910-34103Zoning and Subdivision Fees- - 128 (128) 0.00% 101-41910-34104Plan Checking Fees- - - - 0.00% 101-41300-34105Sale of Maps and Publications- - 4 (4) 0.00% 101-41910-34106Plat & Other Fees10,000 10,000 4,830 5,170 48.30% 101-41300-34108Admin Chgs from other funds24,180 24,180 - 24,180 0.00% 101-41500-34108Admin Chgs from other funds54,014 54,014 - 54,014 0.00% 101-41940-34108Admin Chgs from other funds87,885 87,885 - 87,885 0.00% 101-41910-34110Zoning Permit Fees893 893 596 297 66.74% 101-41500-34250Business Subsidiary App Fee2,000 2,000 - 2,000 0.00% 101-41300-34120Water Tower Antenna Rentals76,486 76,486 61,535 14,951 80.45% 101-41300-34121Other General Govt Charges3,500 3,500 3,368 132 96.23% 101-41500-34122Admin Charge-Staff Time- - - - 0.00% 101-42400-34104Plan Check Fee42,000 42,000 26,019 15,981 61.95% 101-42100-34202False Alarms 1,0001,000 480 520 48.00% 101-42100-34206Impound Fees -- - - 0.00% 101-42400-34207State Building Code Surcharges8,000 8,000 3,550 4,450 44.37% 101-42400-34208City Building Code Surcharges1,000 1,000 535 465 53.50% 101-41940-34101City Hall Rental -- - - 0.00% 101-45200-34300Park Facility Rental Fees4,230 4,230 - 4,230 0.00% 101-45200-34301Youth Program Field Use3,675 3,675 3,472 203 94.48% 101-45200-34302Adult Program Field Use1,600 1,600 - 1,600 0.00% 101-45120-34730Summer Playground Fees14,500 14,500 15,135 (635) 104.38% 101-45120-34740Summer Trip Fees -- - - 0.00% 101-45120-34781Adult Programs31,000 31,000 21,735 9,265 70.11% 101-45120-34782Youth Programs40,000 40,000 34,829 5,171 87.07% 101-45120-34785Adult Softball -- - - 0.00% 101-45120-34790After School Programs10,000 10,000 7,051 2,949 70.51% 101-45120-34791Special Events Programs1,500 1,500 726 774 48.40% 101-41500-34950Other Charges for Services- - 35 (35) 0.00% 101-41910-34950Other Charges for Services105 105 - 105 0.00% Total Charges for Services417,568 417,568 184,028 233,540 44.07% BudgetAmendedYear To DateBalanceYTD ActivityFY 2014FY 201406/30/2014Avaiable% of Budgeted Fines & Forfeits 101-42100-35110Highway Patrol Fines2,000 2,000 350 1,650 17.50% 101-42100-35130DWI Forfeitures 500500 2,703 (2,203) 540.68% 101-42100-35140Violations Bureau16,000 16,000 6,891 9,109 43.07% 101-42100-35150Tobacco Fines 300300 - 300 0.00% 101-42100-35160Administrative Fines12,600 12,600 - 12,600 0.00% 101-42100-35200Forfeits 500500 - 500 0.00% Total Fines & Forfeits31,900 31,900 9,944 21,956 31.17% Special Assessments 101-41300-36100Special Assessments1,822 1,822 - 1,822 0.00% 101-41300-36101Delinquent Sp Assessments- - - - 0.00% 101-41300-36102Penalties and Int Sp Assessments- - - - 0.00% 101-41300-36103PrePaid Special Assessments- - - - 0.00% Total Special Assessments1,822 1,822 - 1,822 0.00% Miscellaneous 101-41300-36210Interest Income65,000 65,000 18,996 46,004 29.22% 101-41300-36230Contributions/Donations3,600 3,600 - 3,600 0.00% 101-41940-36230Contributions/Donations- - - - 0.00% 101-45120-36230Contributions/Donations- - - - 0.00% 101-45400-36230Contributions/Donations- - - - 0.00% 101-45200-36230Contributions/Donations- - - - 0.00% 101-41600-36230Contributions/Donations- - - - 0.00% 101-41300-36215Candidate Filing Fee- - - - 0.00% 101-41910-36240Developer Reimbursements- - - - 0.00% 101-41600-36240Developer Reimbursements- - - - 0.00% 101-41500-36245Conduit Debt Application Fee- - 500 (500) 0.00% 101-41500-36246Conduit Debt Fees9,500 9,500 4,409 5,091 46.41% 101-43100-36277Night Time Construction Waiver- - - - 0.00% 101-43100-36270Miscellaneous Reimbursements550 550 39 511 7.09% 101-41300-36270Miscellaneous Reimbursement1,000 1,000 2,234 (1,234) 223.40% 101-41500-36270Miscellaneous Reimbursement3,000 3,000 - 3,000 0.00% 101-41940-36270Miscellaneous Reimbursement- - - - 0.00% 101-43100-36275Private Street Light Reimbursements- - - - 0.00% 101-43100-36280Other Miscellaneous Revenue1,000 1,000 - 1,000 0.00% 101-41500-36270Other Miscellaneous Revenue- - - - 0.00% 101-41910-36280Other Miscellaneous Revenue- - - - 0.00% 101-42100-36280Miscellaneous Reimbursement5,200 5,200 (1) 5,201 -0.02% 101-42400-36280Fire Inspection Reimbursement- - - - 0.00% Total Miscellaneous88,850 88,850 26,177 62,673 29.46% Total Operating Revenues 4,204,8494,225,669 405,319 3,799,530 9.64% Other Financing Sources 101-42100-39101Sales of General Fixed Assets- - 15,000 (15,000) 0.00% 101-41600-39203Transfer -- - - 0.00% 101-45200-39203Transfer -- - - 0.00% Total Other Financing Sources -- 15,000 (15,000) 0.00% Total General Fund Revenue$ 4,204,8494,225,669$ 420,319$ 3,784,530$ 10.00% City of Arden Hills General Fund Summary 2014 Qtr. 2 Expenditures BudgetAmendedYear To DateBalanceYTD FY 2014FY 201406/30/2014Avaiable% of Budgeted Operating Expenses Mayor & Council82,419$ 82,419$ 38,803$ 43,616$ 47.08% Elections 18,91018,910 9,455 9,455 50.00% Administration296,009 296,009 116,594 179,415 39.39% Finance & Administrative Services167,250 167,250 85,170 82,080 50.92% TCAAP 116,099307,321 47,022 69,077 40.50% Planning & Zoning240,595 240,595 100,505 140,090 41.77% Government Buildings210,798 210,798 108,170 102,628 51.31% Police & Animal Control1,039,029 1,039,029 518,876 520,153 49.94% Dispatch 60,35260,352 25,147 35,205 41.67% Fire Protection431,006 431,006 431,006 0 100.00% Emergency Management15,496 15,496 1,550 13,946 10.00% Protective Inspections279,998 279,998 127,227 152,771 45.44% Street Maintenance469,593 469,593 195,382 274,211 41.61% Park Maintenance492,112 492,112 176,887 315,225 35.94% Recreation 235,181235,181 92,348 142,834 39.27% Celebrating Arden Hills- - - - 0.00% Reserves/Contingency- - - - 0.00% Transfers 212,41750,000 162,417 50,000 76.46% Total Operating Expenses 4,367,2644,396,069 2,236,559 2,130,705 51.21% Capital Outlay Mayor & Council -- - - 0.00% Elections -- - - 0.00% Administration -- - - 0.00% Finance & Administrative Services- - - - 0.00% TCAAP -- - - 0.00% Planning & Zoning -- - - 0.00% Government Buildings- - - - 0.00% Police & Animal Control- - - - 0.00% Dispatch -- - - 0.00% Fire Protection -- - - 0.00% Emergency Management- - - - 0.00% Protective Inspections- - - - 0.00% Street Maintenance -- - - 0.00% Park Maintenance -- - - 0.00% Recreation -- - - 0.00% Celebrating Arden Hills- - - - 0.00% Transfers -- - - 0.00% Total Capital Outlay -- - - 0.00% Other Finance Uses TCCAP -15,000 - - 0.00% Total Other Financing Uses -15,000 - - 0.00% Total General Fund Expenses$ 4,367,2644,411,069$ 2,236,559$ 2,130,705$ 51.21% Revenue Over/(Under) Expenses(185,400) (162,415) (1,816,240) 1,653,825 Attachment C CONSENT ITEM 5C MEMORANDUM DATE: July 28, 2014 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: Kyle Howard, Finance Analyst Sue Iverson, Director of Finance and Administrative Services SUBECT: Purchase Card Policy Requested Action Motion to approve the revised Purchasing Card Policy. Discussion With the current adoption of the revised Purchasing Policy, staff has also reviewed and updated Purchase Card Policy. Staff revised the current policy that was adopted in October of 2008. The changes made 2 Purchasing. This section sets the maximum single transaction limit to those stated in the Purchasing Policy under the Authorization Limit section. The other change made was to section covers the Purchase Card monthly limits. It has been modified to reflect the signing levels of Directors, $2,500 and $5,000, this change also follows . An exception clause has been added that would allow Finance to raise the total monthly limit on an card above these limits if needed. There were no other changes made to the policy other than those stated above. Attachments Attachment A Revised City Purchase Card Policy City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for July 28, 2014 11 Page of Attachment A CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA FINANCIAL POLICIES- CITY CREDIT/PURCHASE CARD POLICY Revised 7-28-14 Purpose The City of Arden Hills will provide credit/charge cards to each department to make work related purchases and payment of goods and services when demonstrated Use of the card for personal purchases is strictly prohibited. efficiencies are gained. Organizations Affected All employees who have a City credit/charge card issued to them are subject to this policy. Employees on administrative leave may not make charges to the credit/charge card and must return card to their immediate supervisor upon being put on administrative leave. Procedure 1) Application for Credit/Charge Card i. A department may request a credit/charge card for selected employees when there is a demonstrated efficiency to be gained. The request for a City Credit/Charge card must be made to the appropriate Department Head with approval by the City Administrator. Upon approval, request is then made to the Finance Director by Department Head. ii. Employee must sign an agreement with the City of Arden Hills regarding use of credit/charge card. iii. Employee agrees to comply with terms and conditions of the Associated Card Service Cardholder Agreement and this Policy. 2) Purchases must i. Any purchase on the credit/charge card be work related and not for personal use. ii. Employee is responsible for providing a receipt for each transaction and attaching such receipt to the appropriate credit/charge card bill. iii. Any single transaction in excess of $1,000 must have prior authorization from the City Administrator or his/her designated representative. iv. Single Transaction limits shall follow the Citys Purchasing Policy section pertaining to the Authorization Limits. Directors can authorize employees to have a limit up to their signing authority level or can restrict the limit to a lesser amount. The City of Arden Hills Page 1 7/25/2014 v. Monthly credit limits on individual cards are set at $3,000 $2,500 or $5,000. Exceptions may be granted for a higher limit for select card holders if the maximum monthly limit of the signing Director is restricting the usefulness of the card. vi. Credit/Charge card shall only be used by person whose name is on the card. 3) Payment i. Payment of credit/charge card statements is to be made promptly to avoid finance charges. Receipts shall be attached to payment. If there is no receipts, payment would be made only after the City Administrator, or his/her designated representative, has signed and approved of the expenditure. ii. Individual purchases shall be listed separately on pay authorizations and coded to the proper account. iii. If a credit/charge card is due on a statement, such as for returned merchandise, it 4) Lost or Stolen Card 1. If your credit/charge card is lost or stolen, immediately contact Associated Card Services at the number on back side of credit card and then notify the Finance Department. 5) Misuse of Credit/Charge Card 1. Employee may be disciplined up to and including discharge for misuse of credit/charge card as stated in this policy, or as deemed appropriate by the City Council. 6) Cancellation of Credit/Charge Card i. Upon resignation, retirement, termination, administrative leave, leave of absence, or any other means of leaving employment of the City of Arden Hills, employee must immediately surrender credit/charge card to immediate supervisor. ii. The City of Arden Hills reserves the right to cancel any credit/charge card at any time for any reason. Approval by the City Council the 28th Day of July, 2014. ________________________________________________ __________ David Grant, Mayor Date ________________________________________________ __________ Patrick Klaers, City Administrator Date The City of Arden Hills Page 2 7/25/2014 CONSENT ITEM 5D MEMORANDUM DATE: July 28, 2014 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: Sue Iverson, Director of Finance and Administrative Services SUBJECT: Accepting Donation from the Arden Hills Foundation Staff Recommendation Motion to approve Resolution 2014-038, a resolution accepting a donation from the Arden Hills Foundation in the amount of $1,300. Background The Arden Hills Foundation has been established as a 501c3 organization. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 465.03 for the benefit of its citizens, cities are authorized to accept gifts and bequest for the benefits of recreational services. Discussion The Arden Hills Foundation has donated $1,300 to the City of Arden Hills for park benches. To comply with State Statutes, the City needs to acknowledge the donation and issue receipt of the donation to the Arden Hills Foundation. 11 Page of Attachment A CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2014-038 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DONATION WHEREAS, Arden Hills is generally authorized to accept donations of real and personal property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 465.03 for the benefit of its citizens, and is specifically authorized to accept gifts and bequests for the benefit of recreational services pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 471.17; and WHEREAS, The following entity has offered to contribute the cash amount set forth below to the city: Name of Donor Amount Arden Hills Foundation $1,300 WHEREAS, All such donations have been contributed to assist the city in the establishment and operation of recreational facilities and programs either alone or in cooperation with others, as allowed by law; and WHEREAS , The City Council finds that it is appropriate to accept the donations offered. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA, THAT: 1. The donation described above is accepted and shall be used to establish recreational facilities either alone or in cooperation with others, as allowed by law. 2. th PASSED AND ADOPTED on this 28 day of July, 2014. _______________________________ David Grant, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Amy Dietl, City Clerk CONSENT ITEM 5E MEMORANDUM DATE: July 28, 2014 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: Terry Maurer, Public Works Director SUBJECT: TCAAP Infrastructure Analysis Cost Sharing Agreement Requested Action Approve the Cost Sharing Agreement for Consultant Services with Ramsey County for the TCAAP infrastructure preliminary analysis in the amount of $144,312. Background/Discussion Ramsey County solicited for consultant services for preliminary and final design services regarding infrastructure to service the TCAAP site. After review of the proposals and interviews of which the City took part, the team of Kimley-Horn/Wenck was chosen. The County has provided notice to proceed on the preliminary design components of the proposal (consideration of providing notice to proceed on the final design components will be done later). Some of these items involve City utility analysis. As such, the City is being asked to enter into a cost-sharing agreement for our share of the preliminary analysis. The City is responsible for the sanitary sewer and water portion of the analysis, half the cost of the storm water preliminary design, half the cost of the design charrette, and a prorate share of the project management and overhead items. The total cost of the authorized work tasks is $965,960. The City share of this is $144,312. Attached is the Cost Sharing Agreement for Consultant Services that the City is being asked to approve and execute. Attachment Attachment A: Cost Sharing Agreement for Consultant Services 11 Page of Attachment A CONSENT ITEM 5F MEMORANDUM DATE: July 28, 2014 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: Terry Maurer, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Award Trail Maintenance Quotes Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: $50,000 $30,342 Parks Operating Budget Requested Action Accept the quote submitted by Gopher State Sealcoat, Inc., in the amount of $30,342 for trail sealcoating in Hazelnut Park, Floral Park and the trail west of Cummings Park. Background/Discussion The Park operating budget has a $50,000 line item for trail maintenance. This year we are proposing to spend the major portion of this on trail sealcoating. The trails proposed to be sealed this year are shown on the attached exhibit. Quotes were solicited and two contractors responded. The low quote was submitted by Gopher State Sealcoat, Inc., in the amount of $30,342. A copy of the quote is attached. Staff recommends authorizing the work to proceed based on the quote submitted by Gopher State Sealcoating, Inc. Attachments Attachment A: map of proposed trail sealcoating Attachment B: Gopher State Sealcoating, Inc., quote 11 Page of ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT B NEW BUSINESS –8A MEMORANDUM DATE:July 28, 2014 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM:Ryan Streff, City Planner SUBJECT:TCAAP AUAR and Mitigation Plan Requested Action Approve Resolution 2014-037adopting the TCAAP Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan. AUAR Background An Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) is a form of environmental documentation through Minnesota State Rules that evaluates development scenarios (or several scenarios) for an entiregeographical 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. AUAR and MitigationPlan The City Councilreviewed the Draft TCAAP AUAR and Mitigation Plan on June 30, 2014, during the City Council Work Session. At this meetingthe Council provided final comments on the Plan before the planwas distributed to other state agencies and the Metropolitan Council. In order to comply with the Minnesota EQB (Environmental Quality Board) Rules a 10 day objection period was given tothese otherstate agencies and the Metropolitan Council. No objections werereceived on the AUAR or Mitigation Plan. The next step in this process is for the City Council to pass a resolution adopting the TCAAP Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan. 12 Page of The TCAAP Final AUAR and Mitigation Planhas been providedin your packetfor review. Beth Kunkel from the Kimley-Horn team will be in attendance at the City Council meeting in order to explain the AUAR and Mitigation Plan and answer any questionsthe Council may have. Attachments A.Kimley-Horn Memo dated 7-23-14 B.Final TCAAP AUAR and Mitigation Plan C.Draft City Council Work Session Minutes –June 30, 2014 D.Resolution 2014-037 adopting the final AUAR and Mitigation Plan 22 Page of Attachment A Memorandum Date: July23, 2014 To: Arden Hills City Council Subject: TCAAP Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan The purpose of this memo is to provide an update on the status of the TCAAP AUAR, and the key steps remaining in the review and approval process.At the July 28 meeting, formal adoption of the AUAR and Mitigation Plan is requested. Comments on the Draft AUAR and Mitigation Plan The Draft AUAR and Mitigation Plan were provided to the City Council for review in advance of its work session on April 14, 2014. Council provided comments to project staff at that meeting, which have been incorporated into the AUAR. The public comment period for the AUAR ran from April 28 to May 28, 2014. Comments were received from the following: Minnesota Departmentof Health Minnesota Department of Transportation Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Metropolitan Council City of Shoreview Lyle Salmela Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan Following the comment period, comments were reviewed by City, County, and consultantstaff. Comment letters and responses are provided in Appendix A of the Final AUAR. Minimal changes were made to the text of the Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan based on comments received. To comply with Minnesota EQB Rules, the Final AUAR and MitigationPlan weredistributed to the EQB distribution list and any additional commenterson July 3 (for receipt on July 7).State agencies and the Metropolitan Council were allowed 10 days to object, and no objections were received. To meet EQB Rules, the scheduleisasfollows: July 28 –City Council to pass a resolution adopting the Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan at its regular meeting This meets the requirement to be at least15 business daysafter distribution/receipt of Final AUAR documents July 29 –Notice of decision submitted to EBQ for publication in next issue of EQB Monitor kimley-horn.com2550 University Avenue West, Suite 238N, St. Paul, MN 55114651 645 4197 TCAAP Final AUAR and Final Mitigation Plan PREPARED FOR: In cooperation with: PREPARED BY: July 2014 Table of Contents FINAL 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 (Rare Features) ............................................... 17 14.Historic Properties ............................................................................................................................................. 20 15.Visual ................................................................................................................................................................. 21 16.Air ...................................................................................................................................................................... 21 17.Noise ................................................................................................................................................................. 22 18.Transportation.................................................................................................................................................... 23 19.Cumulative Potential Effects .............................................................................................................................. 33 20.Other Potential Environmental Effects ............................................................................................................... 34 FINAL MITIGATION PLAN ............................................................................................................................................. 1 8.Permits and Approvals Required ........................................................................................................................... 2 11.Water Resources ................................................................................................................................................. 2 12.Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Solid Wastes .............................................................................................. 4 13.Fish, Plant Communities, And Sensitive Ecological Resources .......................................................................... 4 18.Transportation...................................................................................................................................................... 5 { RD "TCAAP Final AUAR_clean.docx" \\f }{ RD "TCAAP AUAR Final Mitigation Plan_clean.docx" \\f } Appendix A. Response to Comments on the Draft AUAR Appendix B. Correspondence Appendix C. County Well Index Information for Wells within the AUAR Study Area Appendix D. TCAAP Traffic Study July 2014 FINAL 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, the description section of an AUAR should include the following elements for each major development scenario included: Anticipated types and intensity (density) of residential and commercial/warehouse/light industrial development throughout the AUAR area; July 2014 Final AUAR 1 Infrastructure planned to serve development (roads, sewers, water, stormwater system, etc.). Roadways intended primarily to serve as adjoining land uses within an AUAR area are normally expected to be re AUAR area are an optional inclusion in the AUAR analysis; if they are included, a more intensive level of review, generally including an analysis of alternative routes, is necessary; Information about the anticipated staging of various developments, to the extent known, and of the infrastructure, and how the infrastructure staging will influence the development schedule. The AUAR study area is 427 acres owned by Ramsey County and located within the broader TCAAP site in Arden 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 consider swapping this small adjacent parks parcel to allow development on the west side of the study area for road improvements at County Road H. In return, Ramsey County/Parks would gain parkland in a more beneficial area adjacent to existing parkland on the east side of the study area. Therefore, the AUAR study area evaluated throughout this document refers to the 429 acre boundary. The AUAR study area is bounded by County Road (CR) 96 on the south, on the west by Trunk Highway (TH) 10 and Interstate 35W (I-35W), on the north by State of Minnesota property, and on the east by the National Guard property (see Figure 5-3). The TCAAP site was property of the US Department of the Army from 1941 to 1978 and was used to manufacture and test munitions. The full TCAAP site is approximately 2,400 acres, of which on the eastern 1,600 acres are licensed to the National Guard and are used for training purposes. The western portion of the site is largely vacant, with 44 abandoned buildings that were demolished in 2013. The AUAR study area, which is on the western portion of the TCAAP site, was purchased by Ramsey County to 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 initiating this environmental study. A Joint Development Authority (JDA) has been established between the City and County to represent both interests in future development. The JDA was created to implement a master plan and oversee redevelopment activities. The JDA will be the decision making body for development proposals and ensure implementation of approved mitigation plan. JDA members include two County Commissioners, two City Councilmembers, and an additional non-elected City appointee. As part of the site development process, the City of Arden Hills has undertaken two other planning studies including development of a site Master Plan, and creation of site-specific development regulations and policies for 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 development regulations and policies will refine the character and image of the development and codify the Master Plan (e.g., setbacks, heights, etc.). The final mitigation plan from this AUAR will be incorporated into the site regulations and policies. Based on the existing Arden Hills zoning code, allowed uses within the AUAR study area include retail, non-retail commercial (i.e., office, light industrial), residential, and park (i.e., recreational). The AUAR Order approved by the City of Arden Hills defined two scenarios to be evaluated in the AUAR. The first scenario, referred to as the Zoning Scenario approved comprehensive plan and the associated development limits includcurrent zoning code. It includes up to 1,500 residential units, 500,000 square feet of 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 the anticipated capacity of the transportation network. This scenario includes up to 2,500 residential units, 550,000 square feet of retail, and 1,950,000 square feet of non-retail commercial (Figure 5-3). July 2014 Final AUAR 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 CR 96 and the other at CR H. Ramsey County proposes to construct a roadway through the site, connecting these two access points. From this newly created access roadway, the city can develop a logical system of streets to provide safe and efficient access to the site. The proposed County Road will carry the majority of traffic volumes on site and will be designed as a low- speed, four-lane divided section with a trail on one side and sidewalk on the other (see Figure 5-4). It will be designed to County State Aid Highway (CSAH) standards. A supportive network of city streets that branch from the county road will provide access to neighborhoods and businesses. Off-site roadway improvements necessary to support both scenarios can be found in Item 18: Transportation. The site will also contain a system of wet and dry utilities that will be constructed within the proposed County Road corridor. The City of Arden Hills will construct the public utilities (water, sanitary and storm sewer), while right of way will be made available for private utilities (gas, electric, and telecommunications). The City will be reimbursed for its infrastructure expenditures through special assessments to developers and/or property owners. All utilities 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 developed on site to manage runoff, provide treatment, and serve as an integral amenity/green corridor within the planned development (see Item 11: Water Resources for more information). Due to the presence of contaminated soils and groundwater in the AUAR study area from the prior use as an army ammunition plant, the redevelopment will be preceded by environmental cleanup efforts and soil remediation. This 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 development is expected to take up to two years with an anticipated completion date of 2016. Development of individual lots would then move forward in a phased approach dependent on demand over an anticipated 10 to 20 year timeframe. 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 five stories are allowed under the current Comprehensive Plan, which is comparable to other development adjacent to the adjacent I-35W corridor. July 2014 Final AUAR 3 AUAR Guidance: No changes from the EAW form, except that the information should be given for each major 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 areas within the site at this time, except for the site infrastructure. This AUAR recognizes that the density of land uses may vary from what is identified in the two scenarios being evaluated. In the 10 to 20 year development timeframe, there will likely be changes in the market, 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 compensate for those impacts. The key factor driving site density is traffic capacity of the two site access points, and the site generated traffic volumes are driven by the mix of land use types. Table 6-2 lists the equivalency of each land use type with regard to traffic generation. The unit rates have been blended for each land use to account for variability in the subtypes for each use (i.e., single family, multi-family, or senior housing). For example, one unit of residential space generates the same number of trips per day as 0.17 units of retail use. Thus, if density of any land use shifts from what is covered in the defined scenarios, the following table can be used to adjust the other uses accordingly as development plans are proposed and approved, so as not to exceed established thresholds for mitigation. 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 multi-use site. Equivalency exchange examples: 20 units of residential (20 dwelling units) can be replaced with 15 units of non-retail commercial (15,000 square feet) (20 x 0.75 = 15) 10 units of retail (10,000 square feet of gross leasable area) can be replaced with 60 units of residential (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 area (GLA) 1 Unit of Non-Retail Commercial Development = 1,000 square feet 3 July 2014 Final AUAR 4 7.CT OVER YPES AUAR Guidance: The following information should be provided instead: a.Cover type map, at least at the scale of a USGS topographic map, depicting: Wetlands identified by type (Circular 39) Watercourses rivers, streams, creeks, ditches Lakes identify public waters status and shoreland management classification 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.p showing anticipated development in relation to the cover types; this map should also maps for each major development scenario should generally be provided. See Figure 7-2 shows the proposed green corridor with respect to existing cover types. . 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 INCLUDING BOND GUARANTEES 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 Offer to Purchase with the U.S. General Services Administration for the TCAAP property. The county is financing the deal with $21.4 million in bonding, a $6 million transfer from its solid waste fund and $2 million in contingency funds. In February 2012, the County Board approved a fixed-price agreement for hazardous material abatement, demolition and site remediation. Remediation costs are anticipated to be recovered when the land is ultimately sold for private development. The City will be reimbursed for its infrastructure expenditures through special assessments to developers and/or property owners. July 2014 Final AUAR 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 Groundwater Appropriation Permit To be applied for, if needed Minnesota Department of Natural (Construction) Resources Public Waters Work Permit To be applied for Comprehensive Plan Amendment To be applied for Metropolitan Council Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit 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 NEAR THE SITE INCLUDING ,,. PARKS TRAILS PRIME OR UNIQUE FARMLANDS The 429 acre AUAR study area is a portion of a larger 2,400 acre area commonly referred to as TCAAP. The existing land use for the entire area within the AUAR boundary is designated as P/I Public & Institutional by the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Areas west and north of the AUAR boundary 1 are also Public & Institutional. The Rice Creek North Regional Trail borders the site on the north and City of Arden Hills, 2030 Comprehensive Plan, September 2009 1 July 2014 Final AUAR 6 east. There is a MnDOT facility adjacent to the north side of the site (see Figure 6-1). South of the site are single family residential properties as well as two churches. West of the site is a manufactured home community and commercial and office uses. East of the site is the Arden Hills Army Training Site (AHATS), Arden Hills City Hall, and a Ramsey County Public Works facility. 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 area within the AUAR boundary as MB Mixed Business and MR Mixed Residential. Both are described in greater detail in Table 9-1. Table 9-1. Future Land Uses Identified in City of Arden Hills 2030 Comprehensive Plan 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 Mixed Residential (MR) units per acre 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 Mixed Business (MB) industrial uses, warehousing, 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 Vento Plan) was developed by the TCAAP Reutilization Commission appointed by Congressman Bruce Vento. In 2002 the City of Arden Hills worked with a private developer on a redevelopment plan that was ultimately withdrawn due to economic infeasibility in the recession of 2008. The 1998 Rice Creek North Master Plan identified 113 acres of property to be acquired for the Rice Creek regional trail corridor. Located directly north of the AUAR study area, the property includes Rice Creek, an archaeological area, and wildlife habitat. This property was transferred to Ramsey County in 2006 by the National Park Service as part of the Federal Lands to Park Program. Ramsey County is obligated to make the site available for public recreational use, as well as preserve and protect the one acre archeological site located on the property. A trail and trail bridge has been constructed on this property. The 2003 Rice Creek North Regional Trail Master Plan Amendment and 2006 Ramsey County System Plan identified an additional 49 acres of TCAAP property to be acquired as a wildlife corridor. 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 1,500 acre Arden Hills Army Training Site (AHATS). Under the 2013 Rice Creek North Regional Trail Master Plan Amendment (approved by the Metropolitan Council on August 28, 2013), an additional 60 acres is proposedto be transferred to Ramsey County Parks and Recreation for the Rice CreekNorth Regional Trail Corridor to be added to the wildlife corridor area.This area extends to County Road I and will facilitate the construction of July 2014 Final AUAR 7 a trailhead entry driveway and additional trails. Also added is a 150 footcorridor that will establish a trail/prairie connection south to Highway 96. 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 within the AUAR boundary as M-B 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 prohibited unless compensatory floodplain storage volume is provided within the floodplain of the same water body, and a permit must be 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 the rest of Arden Hills and other communities by CR 96, TH 10, I-35, CR I, and the AHATS property and has no current public access roads. 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-retail commercial uses. The roadway network surrounding the project will experience an increase in traffic. c.I DENTIFY MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT TO MITIGATE ANY POTENTIAL I9. INCOMPATIBILITY AS DISCUSSED IN TEM B ABOVE The Master Plan generally locates residential uses to the east of the site and commercial uses to the west of the site along major roadways. This orientation puts less noise sensitive commercial uses between the highways and the more noise sensitive residential uses. The green corridor also encompasses the floodplain area within the AUAR study area, allowing it to be avoided by development. The green corridor will also provide regional stormwater management and wetland mitigation functions. 10.G,S,T/LF EOLOGY OILS AND OPOGRAPHYAND ORMS a.G-D EOLOGY ESCRIBE THE GEOLOGY UNDERLYING THE PROJECT AREA AND IDENTIFY AND MAP ANY ,, 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 FEATURES DENTIFY ANY . PROJECT DESIGNS OR MITIGATION MEASURES TO ADDRESS EFFECTS TO GEOLOGIC FEATURES According the Geologic Atlas of Ramsey County (Minnesota Geological Survey, 1992), bedrock in the AUAR study area consists of Prairie du Chien Group underlain by Jordan Sandstone and St. Lawrence and Franconia Formations. Prairie du Chien is commonly sandy or oolitic and thin-bedded dolostone for the upper half to two-thirds with the lower portion generally being massive or thick bedded dolostone and ranges from 119 to 133 feet thick. 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 in thickness from 71 to 101 feet. St. Lawrence and Franconia Formations are dolomitic shale and siltstone (ranging from 34 to 59 feet thick) underlain by very fine-grained, feldspathic sandstone, generally well-cemented with dolomite (116 to 160 feet thick). There are no karst or sinkhole features in the AUAR study area. July 2014 Final AUAR 8 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 STABILIZATION 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 as 1039, Urban land. 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 Geological Survey, 1992), the surficial soils in the study area are primarily buried, coarse meltwater stream sediment; and till beneath sandy lake sediment, with small areas of till and organic sediment. The surficial deposits in heavily developed areas, such as those in the study area, are frequently covered by thick artificial fill or reworked local materials. 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 these slopes will be provided by means of vegetation establishment, erosion control blankets, or other standard methods of erosion and sediment control devices. The earthwork associated with the development will consist of excavation and embankment for the infrastructure improvements, followed by site grading for the development of individual lots. Existing topographic information indicates that a large amount of earthwork will be needed across the site. The southeast side of the site is significantly higher than the rest of the site, and may require more grading due to more varied topography and steep slopes. It is assumed that the majority of onsite earthwork should balance on site. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed November 18, 2013 2 July 2014 Final AUAR 9 11.WR ATER ESOURCES D..... a. ESCRIBE SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER FEATURES ON OR NEAR THE SITE IN AI 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 ON THE 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. Rice Creek is a DNR Public Water. A wetland delineation conducted by Ramsey County found 58 areas that met the criteria to be considered wetland within the 429 acre AUAR study area. The 58 wetland areas collectively cover approximately 14.4 acres, of which approximately 6.5 acres are located within railroad or road ditches or were created as a result of site grading and runoff from impervious surfaces and may not be considered jurisdictional wetlands (see Figure 7-1). However, for purposes of this analysis, all areas meeting the wetland criteria (14.4 acres) were assumed jurisdictional and evaluated for impacts. Within one mile of the AUAR Waters List: Rice Creek, Long Lake (PWI #67P), and Valentine Lake (PWI #71P), of which only Rice 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 drinking water (see Figure 11-1). A wellhead protection area is a recharge area to a public well and is the area managed by the public water supplier, as identified in the wellhead protection plan, to prevent contaminants from entering public wells. Additional guidance will be required from the Minnesota Department of Health to evaluate proposed stormwater infiltration projects that are located within this area. The Army established an extensive network of monitoring wells, groundwater extraction wells, pump houses, and associated piping within the AUAR study area in the mid-1980s which operate continuously, pumping contaminated groundwater to a treatment facility also within the AUAR study area (see Figure 12-1). The Army will continue to own and operate the system regardless of changes in land ownership, and will continue to conduct all required groundwater sampling and the maintenance and monitoring of groundwater treatment facilities and associated wells, well houses, and other remediation infrastructure. 3 According to the Minnesota County Well Index, there are 170 wells located within the AUAR study area, 64 of which have not been field verified but are based on the midpoint of the Public Land Survey Wenck Associates, Inc. Response Action Plan/Development Response Action Plan, 2013. 3 July 2014 Final AUAR 10 locations reported by the driller. Of these 170 wells, 150 are listed as active. Table 11-1 provides a summary of the uses recorded for the wells within the study area, as reported by the Well Index (for locations see Figure 11-1). Additional information on the wells, including the unique well numbers, can be found in Appendix B. Many of the wells are active water quality monitoring wells, while many 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 MEASURES TO MINIMIZE OR 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 FACILITY IDENTIFY ANY PRETREATMENT MEASURES AND THE ABILITY OF THE FACILITY TO HANDLE THE ADDED WATER AND ,,, WASTE LOADINGS INCLUDING ANY EFFECTS ON OR REQUIRED EXPANSION OF MUNICIPAL . WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) operates the regional wastewater system. MCES provides wastewater service to the AUAR study area via a lift station and a series of 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 Road I and County Road H intersection. The City also has an 18-inch trunk sanitary sewer that continues east, under I-35W 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 per day (mgd). The average daily flow pumped at this lift station between 2005 and 2010 ranged from 0.47 mgd to 0.57 mgd. The corresponding allowable peak flow, reached during precipitation events, would be a maximum of ximately 3.8 mgd. Based on the MCES Sewer Available Charge (SAC) Program, the estimated peak flows generated by the Zoning Scenario and Maximum Development Scenario are 2.42 mgd and 2.75 mgd, respectively. Therefore, in the Maximum Development Scenario approximately 1.05 mgd of capacity would Minnesota Geological Survey & Minnesota Department of Health. County Well Index shapefile. Content last updated 1 4 December 2011. July 2014 Final AUAR 11 remain at the lift station after the development of the AUAR study area. Both the lift station and the regional interceptors serving the study area and southeast Mounds View have sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional flow required in each Scenario. Regional wastewater collection and treatment facilities and municipal wastewater pipes serving the study area have sufficient long-term capacity to handle the additional wastewater flow generated by both the Zoning and Maximum Development Scenarios. Sanitary sewer will need to be extended into the AUAR study area to provide sewer service to the various lots. The use of a small lift station may be required depending on future uses, but the system will primarily be gravity-based. 2) I(SSTS), F THE WASTEWATER DISCHARGE IS TO A SUBSURFACE SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS ,, DESCRIBE THE SYSTEM USED THE DESIGN FLOW AND SUITABILITY OF SITE CONDITIONS FOR SUCH . A SYSTEM No subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS) are anticipated within the AUAR study area. 3) I, F THE WASTEWATER DISCHARGE IS TO SURFACE WATER IDENTIFY THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT METHODS AND IDENTIFY DISCHARGE POINTS AND PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS TO MITIGATE .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 SITE PRIOR .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 WATERS D.D ISCUSS ANY ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FROM STORMWATER DISCHARGES ESCRIBE STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLANS INCLUDING TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT RUNOFF CONTROLS AND 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 drainage patterns and utilizing the current outfalls to Rice Creek and Round Lake. The site will require compliance with Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) rules for water quality, volume control, runoff control and erosion control. As required by RCWD, the quantity of stormwater runoff in post-development conditions will not exceed existing conditions. The runoff rate will be reduced to 80% of the existing rate because the AUAR study area is located within a Flood Management Zone as defined by RCWD. There are three existing outfalls to Rice Creek with an approximate capacity of 500 cubic feet per second, and one outfall to Round Lake with a capacity of approximately 200 cubic feet per second. Infrastructure improvements will include the rehabilitation or replacement of existing outfalls that are determined to be in poor condition. The required treatment volume is determined by the Watershed District as a function of new impervious area. The estimated treatment volumes required based on assumed impervious area coverage in the 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 for the removal of total phosphorous and July 2014 Final AUAR 12 total suspended solids. Water reuse, bio-filtration, filtration, and stormwater wetlands are also suitable for treatment within the AUAR study area. The northwest portion of the AUAR study area located north of Rice Creek is comprised of Type A soils with highly permeable soils and is well-suited for infiltration practices. Generally infiltration may not be feasible in some areas located south of Rice Creek, depending on the level of soil and groundwater remediation achieved. Rice Creek Watershed District considers infiltration infeasible where soils are per Table C2 of the District rules. Given the site history, the use of infiltration practices should be used on a case-by-case basis in areas where geotechnical and environmental testing indicates that soil contamination has been remediated. Stormwater will be conveyed to Round Lake and Rice Creek by means of underground storm sewer, vegetated swales, and wetlands. Conveyance systems will be designed in accordance with acceptable industry standards and in conformance with jurisdictional requirements. 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, particularly for buildings to be constructed with lower levels, for which caissons could be used to facilitate installation of footings and foundations. All water pumped during construction dewatering activities will be discharged in compliance with City, Watershed, and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) requirements and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, and consistent with approved Response Action Plans, as necessary. No discharge water will be directed to surface waters without prior retention in a temporary settling basin and a determination that no contamination exists. The developer will determine if groundwater is contaminated as a basis for determining discharge to storm sewer, sanitary sewer, or through a treatment process such as the existing groundwater treatment facilities. Temporary construction dewatering will require a Temporary Water Appropriations General Permit 1997-0005 if less than 50 million gallons per year and less than one year in duration. iv. SW URFACE ATERS a) W-D ETLANDS ESCRIBE ANY ANTICIPATED PHYSICAL EFFECTS OR ALTERATIONS TO WETLAND ,,, 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 ),, 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 MAJOR WATERSHED . AND IDENTIFY THOSE PROBABLE LOCATIONS July 2014 Final AUAR 13 Impacts: Given the scattered location of the site wetlands and the absence of a mass grading plan, the specific extent of wetland impacts cannot be estimated. Therefore, for purposes of this evaluation it was assumed that all 14.4 acres of wetland identified on the site would be considered waters of the US and under US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdiction, and under the jurisdiction of the Rice Creek Watershed District as the local government unit under the Wetland Conservation Act. It was assumed for this analysis that all wetlands would be impacted by site development. However, some wetland may be preserved within the proposed site green space. Mitigation Requirements: Based on compatible needs (wetlands need a water source, stormwater management needs a receiving area), the stormwater management areas and wetland replacement would be combined to the extent possible under current regulations. There are a number of constraints (topography, site grading) and challenges (staging of development) that will 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 regional stormwater/wetland mitigation plan. The USACE and Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) mitigation requirements are similar. The USACE oversees Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Rice Creek Watershed District implements the WCA or MN Rule 8420. Wetland impacts are assumed to be replaced at a 2:1 ratio, meaning for every 1 acre of wetland impacted by the project, 2 acres will either be created or wetland credits will be purchased from a state wetland bank. Given the site constraints, it is anticipated that approximately half (1:1 ratio) of wetland impacts would be replaced on site with the other half being replaced off-site by purchasing credits from the state wetland bank. The current WCA requirements for on-site project specific replacement is any new wetland created onsite would receive 75% credit. This means that to reach 14.4 acres of onsite replacement, 19.2 acres of wetland would be required along with upland buffers. This amount could be decreased if not all the wetland is impacted, or not all the wetland is jurisdictional, or if RCWD allows more replacement within the adjacent Rice Creek parklands or 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 located in the same Bank Service 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 MODIFICATION OF .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 , 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, and would allow wildlife to cross underneath. A trail crossing at this location may also be considered (under the creek bridge). It is July 2014 Final AUAR 14 assumed that the bridge will be designed to have no impact on the floodplain. Ramsey County is conducting a design study for the creek crossing and the required coordination with the RCWD. The project will not change the number or type of watercraft on any waterbody. 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 SOIL OR GROUND WATER ,,,, 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 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND .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 ammunition and related materials. Production levels varied over time and ceased in 2005. The production operations resulted in the release of hazardous substances into the environment, and in 1983 the site was placed on the National Priorities List as the New Brighton/Arden Hills Superfund Site. 5 According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the wastes disposed at TCAAP included volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (including Trichloroethylene or TCE), semi-VOCs, metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), cyanide, pesticides, and explosives. The primary impact to the surrounding communities has resulted from VOC contamination of the regional groundwater source. The AUAR study area is located in what is known as Operable Unit 2 (OU2). In 1997 a Record of Decision (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 installation of soil covers at Site C (within the AUAR study area) which was completed in 2009. A plume of VOC-contaminated groundwater was discovered around Building 102 (see Figure 12-1), and the removal action was implemented and completed in 2009. An extensive long-term monitoring program for groundwater, surface water, and sediments is currently in place and will continue into the future. 6 The US Army is the responsible party for the Superfund site. In 2010, the EPA and MPCA approved the The land use controls were aimed at areas with residual groundwater contamination, areas with residual soil contamination below the cleanup levels but above levels allowing unlimited use or unrestricted exposure, and areas with residual soil contamination above the cleanup levels (areas with covers). 5 Additional cleanup and remediation efforts are underway for the AUAR study area and will be complete in 2015. In accordance with MPCA Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) Program guidance documents, a soil Response Action Plan (RAP) and Development Response Action Plan (DRAP) have been developed for the Wenck Associates, Inc. Operable Unit 2 (OU2) Land Use Control Remedial Design (LUCRD) New Brighton/Arden Hills 5 Superfund Site. September 2010. US Environmental Protection Agency. Region 5 Superfund: New Brighton/Arden Hills/TCAAP (Summary). August 2013. 6 Accessed 6 January 2014. http://www.epa.gov/region5/superfund/npl/minnesota/MN7213820908.html. July 2014 Final AUAR 15 AUAR study area site. The RAP/DRAP addresses hot spots previously identified with contamination exceeding residential standards, any new contamination discovered during the remediation process, remediation conducted on newly discovered sites, and petroleum contamination. The RAP/DRAP does not address Site I, Site K, Building 101, and Building 102 in detail. These sites will be submitted to the MPCA under a separate review process. Previous sampling on the AUAR study area site has revealed elevated levels of the following: Metals (antimony, arsenic, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, thallium and vanadium) Carcinogenic PAHs (expressed as benzo(a)pyrene equivalents) Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Petroleum-related contamination related to historical site operations and former storage tanks. All of these soil contaminants will be remediated to comply with MPCA Tier 1 residential standards. Thirty-six hot spots that were previously identified or identified during remediation will be remediated through excavation. According to the approved site response action plan, excavated contaminated soils will be shipped with trucks to an industrial waste facility in Rosemount, Minnesota. Sampling of the excavated area will be used to confirm remediation. If an excavated site soil sample fails to meet the remediation standards, the site will be excavated until samples clear residential standards. Sites that have undergone excavation with be filled with off-site soil. All above-grade and subgrade structures and utilities will be removed. Testing will be conducted in instances where the contractor feels contamination is possible. If contamination is confirmed, the process of excavation and sampling detailed above will be implemented. There is currently a groundwater treatment and recovery system within the AUAR study area as described under Item 11b. The groundwater recovery system will remain as will the groundwater treatment building and 14 extraction wells. To accommodate development, some of the piping will be relocated outside of the AUAR study area, but the piping along the western edge of the site is anticipated to remain in place (see Figure 12-1). In areas of previous VOC contamination, testing or abatement measures for VOC vapors may be required by the City to avoid potential impacts of VOC vapors in new building spaces. 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 quantity of municipal solid waste generated and information about any recycling or source separation programs of the RGU need to be included. Construction of the future development would generate construction-related waste materials such as wood, packaging, excess materials, and other wastes, which would be either recycled or disposed in the proper facilities. The proposed development would generate new demands on solid waste management and sanitation blication Municipal Solid Waste in the United July 2014 Final AUAR 16 States was consulted as a basis for estimating Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) generation for the proposed development. It is estimated that 4.40 pounds of MSW will be generated per person per day. An average household occupancy of 2.61 was applied to the estimated residential units based on US Census Bureau 2008-2012 data, and traffic analysis was referenced with a factor of 1.59 applied to the trips generated based on US Department of Energy Vehicle 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. Per EPA document AP-42, Vol. I, Ch 2.4: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, it is estimated that the non-residential (commercial/industrial) waste stream will range between 33,900 to 39,600 tons per year under Zoning and Maximum Development Scenarios. The City of Arden Hills provides weekly curbside recycling service to single family through four-plex residential homes, including townhomes. All apartment and multi-unit building owners and managers are required to provide a recycling collection program for tenants. Recycling services are available locally for commercial and industrial uses. 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 HANDLING STORAGE .I,, AND DISPOSAL DENTIFY MEASURES TO AVOID MINIMIZE OR MITIGATE ADVERSE EFFECTS FROM THE /. GENERATIONSTORAGE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE INCLUDING SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING 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 VEGETATION ON OR IN NEAR THE SITE According to the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS), there are three primary cover types within the AUAR study area: grassland, woodland, and impervious/developed. The grassland and 7 impervious/developed areas are spread through the AUAR study area; the woodlands cover a much smaller area (see Figure 7-1). The woodland areas identified in Figure 7-1 can be described as areas with scattered woody vegetation with less than 15 percent canopy cover and an understory of smooth brome grass. The woody vegetation primarily consists of small scrubby volunteer trees and shrubs generally less than 25 feet in height, including cottonwood, juniper, box elder, Siberian elm, and Russian olive. This cover is indicative of a disturbed Land cover types were grouped based on similarity. Grassland includes grassland or emergent vegetation, grassland with 7 sparse deciduous trees, short grasses on upland soils, shrubland, tall grassland, and 4-10% impervious cover with perennial grasses. Woodland includes only upland deciduous woodland. Impervious/developed includes 26-50% impervious cover with perennial grasses, 76-90% impervious cover, buildings with 76-90% impervious cover, and pavement with 76-90% impervious cover. July 2014 Final AUAR 17 site that has regenerated with opportunistic plant species. The Minnesota Biological Survey does not show any sites of biodiversity significance or native plant communities within the AUAR study area. Just east side of the AUAR study area is the proposed Rice Creek North Regional Trail. The 2003 Rice Creek North Regional Trail Master Plan Amendment and 2006 Ramsey County System Plan identified 49 acres of TCAAP property to be acquired as a wildlife corridor. According to the 2013 Rice Creek North Regional Trail Master Plan Amendment (approved by the Metropolitan Council on August 28, 2013), an additional 60 acres is proposed to be added to the wildlife corridor (Figure 7-1). This wildlife corridor provides habitat for birds, small mammals, and invertebrates and has several osprey nesting platforms. It is also provides a wildlife habitat connection between the open space of AHATS and 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 PROXIMITY TO THE SITE 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 BEEN CONDUCTED WITHIN THE SITE . AND DESCRIBE THE RESULTS A DNR database search for the AUAR study area and surrounding area identified a number of resources known to occur near the AUAR study area, and general ecological designations portions of the site. There are no state or federal listed threatened or endangered species or rare plant communities recorded within the AUAR study area in the DNR NHIS database. State-listed occurrences found beyond the AUAR study area in or near Marsden Lake on the AHATS property include a known populati (Emydoidea blandingii state-listed threatened species); trumpeter swans (Cygnus buccinator state-listed species of special concern); and a population of the plains pocket mouse (Perognathes flavescens state- listed species of special concern, between the gravel pit and Marsden Lake). for this species includes calm, shallow wetlands (Type 1-3) with mud bottoms and abundant aquatic vegetation (e.g., cattails, water lilies). Nesting occurs in open (grassy or brushy) sandy uplands, often up to a mile from water bodies. The majority of the wetlands within the AUAR study area are not large enough to support turtles (ditches), and most of the soils are disturbed urban land. There is no record of the turtle within the AUAR study area; however, turtles are known to occur within the vicinity, and may occur within the project boundary. A turtle fact sheet that describes the habitat use and life history of the species along with two lists of recommendations for avoiding and minimizing impacts to the turtles are included in Appendix B. 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 low levels of human disturbance. The AUAR study area does not contain any suitable nesting habitat for trumpeter swans. 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 occurrences of the mouse within the AUAR study area; however the northwestern corner of the site was noted by the DNR as potentially 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 grass vegetation in the northwest corner of the site may be too dense for this species and too far from the gravel pit population to support this species (Birney, 1999). July 2014 Final AUAR 18 The DNR Central Region (in partnership with the Metropolitan Council for the 7-county metro area), have identified two Regionally Significant Ecological Areas (RSEA) within portions of the AUAR study area (Appendix B). One area overlaps with the portion of the site that is north of Rice Creek and the other overlaps with the eastern edge of the site near the existing substation. RSEA designations are 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. These two areas are designated primarily as a result of being part of a large expanse of vacant land within an urban area and their connectivity to Rice Creek and Marsden Lake, respectively. The purpose of the RSEA designation is to inform regional scale land use decisions, especially as it relates to balancing development and natural resource protection. 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 part of an international conservation effort aimed at conserving critical bird habitats. IBAs 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 bird species have been observed within the IBA boundary, which encompasses the original 2,400 acre TCAAP parcel. In 2013, four of five osprey nests/nesting platforms were removed from the AUAR study area by Ramsey County under a DNR permit. Platforms were relocated to adjacent Ramsey County parkland property. One platform remains on the powerpole at the pumphouse near the east edge of the AUAR study area. The pumphouse and pole will remain within the site. There is a reported bald eagle nesting site on the west side of Round Lake, which is approximately 0.5 miles from the southwest corner of the AUAR study area. Both 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 SPECIES FROM .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 are anticipated on state-listed species, based on It is anticipated that creation of a green corridor through the AUAR study area will provide habitat elements for turtles, birds and other wildlife. This corridor will provide an important link to the Rice Creek corridor and The City may also consider building guidelines that minimize the amount or type of glass used on multi-story building to minimize bird strikes. The development of the AUAR study area will not impact existing bald eagle or osprey nesting sites, or 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 mitigation plan. July 2014 Final AUAR 19 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 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND .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 Inventory and Historic Structures Inventory for Sections 9 and 16 of Township 30, Range 23 in Arden Hills (dated December 31, 2013) (see Appendix B). The sites listed in Table 14-1 are those that are located in quarter sections that intersect with the AUAR study area. This does not necessarily mean that the identified sites are within the AUAR study area because specific locations are not identified in the inventory. All sites possibly within the AUAR study area, based on the quarter section identifications, are listed below and were evaluated for the purposes of this analysis. 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 July 2014 Final AUAR 20 In previous site investigations, the Trap Shooting Area (21RA0022) was found to contain a pre-contact American Indian habitation/resource procurement site of approximately 0.3 acres. It sits near a western slope of Rice Creek in the Rice Creek Corridor, an area undisturbed by plowing or by the grading and filling historically conducted at the TCAAP site. It sits just outside of the AUAR study area, within the county park land. Artifacts 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 Assessment prepared by the General Services Administration (GSA) for the TCAAP study area. The archaeological investigations concluded that none of these sites were eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred with this determination, as captured in a Memorandum of Agreement signed in 2010. Based on these previous findings, no impacts to archaeological properties are anticipated as a result of the development of the AUAR study area. In the same 2011 EA, six World War II-era structures on the TCAAP site that were considered eligible for 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 Memorandum of Agreement states that the GSA adequately addressed and satisfied their obligations to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. All but one building within the AUAR study area were removed in 2013, and the remaining building (#502) is set to be demolished in 2014. Thus, there will be no structures remaining on the site and no impacts to historic/architectural properties will occur from the development of the AUAR study area. 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 demolished prior to construction of the AUAR study area. Building heights under the proposed development scenarios would range from one to six stories in the larger part of the site and up to eight stories within the smaller site area north of Rice Creek. The proposed redevelopment would occur in an urbanized area, surrounded by multiple-lane highways on the south and west (across which are residential, church, and commercial properties), AHATS to the east, and Rice Creek North 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 STACKS 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 BE TAKEN ,,. TO AVOID MINIMIZE OR MITIGATE ADVERSE EFFECTS FROM STATIONARY SOURCE EMISSIONS AUAR Guidance: This item is not applicable to an AUAR. Any stationary air emissions source large enough 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 July 2014 Final AUAR 21 Typical of most developments, the proposed development will generate air pollution as a result of increased motor vehicle activity. Motor vehicles emit a variety of air pollutants including carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and particulates. The primary pollutant of concern is CO, which is a byproduct of the combustion process of motor vehicles. CO concentrations are highest where vehicles idle for extended periods of time. For this reason, CO concentrations are generally highest in the vicinity of signalized intersections where vehicles are delayed and emitting CO. Generally, concentrations approaching state air quality standards are found within about 100 feet of a roadway source. Further from the road, the CO in the air is dispersed by the wind such that concentrations rapidly decrease. The Indirect Source Permit (ISP) rule 7023.9010 was terminated in 2001; therefore, an ISP is not required for the proposed development. A hot spot air quality screening was conducted and is described below. The EPA has approved a screening method to determine which intersections need analysis for potential hot spot air quality impacts. The screening analysis consists of two criteria. If either criterion is met, then an intersection analysis would be required. The first criterion is to determine whether the total daily approach volume of the AUAR study area exceeds 79,400 AADT. If it does, then an analysis would be required. The approach volumes at all of the signalized intersections near the AUAR study area are below approximately 40,000 AADT, with the highest being at the intersection of Lexington Avenue and CR 96, and all are well below the threshold of 79,400. Therefore, the first criterion is not met. The second criterion compares the AUAR study area to the locations of 10 intersections that the MPCA has identified as having the highest volumes in the metro area. If any of these 10 intersections were affected by either development scenario then analysis would be required. The nearest of these intersections is five 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 a result, no hot spot analysis is needed, and no measurable change in air quality is anticipated under either of the development scenarios. 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 OPERATION UGITIVE DUST MAY BE 16).D DISCUSSED UNDER ITEM A ISCUSS THE EFFECT OF DUST AND ODORS IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT .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, unless there is some unusual reason to do so. The RGU might want to discuss as part of the mitigation plan, however, any dust control 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 there is some unusual reason to do so. The RGU might want to discuss as part of the mitigation plan, however, any construction noise ordinances in effect. If the area will include or adjoin major noise sources, a noise analysis is needed to determine if any noise levels in July 2014 Final AUAR 22 excel of standards would occur, and if so, to identify appropriate mitigation measures. With respect to traffic- generated noise, the noise analysis should be based on the traffic analysis of Item 18. As stated in the AUAR guidelines, construction noise need not be addressed unless there is some unusual reason to do so. No unusual circumstances have been identified that would necessitate a detailed noise analysis. It should also be noted that all county roads are exempt from State noise standards. A sound increase of three dBA is barely noticeable by the human ear, a five dBA increase is clearly noticeable, and a 10 dBA increase is heard as twice as loud. For example, if the sound energy is doubled (i.e., the amount of traffic doubles), there is a three dBA increase in noise, which is just barely noticeable to most people. On the other hand, if traffic increases by a factor of 10, the resulting sound level will increase by about 10 dBA and be heard as twice as loud. Traffic volumes in the project area are either on roadways that do not have receivers that are sensitive to noise, or, the traffic levels attributable to the project are well below the amount that would generate a sound increase that could be noticeable. Residential areas exist on US 10 between CR 96 and I-35W, as well as along CR 96 to the east of the project. The highest traffic volume generated by the project is projected to be approximately 5,000 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 this roadway segment. The highest traffic volume generated by the project on CR 96 east of the project area is projected to be approximately 10,000 vehicles per day, which is approximately 40 percent of the background total daily traffic volume of approximately 25,000 that will exist on this roadway segment. Noise walls are currently being constructed along CR 96 west of US 10, and along US 10 for a short distance north of CR 96, as part of the 96/10 interchange construction project. The AUAR study area will be developed such that any land use activities that are sensitive to noise will have sufficient setbacks from existing noise sources to thereby reduce the potential for any noise impact. These details will be determined as the project development proceeds. Construction within the AUAR study area will result in increases in traffic noise of less than 3.0 dBA. A change in sound levels of three dBA is barely noticeable by the human ear. Therefore, the change in traffic noise levels is not anticipated to be readily perceptible. To the extent possible, construction activities will be conducted in a way such that noise levels are minimized, and that nighttime construction activities are kept to a minimum. 18.T RANSPORTATION AUAR Guidance: For AUAR reviews a detailed traffic analysis will be needed, conforming to the MnDOT guidance as listed on the EAW form. The results of the traffic analysis must be used in the response to section 22 and in the noise aspect of section 24. NOTE: Refer to the Traffic Study for the AUAR study area (included as Appendix D) for figures with 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 OCCURRENCE 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 July 2014 Final AUAR 23 the land use information for the Minimum and Maximum Development Scenarios as described as part of the Trip Generation section of this document. The existing site has no parking. 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 parking, and parking spaces are not proposed to be shared with public parking associated with the rest of the proposed 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 study area redevelopment, transportation network changes are anticipated to occur in the future. Several long term improvements are being considered by Ramsey County and MnDOT adjacent to the AUAR study area. Changes at the CR H and I- 35W interchange will influence trip distribution for the proposed AUAR study area. These improvements are shown in Figure 18-1. A description of the various transportation networks assumed 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 Aid Standards (CSAH) for intersection spacing which is ¼ mile minimum spacing for full access intersections and / minimum spacing for right-in/right-out accesses. The intent of the County would be to have the 1 8 roadway classified as a Class A Minor Arterial Highway Expander. The minor streets will primarily provide access to residences and private businesses. As the site development is refined, the roadway system will be modified to provide access, while also satisfying access spacing requirements to maintain reasonable mobility. July 2014 Final AUAR 24 Local and Regional Roadway System Connections The transportation network analysis for the surrounding system has been analyzed for the following conditions: Existing The existing roadway geometry is shown on Figure T4 (Appendix D). This scenario considers existing traffic and existing roadway geometry including the recently completed construction of the TH 10/CR 96 interchange completed in 2013. 2030 No Build The 2030 No Build roadway geometry is shown on Figure T5 (Appendix D). This scenario considers 2030 background traffic and 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. 2030 Baseline for the Minimum Development Scenario The 2030 Baseline geometry is shown on Figure T6 (Appendix D). This scenario considers infrastructure improvements at the CR 96 and I-35W interchange, Old Highway 8 at CR 96 intersection, 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 as in Minimum development scenario. Traffic Study Area Figure T4(Appendix D)shows the 14 intersections that were analyzed. 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. 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. July 2014 Final AUAR 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. 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, as required for these interchange projects. Any significant changes in the AUAR study area redevelopment plan will need to be analyzed as either an AUAR update, or the applicable regional roadway system projects. Existing Conditions Traffic 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 potential traffic operational conditions. The results are presented in Table 18-2. July 2014 Final AUAR 26 27 -ack of acceptable gaps on operate at at the CR astbound left turn fails due to lack of acceptable Multiple movements fail including the northbound LOS F due to lack of acceptable gaps and higher to high volumes being processed by an unsignalized intersection volumes similar to operations experienced eft turn and westbound left orthbound movements fail due m 2013 Existing PM gaps in the CR 96 traffic strea left and right turn due to l 35W NB ramps Issues outhbound l Not applicableNot applicableapplicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicable Operational - 96 and I CR 96 Not E S N LOS FFF AAAABAA DCCC due to outhbound left turn operating at an unacceptable operating at an unacceptable lack of acceptable the lack of acceptable gaps in the traffic flow in the and northbound right turn operating at an unacceptable LOS Final AUAR estbound left turn delay is unacceptable LOS due to lack of acceptable gaps LOS due to high volumes and 2013 Existing AM estbound left turn Northbound left turn Operational Issues East/West direction gaps on CR 96 Not applicable Not applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicable Existing Peak Hour Analysis Results movements WS W LOS F EBBABAABBAA DC CR 96 at US 10 NB Ramp North Heights CR I and N Fairview Ave Round Lake Rd W and and CR 96 35W 35W and CR 96 CR I and Old Hwy 8 35W 35W 35W 35W - - CR H and US 10 CR 96 and NB I CR 96 and SB I - Access- CR H and NB I CR H and SB I - - CR I and NB I I CR I and SB 10 Intersection CR 96 and 2. Hwy 8 Old Hwy - Church 18 July 2014 CR 96 RampRamp Table Old 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 Traffic Study, performed by SEH dated August 29, 2007. All existing conditions geometrics for this analysis were based on field verified existing intersection geometrics. Trip Generation A summary of the Minimum and Maximum Development Scenario trip generation calculations for the AM 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 provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis report included as Appendix D. Transit Transit service exists in areas adjacent the project area, and two park and ride lots exist along CR H. As the project evolves, Metro Transit will be engaged to evaluate potential transit route changes, and to potentially consider the addition of park and ride lots within the project area. July 2014 Final AUAR 28 The City of Arden Hills and Ramsey County are also interested in bringing additional transit options to the Snelling Avenue from Minneapolis to Roseville (Rosedale Center) will be open for service in 2015. A future extension of the A Line from Rosedale Center to the TCAAP site is being studied by the Metropolitan Council. Existing Park and Ride Lots: There are two existing park and ride stations along CR H. One is immediately west of I-35W south of CR H, and the other is in the northwest quadrant of CR H at TH 10, also known as the Mermaid Supper Club 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 Ride) 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 stops. 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 DESCRIBE ANY TRAFFIC .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 analysis are included in the Traffic Impact Analysis in Appendix D. The following sections include summaries of the information included in that report. Traffic Forecasts The No Build Year 2030 background traffic forecasts were previously prepared for the Draft TCAAP Redevelopment. Figure T10 (Appendix D) shows the peak hour turning movement volumes. Traffic forecasts for the year 2030 that include the AUAR study area traffic were developed by adding the AUAR study area 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 AUAR study area that make use of the proposed AUAR study area 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. July 2014 Final AUAR 29 No Build Conditions Traffic 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 AUAR study area project is implemented. Future Year 2030 background traffic as shown in Figure T10 (Appendix D) was obtained from the Draft TCAAP Redevelopment. Compared to existing conditions, the only geometric changes in the AUAR study area were the improvements at CR H at TH 10, where HSIP funds are presumed to be utilized for improvements, as shown in Figure T5 (Appendix D). These planned improvements include reconstructing the east and west legs of the CR 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. 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 (see 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 by adding the site generated traffic to the 2030 No Build traffic volumes. These turning movement traffic volumes are shown in July 2014 Final AUAR 30 Figure T15 (Appendix D). The improvements that were considered between the baseline and No Build scenarios primarily were discussed previously. Overall the baseline improvements helped the system 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 AUAR study area 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 (see Table 18-5). 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 volumes for this scenario are shown in Figure T17 (Appendix D). 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 Baseline Scenario there are some 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 PROJECT RELATED TRANSPORTATION . EFFECTS Mitigated Roadway Network Scenario Traffic Analyses Minimum Development Scenario Results 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 east 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. The County is in the process of redesigning the I-35W/CR 96 interchange. The new interchange will be designed to accommodate anticipated future traffic, including the TCAAP development. At the intersection of Round Lake Road W at CR 96, the lane use of the northbound 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. With these mitigation measures incorporated, all intersections were operating at LOS D or better with no anticipated operational issues in the AM and PM scenarios. The analysis results are presented in Table 18- 6. Table 18-6. 2030 Minimum Development Scenario Peak Hour Mitigation Traffic Analysis Results 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 Old Hwy 10 and CR 96 C D July 2014 Final AUAR 31 2030 Baseline Min Mitigated AM 2030 Baseline Min Mitigated PM Intersection LOS LOS 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 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. With these mitigation measures incorporated, all intersections were operating at LOS D or better with no anticipated operational issues in the AM and PM scenarios. The analysis results are presented in Table 18-7 . Table 18-7. 2030 Maximum Development Scenario Peak Hour Mitigation Traffic Analysis Results 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 July 2014 Final AUAR 32 CPE 19.(P UMULATIVE OTENTIAL FFECTS REPARERS CAN LEAVE THIS ITEM BLANK IF CUMULATIVE POTENTIAL EFFECTS EAWI) ARE ADDRESSED UNDER THE APPLICABLE TEMS AUAR Guidance: Because the AUAR process by its nature is intended to deal with cumulative potential effects from all future developments within the AUAR area, it is presumed that the responses to all sections on the EAW form automatically encompass the impacts from all anticipated developments within the AUAR area. However, 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 outside of the AUAR area. The cumulative potential effect descriptions may be provided as part of the responses to other appropriate EAW sections, or in response to this section. a.D ESCRIBE THE GEOGRAPHIC SCALES AND TIMEFRAMES OF THE PROJECT RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT . COULD COMBINE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS RESULTING IN CUMULATIVE POTENTIAL EFFECTS The following projects have been identified as reasonably foreseeable and have the potential to interact with either Scenario as to cause varying degrees of reasonably foreseeable cumulative impacts. Each of the identified projects is or has elements that are geographically proximate to the AUAR Study Area. Past projects are incorporated via existing conditions identified within and adjacent to the AUAR study area, 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 PROJECT WITHIN THE . GEOGRAPHIC SCALES AND TIMEFRAMES IDENTIFIED ABOVE Interstate 35W at County Road 96 interchange Ramsey County will be leading an effort to replace the current County Road 96 bridge over I-35W. The purpose of this project will be to expand capacity at the interchange to meet future traffic demand. Construction is projected to be complete in 2015. This project is in the process of preliminarydesign and environmental review. Interstate 35W at County Road H interchange Ramsey County will be leading an effort to replace the current County Road H bridge over I-35W. The purpose of this project will be to expand capacity at the interchange to meet future traffic demand and add 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 ramps are also proposed from I-35W northbound to CR H and from CR H to I-35W southbound. Construction is projected to be complete in 2016. Phases 1 and 2 of these improvements are planned by Ramsey County (Figure 18-1) while phases 3 and 4 are mitigation measures that would be required by the AUAR study area development. 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. Additional capacity will be needed at this intersection with development at the AUAR study area site. The timing of planning and construction will be coordinated in the future. July 2014 Final AUAR 33 Roadway Connections to County Road I Ramsey County has indicated that at some future time a roadway connection from the AUAR study area to County Road I may be deemed necessary. Extending Old Highway 8 which provides access to the MnDOT parcel north of the AUAR study area that includes a driving facility, is one possible opportunity, but is only 80 feet east of the I-35W east ramp/Rice Creek Parkway intersection. Extending North Fairview Avenue south into the northeast corner of the site is another possible opportunity. These connections may provide relief to the intersection at the east ramps of I-35W and County Road H as well as provide additional emergency vehicle access to the AUAR study area, however, is not determined necessary based on current traffic studies (thru 2030). Relevant traffic and environmental studies related to these connections would be completed in a separate document, if and when it is determined necessary. c.D ISCUSS THE NATURE OF THE CUMULATIVE POTENTIAL EFFECTS AND SUMMARIZE ANY OTHER AVAILABLE INFORMATION RELEVANT TO DETERMINING WHETHER THERE IS POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL . EFFECTS DUE TO THESE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Impacts resulting from the development of the AUAR study area include wetlands, wildlife, soil remediation, and traffic. Impacts of the future road projects may have impacts to wetlands and traffic. The planned future road improvements will result in a cumulative benefit to traffic conditions. All other impacts from these future projects will be addressed via regulatory permitting and approval measures, therefore individually mitigated to ensure no cumulative impacts occur to resources such as wetlands. 20.OPEE THER OTENTIAL NVIRONMENTAL FFECTS I119, F THE PROJECT MAY CAUSE ANY ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS NOT ADDRESSED BY ITEMS 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 EFFECTS No additional environmental effects are anticipated. July 2014 Final AUAR 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 Legend 35W Site Access Points 10 Proposed County Road Potential Xcel Substation Relocation AUAR Study Area Anticipated Mixed-Use Development Residential Retail Non-Retail Commercial Multi-Use Public/Open Space Rice Creek North Regional Trail Corridor 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 I Legend 35W Existing Gas 10 Existing Sanitary Existing Storm Sewer MnDOT Existing Telecomunications Facility Existing Xcel Substation Existing Interceptor Station AUAR Study Area Rice Creek North Regional Trail Corridor 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 PWI Basins Rice Creek North Regional Trail Corridor 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 Anticipated Public/Open Space Development PWI Basins Rice Creek North Regional Trail Corridor 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 FINAL MITIGATION PLAN This Mitigation Plan is submitted as part of the Final 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. This Final Mitigation Plan has been revised and updated based on comments received during the Draft AUAR comment period (see Appendix A). 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. Although mitigation strategies are discussed throughout the AUAR document, this plan will be formally adopted by the RGU as their action plan to prevent potentially significant environmental impacts. The primary mechanism for mitigation of environmental impacts is the effective use of ordinances, rules, and regulations. The plan does not modify the regulatory agencies responsibilities for implementing their respective regulatory programs, nor create additional regulatory requirements. The Mitigation Plan specifies the legal and institutional arrangements that will assure that the adopted mitigation measures are implemented. There were no impacts identified in Sections 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, or 20; therefore, these areas require no mitigation and are not included in the Final Mitigation Plan. The remaining sections have identified regulatory requirements and/or mitigation measures that reduce the level of potential impact of development within the study area. The plan is formatted consistent with the sections of the AUAR for ease of reference. July 2014 Final Mitigation Plan 1 8.PAR ERMITS AND PPROVALS EQUIRED 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 Groundwater Appropriation Permit To be applied for, if needed Minnesota Department of Natural (Construction) Resources Public Waters Work Permit To be applied for Comprehensive Plan Amendment To be applied for Metropolitan Council Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit 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 11.WR ATER ESOURCES Potential impacts and mitigation measures are the same under both Development Scenarios for water resources. Potential Impacts Regional wastewater collection and treatment facilities and municipal wastewater pipes serving the Study Area have sufficient long-term capacity to handle the additional wastewater flow generated by both the Zoning and Maximum Development Scenarios. Sanitary sewer will need to be extended into the Study Area to provide sewer service to the various lots. Temporary dewatering may be required during project construction, particularly for buildings to be constructed with lower levels, for which caissons could be used to facilitate installation of footings and foundations. July 2014 Final Mitigation Plan 2 All water pumped during construction dewatering activities will be discharged in compliance with City, Watershed, and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) requirements and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and site RAP. Up to 14.4 acres of wetland may be impacted by development. Wetlands should 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 future uses for sanitary sewer, but the system will primarily be gravity-based. Stormwater will be managed on-site, maintaining the current drainage patterns and utilizing the current outfalls to Rice Creek and Round Lake. Stormwater will be conveyed to Round Lake and Rice Creek by means of underground storm sewer, vegetated swales, and wetlands. Conveyance systems will be designed in accordance with acceptable industry standards and in conformance with jurisdictional requirements. The runoff rate will be reduced to 80% of the existing rate because the Study Area is located within a Flood Management Zone as defined by the RCWD. The primary method of stormwater treatment will be the use of multiple ponds for the removal of total phosphorous and total suspended solids. Water reuse, bio-filtration, filtration, and stormwater wetlands are also suitable for treatment within the Study Area. No discharge water will be directed to surface waters without prior retention in a temporary settling basin and a determination that no contamination exists. The developer will determine if groundwater is contaminated as a basis for determining discharge to storm sewer, sanitary sewer, or through a treatment process such as the existing groundwater treatment facilities. Temporary construction dewatering will require a Temporary Water Appropriations General Permit 1997-0005 if less than 50 million gallons per year and less than one year in duration. Wetland impacts will be replaced at a 2:1 ratio, through a combination of on and off-site replacement through plans/permit approved by the RCWD and Army Corps of Engineers The crossing would be via a bridge that spans the creek, wetlands and floodplain, and would allow wildlife to cross underneath. A trail crossing at this location may also be considered (under the creek bridge). The 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, Army Corps of Engineers, and PCA review processes. Other water resource 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 Metropolitan Council Environmental Services The site will require compliance with Rice Creek Watershed District rules for water quality, volume control, runoff control and erosion control. All water pumped during construction dewatering activities will be discharged in compliance with the City and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) requirements, and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and site RAP. July 2014 Final Mitigation Plan 3 12.C/HM/SW ONTAMINATIONAZARDOUS ATERIALSOLID ASTES The potential to encounter contaminants is the same under both Development Scenarios. Potential Impacts The soil on site is currently being remediated to residential standards. Radon abatement is required for all new residential structures, which also satisfies any Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) residual vapor concerns. Vapor retarders are required for all new commercial buildings. Construction of the future development would generate construction-related waste materials such as wood, packaging, excess materials, and other wastes. The range of municipal solid waste generated per year based upon the Zoning and Maximum Development Scenarios is 27,300 to 31,900 tons, respectively. Mitigation Strategies Handling of site contaminants is addressed in the overall RAP approved for the site and/or within the 4 subarea RAPs addressing key hot spot remediation. In areas of previous VOC contamination, testing or abatement measures for VOC vapors may be required by the City to avoid potential impacts of VOC vapors in new building spaces. Construction materials would be either recycled or disposed in the proper facilities. Solid waste recycling will be required by city code for residential users and may be added to city code in the 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 required plans, material handling, and disposal. 13.F,PC,ASER ISH LANT OMMUNITIES ND ENSITIVE COLOGICAL ESOURCES Potential Impacts Two Regionally Significant Ecological Areas (RSEA) exist within portions of the AUAR study area One osprey nest will remain on site Mitigation Strategies DNR recommendations for minimizing impacts to turtles during construction will be required for all development activities Creation of a green corridor through the AUAR study area will provide habitat elements for turtles, birds and other wildlife. adjacent wildlife corridor and is compatible with the RSEA and IBA designations. The City may also consider building guidelines that minimize the amount or type of glass used on multi-story building to minimize bird strikes. The nesting platform at the water treatment building will be avoided by development. July 2014 Final Mitigation Plan 4 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 habitat impacts. The County will coordinate with the DNR regarding the creation/design of the green space area. 18.T RANSPORTATION Potential Impacts Increased traffic on the regional roadway network surrounding the site. Mitigation Strategies Minimum Development Scenario TH 96 westbound auxiliary lane from east 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. The County is in the process of redesigning the I-35W/CR 96 interchange. The new interchange will be designed to accommodate anticipated future traffic, including the TCAAP development. At the intersection of Round Lake Road W at CR 96, the lane use of the northbound center lane is recommended to be re-striped 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. Maximum Development Scenario In addition to the Minimum Development Scenario mitigation described above, these additional mitigation measures are recommended for the Maximum Development Scenario: 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. How Mitigation will be Applied and Assured Mitigation will be regulated through the JDA approval and permitting process. Proposed master development plans, planned unit development and subdivision applications, plats, and/or site plans must address relevant mitigation measures prior to final approval by the JDA. Implementation of feasible mitigation measures will be addressed through developer agreements with the JDA, which may require a security for land and infrastructure improvements and/or revoke the right to acquire building permits until all feasible mitigation measures have been addressed. Involvement by Other Agencies, if applicable The City of Arden Hills will continue to work with Ramsey County and all transportation partners in the provision of an efficient transportation system. July 2014 Final Mitigation Plan 5 Appendix A. Response to Comments on the Draft AUAR Minnesota Department of Health Ju 2014 A-1 A: Plan contemplates a mix of housing types including condominiums, townhomes, apartments, and senior housing to meet affordable and life cycle housing needs. The City has negotiated affordable and life cycle housing goals with the Metropolitan Council. As the city of Arden Hills is fully developed with the exception of the TCAAP site, additional life cycle and affordable housing to meet negotiated goals is expected to be developed on TCAAP to the extent it is economically feasible. B: The City and County are committed to incorporating sustainable features into the site and will identify such features through the development regulations. The Joint Development Authority (JDA) has approved the issuance of a Request for Proposals for an Integration and Resiliency Framework study. The selected consultants will identify opportunities for an energy system that sustains economic development, reduces adverse environmental impacts, and supports a high quality of life and a healthy lifestyle. The JDA will also be appointing an Energy Advisory Task Force to assist the JDA and its consultants with this work. Ju 2014 A-2 Ju 2014 A-3 C: The project will meet Rice Creek Watershed District rules for rate, floodplain elevation, and water quality. -14 standards for storm design intensity, duration, and frequency. The Rice Creek remeander portion of the project will increase floodplain volume. Multiple ponds, vegetative filters, and wetland mitigation areas will treat runoff water quality equivalent to a 95% treatment volume criterion. D: The preparation of a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is not a requirement of the AUAR process. E: Connections between uses and to surrounding amenities have been incorporated into the project. The spine road through the development will have a trail on one side and a sidewalk on the other, and there will be a supportive network of city streets to provide access to neighborhoods and businesses. Also, as discussed in Section 9 of the AUAR, a 150 foot corridor will be established to provide a trail/prairie connection from County Road I to Highway 96. Ju 2014 A-4 Ju 2014 A-5 F: Comment noted. Demolition surveys were completed for all removed structures and asbestos removal is underway. G: Site soil is currently being remediated to meet MPCA Tier 1 Residential Soil Reference Values (SRVs). Groundwater remains the responsibility of the federal government under its Federal Facilities Agreement and Record of Decision with the US EPA and MPCA. As part of the County's process of remediating site soil impacts, all known releases of hazardous substances are being removed from the site or treated to make them safe for residential use. This includes all impacts known when the County acquired the site, as well as any impacts identified through the removal of at- and below-grade improvements at the site. In addition, the County is completing incremental soil sampling in former TCAAP operational areas across the site using an Incremental Sampling Methodology (ISM) that has been approved by both the US EPA and the MPCA for use at this site. The purpose of the ISM sampling is to help rule out the presence of any currently unidentified soil impacts. Any areas of soil impacts identified through this ISM sampling will also be remediated to meet Tier 1 Residential SRVs. When the remediation and ISM sampling activities are complete and all impacts have been addressed, the MPCA will issue a Commissioner's Certificate of Completion (the highest level of liability insurance issued by the MPCA), and existing land use restrictions will be modified consistent with the cleanup that was completed at the site. Any additional sampling would be optional for the party moving forward with a proposed redevelopment within the site. H: The project will meet Rice Creek Watershed District rules for rate, floodplain elevation, and water quality. The District is adopting the revised National Oceanographic and Atmospher-14 standards for storm design intensity, duration, and frequency. I: Comment noted. The County has worked with the Army to properly seal as many onsite wells as possible. Any additional abandoned wells will be capped and sealed in accordance with Minnesota Department of Health requirements. No new public water supply wells are anticipated. Ju 2014 A-6 Minnesota Department of Transportation Ju 2014 A-7 A: Comment noted. Coordination with MnDOT will continue as the TCAAP and other related projects advance. B: Comment noted. A submittal to the Interchange Review Committee (IRC) is being assembled. It is understood that approval is required by the IRC prior to making interchange modifications. Ju 2014 A-8 Ju 2014 A-9 C: Comment noted. MnDOT has been involved in all interchange planning completed to date and will continue to be included in future interchange planning and design activities. An Interstate Access Modification Request (IAMR) will be completed as part of the current I-35W and CSAH 96 interchange design project being led by Ramsey County. D: Comment noted. A submittal to the Interchange Review Committee (IRC) is being assembled. It is understood that approval is required by the IRC prior to making interchange modifications. E: Comment noted, see response to Comment D above. The County is aware of the planned MnPASS lane, and this will be accommodated as a part of any modifications to the I-35W and County Road H interchange. Ju 2014 A-10 Ju 2014 A-11 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Ju 2014 A-12 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Ju 2014 A-13 A: Comment noted. Thank you for your review. Ju 2014 A-14 Metropolitan Council Ju 2014 A-15 A: Comment noted. B: At the completion of the master planning process, the City will request a comprehensive plan amendment consistent with the approved TCAAP zoning, future land use map, and densities. C: Comment noted. If the land exchange is pursued, the process to amend the Rice Creek North Regional Trail Master Plan would be followed, and the exchange would comply with the requirements of the Regional Parks Policy Plan. Ju 2014 A-16 Ju 2014 A-17 D: Comment noted. The materials described will be submitted to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Service Municipal Services staff for review at the appropriate time. This has been added to the permits/approvals table in Section 8 of the AUAR, also included as part of the Mitigation Plan. E: The text has been revised as noted. F: Several monitoring wells will be maintained on the site for continued monitoring of groundwater by the Army. On-site water will be supplied by Saint Paul via the City of Roseville water system, not from local groundwater. Remediation of soil contamination is in the process of being completed to residential standards, and, therefore, does not pose a future threat to groundwater. G: A regional stormwater system approach is being explored for implementation on the site as part of a separate process being led by the County and City. H: Stormwater modeling was conducted consistent with the requirements and standards set by the state and the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD). The RCWD rules were updated in 2013 to incorporate updated watershed management practices. Stormwater management design calculations will take into account the recently published Atlas 14 data when sizing facilities. I: The woodland areas identified in Figure 7-1 can be described as areas with scattered woody vegetation with less than 15 percent canopy cover and an understory of smooth brome grass and goldenrod. The woody vegetation primarily consists of small scrubby volunteer trees and shrubs, most less than 25 feet in height, including cottonwood, juniper, box elder, Siberian elm, and Russian olive. This cover is indicative of a disturbed site that has regenerated with opportunistic plant species. The City's development guidelines will encourage the preservation of open/green space and infiltration where feasible. Ju 2014 A-18 Ju 2014 A-19 J: Onsite roadways under the jurisdiction of the County will follow MnDOT State Aid design standards. The type and height of curbing will be dictated by the function and design speed of the roadway. The County will consider surmountable curbing if permitted by the governing standards. K: The text has been updated to refer to the final version of the master plan amendment. L: We anticipate that the spine road will be classified as a Class A Minor Arterial-Expander. M: Comment noted. A submittal to the Interchange Review Committee (IRC) is being assembled. It is understood that approval is required by the IRC prior to making interchange modifications. N: Figures have been updated to reflect the entire Rice Creek North Regional Trail Corridor as shown in the 2013 Rice Creek North Regional Trail Master Plan Amendment. O: The mitigation plan describes the intent of the proposed green corridor to provide an extension of the adjacent wildlife corridor within the Rice Creek North Regional Trail through the site. The green corridor will provide a combination of green space (wetland, upland, stormwater collection, habitat) and trail connections, similar to the Regional Trail area. These attributes are consistent and compatible with the regional trail corridor. Ju 2014 A-20 Ju 2014 A-21 P: Comment noted. Ramsey County Parks has been involved in the planning completed thus far related to potential Rice Creek crossing locations. Ramsey County Parks will be involved in a separate project led by Ramsey County that will complete the planning and design of the spine road. Q: Comment noted. The trip generation for the project was reduced by 15% to account for multi-use trips and transit trip reductions. Diversion of trips to other roadways was developed manually as part of the traffic study. R: Comment noted. A submittal to the Interchange Review Committee (IRC) is being assembled. It is understood that approval is required by the IRC prior to making interchange modifications. Ju 2014 A-22 Rice Creek Watershed District Ju 2014 A-23 A: Comment noted. Thank you for your review. Ju 2014 A-24 Ju 2014 A-25 Ju 2014 A-26 Ju 2014 A-27 B: The City thanks the Rice Creek Watershed District for its insights into design details and permit requirements. RCWD will be engaged during the development and design of the green corridor, stormwater management plans, wetland mitigtation, and other parameters for which the District has jurisdiction. The City looks forward to working through the design details with RCWD staff. Ju 2014 A-28 City of Shoreview Ju 2014 A-29 A: AUAR boundaries are typcially defined by the land areas that are to be modified by future development. The impact analysis can and does extend beyond the study area boundaries to evaluate impacts of the change on adjacent land uses. The potential impact of site development on Rice Creek was addressed in the stormwater and other sections of the Draft AUAR. Impacts will be minimal downstream as water quantity and quality will be managed to existing conditions or better, as required by state and local regulations and permits. A new crossing of Rice Creek will be necessary and will be designed to have no floodplain impact and to allow for wildlife and pedestrian crossings, which will be coordinated through Rice Creek Watershed District requirements. The site development will enhance the Rice Creek North Regional Trail system by extending the trail and green space corridor through the site. The transportation concerns of Shoreview are further addressed in the following response to comments. B: The intent of the project is to preserve and enhance the integrity of the regional trail. The City recognizes the value and importance of the regional trail and has included trails within the site to provide local access to the regional trail. Ju 2014 A-30 Ju 2014 A-31 C: Comment noted. Shoreview has been involved in all interchange planning completed to date and will continue to be included in future interchange planning and design activities particularly as related to any proposed modifications to the I-35W and County Road I interchange. A separate project will include additional traffic analysis, environmental documentation, and the preliminary and final design of the I-35W and County Road H interchange will include conceptual level planning of potential modifications to I-35W and County Road I interchange. The TCAAP Infrastructure project being led by Ramsey County will include evaluation of a connection of the roadway from the northern part of the site to County Road I. D: Comment noted. See the response to the City of Shoreview Comment C. E: Comment noted. See the response to the City of Shoreview Comment C. Ju 2014 A-32 Ju 2014 A-33 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Ju 2014 A-34 Lyle Salmela Ju 2014 A-35 A: Currently all residential buildings regulated by the residential state energy code, chapter 1322, are required to have radon control per the 2006 International Residential Code Appendix F Radon Control Control Methods, with state amendments. The location on site of residential buildings does not matter as all residential buildings need to have radon control. Commerical buildings are not required to have radon control but are required to have a six millimeter vapor retarder with joints lapped to a minimum of six inches applied directly beneath the concrete slab, per Internatinal Building Code 1910: Minimum slab provisions. All buildings are requied to have the foundations either damproofed or waterproofed per state building code, International Building Code section 1807 (commercial buildings), and International Residential Code section 406 (residential buildings). The above items are mandatory per the state building code adopted by the City of Arden Hills and have been added to the Mitigationi Plan under Item 12. B: Remediation to MPCA Tier 1 Residential Soil Reference Values will occur. Soil gas risks will be mitigated as described in response to the previous comment. Documents are available for review at Ramsey County Office of Property Management, Metro Square, Suite 2200, 121 Seventh Place East, Saint Paul, MN 55101. C: Soil gas risks will be mitigated as described in response to Lyle Salmela Comment A. D: Exact phasing has not been determined, although it is anticipated that Phases 1 and 2 will be completed prior to Phases 3 and 4. This is driven by a variety of factors including existing access locations, funding, changes in traffic patterns caused by the development, and available roadway capacity. A connection is planned from County Road H to northbound I-35W/TH 10 at what could be a roundabout controlled intersection. E: This analysis considers the anticipated growth in regional traffic and programmed projects that would impact the regional roadway network. Appropriate involvement by a variety of governmental entities will occur, as required, during future planning and design activities and as part of the Metropolitan Council's Transportation Policy Plan. Ju 2014 A-36 Appendix B. 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; Project Location.pdf 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 IĻƩĻǤƚǒŭƚ 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 Page 1 of 1 DOE Yes CEF NR Reports Context Tradition Site Description Phase Acres Quarter Sections Archaeological Site Locations Sec. Range Twp. Tuesday, December 31, 2013 Site Name Ramsey Site Number County: Inventory Number DOE CEF NRHP Report USGS Quarters Sec Range Twp ADDRESS Arden Hills Ramsey CITY/TOWNSHIP: PROPERTY NAME COUNTY: Inventory Number DOE CEF NRHP Report USGS Quarters Sec Range Twp ADDRESS Arden Hills Ramsey CITY/TOWNSHIP: PROPERTY NAME COUNTY: Appendix C. 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 C-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 C-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 C-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 C-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 C-5 Appendix . TCAAP Traffic Study Traffic Study 4#!!0 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 4#!!0 Arden Hills, MN Prepared for: City of Arden Hills Prepared by: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Saint Paul, Minnesota Table of Contents 1.Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 5 2.Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 5 a.Analysis Scenario Descriptions .......................................................................................................... 5 b.Traffic Study Area .............................................................................................................................. 8 c.Local Roadway System Traffic Operations Analysis Methodology ................................................... 8 d.Regional Roadway System ................................................................................................................ 8 3.Parking .................................................................................................................................................. 9 4.Existing Conditions Analysis .................................................................................................................. 9 5.No Build Conditions Analysis............................................................................................................... 11 6.Traffic Forecasts .................................................................................................................................. 13 7.Trip Generation ................................................................................................................................... 13 8.Trip Distribution .................................................................................................................................. 16 a.Minimum Development Scenario Baseline Distribution................................................................. 16 b.Maximum Development Scenario Baseline Distribution ................................................................ 16 c.Minimum Development Scenario Mitigated Distribution .............................................................. 16 d.Maximum Development Scenario Mitigated Distribution .............................................................. 16 9.Baseline Roadway Network Scenario Analyses .................................................................................. 17 a.Minimum Development Scenario ................................................................................................... 17 b.Maximum Development Scenario .................................................................................................. 18 10.Mitigated Roadway Network Scenario Analyses ............................................................................ 19 a.Minimum Development Scenario ................................................................................................... 19 b.Maximum Development Scenario .................................................................................................. 20 List of Figures Figure T1 Project Location Map 22 Figure T2 Site Plan with Access Roads and Regional Access Roadway System 22 Figure T3 Proposed CR H and I-35W Interchange 22 Figure T4 Existing Roadway Geometry 22 Figure T5 2030 No Build Roadway Geometry 22 Figure T6 2030 Baseline Roadway Geometry 22 Figure T7 2030 Minimum Development Scenario Roadway Mitigation Geometry 22 Figure T8 2030 Maximum Development Scenario Roadway Mitigation Geometry 22 Figure T9 Existing Traffic 22 Figure T10 2030 No Build Traffic 22 Figure T11 2030 Baseline Geometry Site Distribution 22 Figure T12 2030 Minimum Development Scenario Mitigated Site Distribution 22 Figure T13 2030 Maximum Development Scenario Mitigated Site Distribution 22 Figure T14 2030 Minimum Development Scenario Site Traffic (Baseline Distribution) 22 Figure T15 2030 Minimum Development Scenario Total Traffic (Baseline Distribution) 22 Figure T16 2030 Maximum Development Scenario Site Traffic (Baseline Distribution) 22 Figure T17 2030 Maximum Development Scenario Total Traffic (Baseline Distribution) 22 Figure T18 2030 Minimum Development Scenario Site Traffic (Mitigated Distribution) 22 Figure T19 2030 Minimum Development Scenario Total Traffic (Mitigated Distribution) 22 Figure T20 2030 Maximum Development Scenario Site Traffic (Mitigated Distribution) 22 Figure T21 2030 Maximum Development Scenario Total Traffic (Mitigated Distribution) 22 List of Tables Table 1 Land Use Plan Scenarios ......................................................................................................................... 5 Table 2 Parking Demand Estimate Summary ....................................................................................................... 9 Table 3 Existing Peak Hour Analysis Results ...................................................................................................... 10 Table 4 2030 No Build Peak Hour Traffic Analysis Results ................................................................................. 12 Table 5 Minimum Development Scenario Trip Generation ................................................................................ 13 Table 6 Maximum Development Scenario Trip Generation ............................................................................... 14 Table 7 2030 Minimum Development Scenario Peak Hour Baseline Analysis Results ........................................ 18 Table 8 2030 Maximum Development Scenario Peak Hour Baseline Analysis Results ....................................... 19 Table 9 2030 Minimum Development Scenario Peak Hour Mitigation Analysis Results .................................... 20 Table 10 2030 Maximum Development Scenario Peak Hour Mitigation Analysis Results .................................. 21 TCAAP Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum 4 March 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 about the analysis results than the AUAR, and a more comprehensive summary of the results 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 measures are identified based on the results.The project location is shown Figure T1 in .A more detailed project area, including the AUAR Study Area boundary is shown in Figure T2 . 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, thedevelopment scenarios include aYear 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 theCity of Arden Hills, which provided a constrained analysis. A year 2030 Maximum Development Scenario has also been analyzed to evaluate a land use mix thatmaximizes 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 Scenario Maximum Scenario Units / K sq. ft. Units / K sq. ft. Use Use 1,500 2,500 Residential Residential 500 550 Retail Retail 1,700 1,950 Non-retail Commercial Non-retail Commercial TCAAP Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum 5 March 2014 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 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 CR96/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 TCAAP Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum 6 March 2014 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 asecond 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. 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/CR96east 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 scenario 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. TCAAP Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum 7 March 2014 b. Traffic Study Area The roadway network that would be expected to have potential traffic impacts is generally bounded by TH10, I-35W on the west, County Road I on the north, the eastern project boundary on the east, . Figure T4shows the 14 intersections that were analyzed. and County Road 96 on the south 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. 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 TCAAP Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum 8 March 2014 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 the Institute 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 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 Peak Parking ITE Land Land Use DescriptionSizeParking Rate Demand Use Code (stalls)(stalls) Minimum Development Scenario Residential210/2211,500DU1.62,400 Retail820500ksf3.81,900 Non-retail Commercial110/7011,700ksf2.23,800 Total8,100 Maximum Development Scenario Residential210/2212,500DU1.63,900 Retail820550ksf3.82,100 Non-retail Commercial110/7011,950ksf2.24,400 Total10,400 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 Memorandum 9 March 2014 Table 3 Existing Peak Hour Analysis Results 2013 Existing AM 2013 Existing PM Intersection LOS Delay(sec) LOS Delay(sec) Old Hwy 8 and CR 96 D 28 F 78 CR 96 and SB I-35W Ramp E 39 F 105 CR 96 and NB I-35W Ramp F 93 F 156 Round Lake Rd W and CR 96 B 10 D 50 TH 10 West Ramp and CR 96 B 11 C 23 CR 96 at US 10 NB Ramp A No Control A No Control CR 96 and TCAAP Property/North Heights Church Access B 10 A 6 CR H and US 10 C 24 C 21 CR H and SB I-35W A 3 A 3 CR H and NB I-35W A 2 A 3 CR I and SB I-35W B 13 C 15 CR I and NB I-35W B 12 B 18 CR I and Old Hwy 8 A 4 A 2 CR I and N Fairview Ave A 5 A 3 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. CR96 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 Hwy 8 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. TCAAP Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum 10March 2014 CR-96 and I-35W SB Ramps 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 Hwy 8 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 Hwy 8 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. CR96 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 CR96 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: TCAAP Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum 11March 2014 NB Left turn NB Right turn EB Left turn WB Through WB Right turn Round Lake Road W and CR96 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. TH 10 West Ramp 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 TCAAP Property/North Heights Church 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 AM 2030 No Build PM Intersection LOS Delay LOS Delay Old Hwy 8 and CR 96 C 19 F 72 CR 96 and SB I-35W Ramp A 8 F * CR 96 and NB I-35W Ramp F * F * Round Lake Rd W and CR 96 C 32 F * TH 10 West Ramp and CR 96 B 14 F 145 CR 96 at US 10 NB Ramp A No Control A No Control CR 96 and TCAAP Property/North Heights Church Access A 6 F * CR H and US-10 B 16 C 25 CR H and SB I-35W A 3 A 3 CR H and NB I-35W A 2 A 4 CR I and SB I-35W D 31 C 15 CR I and NB I-35W A 9 A 9 CR I and Old Hwy 8 A 4 A 3 CR I and N Fairview Ave A 6 A 5 * Delay exceeds 180 seconds/vehicle TCAAP Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum 12March 2014 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 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 AM PM PM Total Daily AM AM PM Use Units / K sq. ft. Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips In Trips Trips Out In Out 1,500 11,050 210 650 860 660 405 1,065 Residential 500 21,350 300 180 480 890 965 1,855 Retail 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-use Reduction 41,550 2,130 945 3,075 1,630 2,710 4,340 Factor* TCAAP Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum 13March 2014 Minimum Development Scenario Trip Generation Minimum Development Scenario Avg DailyAMPM Land Use Independent No. of Rate AM AM PM PM Code DescriptionVariableUnitsor Total Trips Trips AM Trips Trips PM Eq TripsInOutTripsInOutTrips Senior Adult Occ. Dwelling 252Housing-150Avg515102030201535 Unit(s) Attached Residential CondominiuDwelling 230300Avg1,7452011013010550155 m/TownhouUnit(s) se Rental Dwelling 224225Avg1,795501051558580165 TownhouseUnit(s) Dwelling 220Apartment300Avg1,9953012015012065185 Unit(s) Single- Family Dwelling 210525Avg5,000100295395330195525 Detached Unit(s) Housing Shopping 1,000 Sq Ft 820500Avg21,3503001804808909651,855 CenterGLA General 710Office 1,000 Sq Ft1350Avg14,8901,8552552,1103401,6702,010 Building (1) Warehousin 1501,000 Sq Ft250Avg890601575206080 g General 110Light 1,000 Sq Ft100Avg700801090108595 Industrial 48,880 Total2,5051,1103,6151,9203,1855,105 41,550 15% Transit and Multi-use Reduction Factor* 2,1309453,0751,6302,7054,340 Table 6 Maximum Development Scenario Trip Generation Maximum Development Scenario AM PM PM Total Daily AM AM PM Use Units / K sq. ft. Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips In Trips Trips Out In Out 2,500 18,395 350 1,085 1,435 1,100 675 1,775 Residential 550 23,485 325 200 525 980 1,060 2,040 Retail 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-use Reduction 51,140 2,440 1,350 3,790 2,120 3,185 5,305 Factor* TCAAP Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum 14March 2014 Maximum Development Scenario Trip Generation Maximum Development Scenario DailyAMPM Avg No. Land Use Independent Rate AM AM PM PM Codeof Total AM PM DescriptionVariableor Trips Trips Trips Trips Units TripsTripsTrips Eq InOutInOut Senior Adult Occ. Dwelling 252Housing-250Avg860153045352560 Unit(s) Attached Residential Dwelling 230Condominium/T500Avg2,9053518522017585260 Unit(s) ownhouse Rental Dwelling 224375Avg2,97585175260140130270 TownhouseUnit(s) Dwelling 220Apartment500Avg3,32550205255200110310 Unit(s) Single-Family Dwelling 210Detached 875Avg8,330165490655550325875 Unit(s) Housing Shopping 1,000 Sq Ft 820550Avg23,4853252005259801,0602,040 CenterGLA General Office 7101,000 Sq Ft1450Avg15,9951,9902702,2603651,7952,160 Building (1) 150Warehousing1,000 Sq Ft350Avg1,24585201053085115 General Light 1101,000 Sq Ft150Avg1,0451201513520130150 Industrial Total60,1652,8701,5904,4602,4953,7456,240 15% Transit and Multi-use Reduction Factor* 51,1402,4401,3503,7902,1203,1855,305 TCAAP Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum 15March 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 . For this unmitigated development scenario, access to I-35W southbound from the project site is provided via a reconstructed loop from County Road H with the addition of a divided ramp that crosses under the TH 10 southbound entrance to I 35W southbound. Therefore trips destined to I-35W southbound no longer continue west to the intersection of County Road H at TH 10 to gain access to I-35W southbound. 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 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. 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 TCAAP Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum 16 March 2014 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 maintain an LOS D or better at almost all of the intersections with the exception of theCR96/ TCAAP Property access 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 alack 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 Hwy 8 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 TCAAP Property/North Heights Church 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. TCAAP Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum 17 March 2014 Table 7 2030 Minimum Development Scenario Peak Hour Baseline Analysis Results 2030 Baseline Min AM 2030 Baseline Min PM Intersection LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) Old Hwy 8 and CR 96 C 25 E 66 CR 96 and SB I-35W Ramp C 20 C 33 CR 96 and NB I-35W Ramp C 21 C 27 Round Lake Rd W and CR 96 B 18 C 22 TH 10 West Ramp and CR 96 C 28 D 42 CR 96 at US 10 NB Ramp A No Control A No Control CR 96 and TCAAP Property/North Heights Church Access F 139 F 116 CR H and US 10 D 39 F 98 CR H and SB I-35W B 13 B 16 CR H and NB I-35W A 4 A 9 CR I and SB I-35W C 20 C 20 CR I and NB I-35W A 9 B 12 CR I and Old Hwy 8 A 4 C 18 CR I and N Fairview Ave A 6 A 5 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 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 Hwy 8 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 TCAAP Property/North Heights Church 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 TCAAP Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum 18 March 2014 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 AM 2030 Baseline Max PM Intersection LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) Old Hwy 8 and CR 96 C 22 E 62 CR 96 and SB I-35W Ramp B 15 C 33 CR 96 and NB I-35W Ramp B 20 C 30 Round Lake Rd W and CR 96 B 17 C 23 TH 10 West Ramp and CR 96 C 26 C 30 CR 96 at US 10 NB Ramp A No Control A No Control CR 96 and TCAAP Property/North Heights Church Access F 142 F 135 CR H and US-10 E 63 F 117 CR H and SB I-35W C 32 E 66 CR H and NB I-35W A 4 C 19 CR I and SB I-35W C 26 C 23 CR I and NB I-35W B 11 B 12 CR I and Old Hwy 8 A 8 B 10 CR I and N Fairview Ave A 6 A 6 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 TCAAP Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum 19 March 2014 Table 9 2030 Minimum Development Scenario Peak Hour Mitigation Analysis Results 2030 Baseline Min Mitigated AM 2030 Baseline Min Mitigated PM Intersection LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) Old Hwy 8 and CR 96 C 21 C 29 CR 96 and SB I-35W C 20 C 30 Ramp CR 96 and NB I-35W B 19 C 30 Ramp Round Lake Rd W and C 24 C 25 CR 96 TH 10 West Ramp and C 28 D 39 CR 96 CR 96 at US 10 NB Ramp A No Control A No Control CR 96 and TCAAP Property/North C 21 C 29 Heights Church Access CR H and US-10 D 38 D 44 CR H and SB I-35W B 18 B 11 CR H and NB I-35W A 4 A 9 CR I and SB I-35W C 25 C 22 CR I and NB I-35W B 13 B 13 CR I and Old Hwy 8 A 5 A 5 CR I and N Fairview A 6 A 5 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 Memorandum 20 March 2014 Table 10 2030 Maximum Development Scenario Peak Hour Mitigation Analysis Results 2030 Baseline Max Mitigated AM 2030 Baseline Max Mitigated PM Intersection LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) Old Hwy 8 and CR 96 C 23 C 23 CR 96 and SB I-35W C 22 C 24 Ramp CR 96 and NB I-35W C 24 C 33 Ramp Round Lake Rd W C 22 C 27 and CR 96 TH 10 West Ramp C 27 C 29 and CR 96 CR 96 at US 10 NB A No Control A No Control Ramp CR 96 and TCAAP Property/North C 29 D 42 Heights Church Access CR H and US-10 C 28 D 36 CR H and SB I-35W B 18 B 16 CR H and NB I-35W A 4 C 19 CR I and SB I-35W C 26 C 22 CR I and NB I-35W B 15 B 13 CR I and Old Hwy 8 A 6 A 4 CR I and N Fairview A 6 A 6 Ave TCAAP Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum 21 March 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 Memorandum 22 March 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 ! è 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 !$" ( !( äì í ! ! ( !( ¯ CR H CR-H ! è íí ! ( !( íì èé ! !( ( !( ì íé ! !( íì !$" !$" é ä !( è ä !$" CSAH 96 ! ! ! ( !( !$" ì é !( ì é !( !$" !! ( !( !( ì í íì !$" ä ! ! CR I ! !$" ìí ìí ( !( !( éè ä í ì ( !( äì í ! ! ! !( ¯ CR H CR-H ! è 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 ! è 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 ! è íí ! ( !( íì èé ! !( ( !( éè 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) Attachment C Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING JUNE 30,2014 5:30 P.M. -ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Grantcalled to order the City Council Work Session meeting at 5:34p.m. Present: Mayor David Grant;CouncilmembersBrenda Holden, Fran Holmes, Dave McClung, and Ed Werner Absent: None Also present :City AdministratorPatrick Klaers; Public Works Director Terry Maurer; Community Development Director Jill Hutmacher; City Planner Ryan Streff; and City Clerk Amy Dietl 1.AGENDA ITEMS A.Review Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan City Planner Streff stated the City Council has the opportunity to review and provide final comments on the draft AUARand Mitigation Plan before the plan is distributed to other state agencies and the Metropolitan Council in order to comply with Minnesota EQB (Environmental Quality Board) Rules. If there are no objections to the plan after distribution, the City will then pass a resolution adopting the final AUAR and Mitigation Plan at a future City Council meeting. Staff provided the Council with a memo and draft AUAR and Mitigation Plan for review. Beth Kunkel , Kimley-Horn, reviewed the comments received on the AUAR noting they had been summarized in Appendix A of the final AUAR document. She listed the agencies that had submitted comments. She requested the Council review the final AUAR and provide comments to staff on how to proceed. Mayor Grant stated there was a potential that the Council would not be approving the AUAR on th July 28. City Administrator Klaers commented the Council should not be making additional changes this evening, but rather providing comments on the final review of the draft document. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION –JUNE 30,20142 Community Development Director Hutmacher reported that state agencies have been provided with a copy of the AUAR document and were also asked to provide comments. Councilmember Holden understood the AUAR was based on the Master Plan. She questioned how changes made to the Master Plan would be reflected in the AUAR. Ms. Kunkel commented the potential bookends of the Master Plan were considered within the AUAR. Mayor Grant commented that the document had the flexibility to go lower than the low end, but reported there were no mitigation steps in place for going higher than the maximum. Ms. Kunkel stated this was the case. Councilmember Holden asked if the high side of the bookend would be sustainable without any County Road I access. Ms. Kunkel explained this was the case. Councilmember McClung believed the AUAR was a rather generic document as it did not include specifics as it allowed for the low and high ends to remain in the development. Councilmember Werner questioned if the Council would discuss density. Mayor Grant commented this would be a topic of discussion, relatively soon, but was not necessary for the AUAR. Councilmember Holden inquired if the existing Xcel substation would be impacted. Ms. Kunkel stated the substation may need to be modified or relocated, but there were no environmental effects. Mayor Grant thanked staff for reviewing this item with the Council. Attachment D CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2014-037 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE FINAL ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW (AUAR) FOR THE TCAAP REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WHEREAS ,Ramsey County owns 427 acres of land on the TCAAP site located in the city of Arden Hills north of County Road (CR) 96 and bordered on the west by Trunk Highway (TH) 10 and Interstate 35W (I-35W), on the north by State of Minnesota property and on the east by the National Guard property,which is proposed for redevelopment,and WHEREAS ,an environmental review is required by State Law, and WHEREAS ,an AUAR is an acceptable form of environmental review, and WHEREAS ,a public and agency comment period was provided and comments were addressed in accordance with the environmental review process and requirements, and WHEREAS , a Mitigation Plan addressing environmental impacts has been prepared, and WHEREAS , mitigation measures will continue to be specifically addressed in detail with the Joint Development Authority, including representatives from the City of Arden Hills and Ramsey County, when specific site plans are proposed. NOWTHEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that theCity Council of theCity of Arden Hills, Minnesota hereby adopts the FinalAUARand Mitigation Planfor the TCAAP Redevelopment Project located in the city of Arden Hills. th ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS THIS 28 DAY OF JULY, 2014. ____________________________________ ATTEST: David Grant, Mayor __________________________________________ Amy Dietl, City Clerk NEW BUSINESS –8B MEMORANDUM DATE: July 28, 2014 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: Ryan Streff, City Planner SUBJECT:Planning Case#14-017–No Public HearingRequired Applicant: Chad & Sasha Myers Property Location: 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard Request: Variance Requested Action Motion to approve Planning Case 14-014 for two(2)variancesinorder to reconstruct the nonconforming accessory structure located at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard. 1)Alignthegarage with the western property line resulting in a setback of two(2) foot two (2) inchesfrom the west property line,and seven (7) feet three (3) inchesfrom the south property line. 2)Expand the eaveson the north/south facades to (1) foot and expand the eaves on the east/west facades to (1) footsix (6) inchin order to match the eaves on the existing home. Background 1.Background At the June 4, 2014, Planning Commission meeting the applicants proposed to reconstruct and expand a nonconforming accessory structure from twenty-two (22) feet by twenty-two (22) feet to twenty-four (24) feet by twenty-six (26) feet, an increase of 140 square feet. After aclose review of the application by the Commission thevariance request was tabled in order to give the applicant’sadditional timeto reevaluatetheir proposal and providean alternate plan that would more closely conform to the existing nonconforming structure in City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for July 28, 2014 P:\\Planning\\Planning Cases\\2014\\PC 14-017 -Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\\Memo_Reports_14-017 19 Page of NEW BUSINESS –8B terms of the building footprint andsetbacks.The applicants havesincereviewed and updated their plans for the nonconforming accessory structure. Their proposal for the new accessory structure now includes a footprint that is identical to the existing structure with slight variations to the placement and roof design. 2.Overview of Request The applicants are proposing to reconstruct the twenty-two (22) foot by twenty-two (22) foot existing nonconforming accessory structure on the property. Along Fairview Avenue, the proposed structure would be realigned to be parallel with the western property line and constructed with a setback of two (2) foot two(2) inches. The previous proposal suggested a setback of eight (8) inches from the west property line.From the south property line the proposed structure would moved to the north an additional one (1) foot, which would result in a seven (7) foot three (3) inch setback.The setback proposed between the structure and the south property line during the previous review was four (4) feet one(1) inch. As proposed,the roofline of the accessory structure would change from an east/west orientation to a north/south orientation in order for the garage to be accessible from the existing driveway.The new design of the accessory structure would alsoincorporateone (1) foot eaves on the north/south facades and (1) foot six (6) incheaveson the east/westfacades in order to match the existing home The applicants haveindicatedwithin their narrative that the façade and roofing materials to be used on thenew detached accessory structurewould match the materials on the existing single family dwelling. The applicantshavesubmitted a narrative of the proposed projectand a response to the variance evaluation criteria (Attachment E), asurvey and a site plan of the property (Attachment F), and garage elevations and building plans (Attachment G). Plan Evaluation A.Structure Setbacks –Variance Required The existing accessory structure on the property does not currently meet thesetback requirementsin the R-2 Zoning Districtand is thereforea nonconforming structure. The single family dwelling on the property meets the setback requirements for the R-2 Zoning District. City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for July 28, 2014 P:\\Planning\\Planning Cases\\2014\\PC 14-017 -Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\\Memo_Reports_14-017 29 Page of NEW BUSINESS –8B The existing detached accessory structure is considered a nonconforming structure 1 because of its locationwithin the thirty (30) foot designated setback for a through-lot. The existing accessory structure encroaches between twenty-five (25) feet six (6) inches and twenty-nine (29) feet four (4) inches into the thirty (30) foot setback along the west property line, leaving a setback of four (4) feet six (6) inches at its furthest point and eight (8) inches at its closest pointfrom the west property line.The existing accessory structure encroaches three (3) feet nine(9) inches into the ten (10) foot setback along the southernproperty line, leaving a setback of six (6) feet three (3) inch between the structure and the south property line. As indicatedby the applicant,the proposed accessory structure would encroach twenty- seven (27) feet ten (10) inches into the thirty (30) foot setback along Fairview Avenue andtwo (2) feet nine (9) inches into the ten (10) foot setback along the southernproperty line. This would leave a setback of two(2) foot two(2) inches from the west property line and a setback of seven (7) feet three (3) inches from the south property line.The proposed footprint of thestructure would not be increasedandwould remain twenty-two (22) feet by twenty-two (22) feet.As proposed,the roofline of the accessory structure would change from an east/west orientation to a north/south orientationin order for the garage to be accessible from the existing driveway.The design of the structure would also incorporate one (1) foot eaves on the north/south facades and (1) foot six (6) inch eaveson theeast/westfacades in order to match the existing home. Setbacks –Accessory Setbacks ExistingSetbacks ProposedProposed w/eaves Structure Rear Yard/West Property Line8”2’ 2”8” Side Yard/South Property Line6’ 3”7’ 3”6’ 3” 1 Through-Lots: A lot that has a pair of opposite lot lines abutting two (2) substantially parallel streets, and which is not a corner lot. On a through-lot, the determination of whether the street frontage is to be considered a front yard or rear yard shall be as subject to the provisions in the Zoning Code. The Zoning Administrator maydetermine that one of the front yards may be deemed a rear yard and shall determine appropriate rear yard setback regulations. Factors to be considered shall include topography, location of structures on the lot, location of structures on adjacent lots, and the type of streets or thoroughfares abutting the lot. City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for July 28, 2014 P:\\Planning\\Planning Cases\\2014\\PC 14-017 -Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\\Memo_Reports_14-017 39 Page of NEW BUSINESS –8B B.Lot Coverage –Meets Requirements The existing and proposed lot coverage does not exceed the lot coverage limitations of the R-2Zoning District. The maximum lot coverage for impervious surfaces is 35% and the minimum landscape coverage is 65%. Proposed Lot Coverage =32.76% Proposed Landscape Coverage =67.24% ExistingProposed Square Feet%Square Feet% House/Garage 2,31415.18%2,31415.18% Accessory Structure4863.19%4863.19% Decks/Patios-------- Driveway/Walkways 1,72511.32%2,19314.39% Structural Coverage4,52529.69%4,99332.76% Landscaping Coverage70.31%67.24% Lot Size 15,241 1.Through-Lots –Front Yard/Rear Yard Designation For properties determined to be through-lots, the Zoning Administratormaydetermine that one of the front yards may be deemed a rear yard and shall determine appropriate rear yard setback regulations. Factors to be considered shall include topography, location of structures on the lot, location of structures on adjacent lots, and the type of streets or thoroughfares abutting the lot. In 2010, when the new single family structurewas built,Fairview Avenue (western property line) was deemed the rear property line and Lake Johanna Boulevard (eastern property line) was deemed thefront property linebased on prevailing setbacks of other principalstructures in theimmediate vicinity.This allowed for a reduction in the setback along Fairview Avenue from forty (40) feet to thirty (30) feet based on the through-lot criteria stated in the Zoning Code. The rear yard designation along Fairview Avenue was appropriate when used for the placement of the principalstructureon this lot. However, the same designation allowing ten (10) foot setbacks for the placement of an accessory structure along the west and south property lines is not currently supported by staff in this case, as there are no similar prevailing setbacks for accessory structures on similar lots in the immediate vicinity. Staff City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for July 28, 2014 P:\\Planning\\Planning Cases\\2014\\PC 14-017 -Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\\Memo_Reports_14-017 49 Page of NEW BUSINESS –8B has reviewed the through-lot criteria and has determined that arear yard setback of thirty (30) feet from Fairview Avenue and a ten (10) foot side yard setback from the southern property line are appropriate for accessory structures located within the rear yard.The thirty (30) foot setback designation has beenbased on the current setback of the principalstructure and the location of other principaland accessory structures on adjacent lotsin the immediate vicinity. Variance Evaluation Criteria On May 5, 2011, the Governor signed into law new variance legislation that changed the review criteria City’s must use when evaluating variance requests. The new law renames the municipal variance standard from “undue hardship” to “practical difficulties,” but otherwise retains the familiar three-factor test of (1) reasonableness, (2) uniqueness, and (3) essential character. Also included is a sentence new to city variance authority that was already in the county statutes: “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan”. Therefore, in evaluating variance requests under the new law, in order to find a practical difficulty, cities should adopt findings addressing the following questions: Is the variance in harmony withthe purposes and intent of the ordinance? Is the variance consistent withthe comprehensive plan? Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? Are there unique circumstancesto the property not created by the landowner? Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential characterof the locality? As was the case before the new legislation took effect, economic considerations alone cannot constitute a practical difficulty. Furthermore, the new law clarifies that conditions may be imposed on granting of variances if those conditions are directly related to and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. Findings of Fact The Planning Commission reviewed this application at their July 9, 2014, meeting and have offered the following findings of fact for your consideration: General Findings 1.The property is in the R-2Single & Two Family Residential Zoning District. City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for July 28, 2014 P:\\Planning\\Planning Cases\\2014\\PC 14-017 -Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\\Memo_Reports_14-017 59 Page of NEW BUSINESS –8B 2.The lot is 15,241square feet in size with approximate dimensions of 100feet in width, and 165feet in depth. 3.The existing accessory structure is a nonconforming structure within the R-2 Zoning Districtbecause of its existing setbacks to the south and west property lines. 4.Because theexisting accessory structure is positioned at an angle relative to the west property line,the structure encroachesbetween twenty-five (25) feet six (6) inches and twenty-nine (29) feet four (4) inches into the thirty (30) foot setback alongthe west property line, leaving a setback of four(4) feet six (6) inches at its furthest point and eight (8) inches between the structure and the west property lineat its closest point. 5.The existing accessory structureencroaches three (3) feet nine(9)inches into the ten (10) foot setback along the south property line, leaving a setback of six (6) feet three (3) inchesbetween the structure and the south property line. 6.The existing accessory structure does not encroach into the north or eastproperty line setbacks. 7.The proposed accessory structure encroaches twenty-seven(27) feet ten(10) inches into the thirty(30) foot setback alongtheentire length of the structure, leaving a setback of two (2) feet two (2) inches from the west propertyline. 8.The proposed accessory structure encroaches two (2) feet nine (9) inches into the (10) foot setback, leaving a setback of seven (7) feetthree (3) inches from the south property line. This is anincrease of one (1) foot further from the property line when compared to the existing structure. 9.The proposed accessory structure will not increasethe footprint and will remain twenty- two (22) feet by twenty-two (22). 10.The proposed accessory structure would be rotated approximately fifteen (15) degrees to align the garage with the western property line and the angle of the existing home. 11.The proposed accessory structure would change the direction of the roofline from an east/west orientation to a north/south orientation with one (1) foot eaves on the north/south facades and (1) foot six (6) incheaveseast/westfacades in order to match the existing home 12.The existing single family dwelling and attached garage meet all property line setbacks. 13.The proposed structure and landscaping coveragesare within the zoning district requirements. 14.The proposed accessory structure would not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height. 15.Detached accessory structures arepermitted structures within the R-2Zoning District. 16.All structures on the lot areoutside of the 100-year flood plain, wetlands, and easements. Variance Findings: 17.The proposal is in harmony withthe purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as the Ordinance generally allows flexibility for unique parcels and situations when impacts to surrounding properties are minimized. 18.The proposal is consistent withthe Arden Hills Comprehensive Plan as it allows the reasonable use of residential property. City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for July 28, 2014 P:\\Planning\\Planning Cases\\2014\\PC 14-017 -Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\\Memo_Reports_14-017 69 Page of NEW BUSINESS –8B 19.Detached accessory structures are permitted and a reasonable use within the R-2Single Family Residential Zoning District. 20.The lothas rather unique characteristics as the property slopes towards Lake Johanna approximately 18(eighteen)feet from west to east leaving limited options for expansion or movement of the accessory structure to an area that meets the setback regulations. 21.The proposed accessory structurewould be visible from neighboring properties; however, the proposed design and the use of quality materials for the detached structure that match the single family dwelling should minimize the impacts on surrounding property owners. 22.The proposed accessory structureis unlikely to have negative impacts to the property or to the neighborhood as a whole. 23.The proposed plans and requested variances for the accessory structuredo not appear to be based on economic considerations alone. Discussion The property is unique when compared to many properties in Arden Hills because of its topography. From Fairview Avenueto Lake Johanna Boulevard the property slopes approximately 18(eighteen)feet fromwest to east. Because of the lot’s topography and configurationof structures on the lot, options for expansion or the movement of the accessory structure to an area that meets the setback regulations is very limited. The proposed realignment and change in the roof orientation is reasonable in order for the applicant to construct a functional garage that is accessed from the existing driveway. Due to the scope of the project and the proposedchanges to the structure, the character of the neighborhood or the City is not expected to be negativelyaffected as a structure already exists in the general locationof the proposed structure. It does not appear that the variance request is based on economic considerations alone. A detached accessory structure is a permitted use in the R-2 Zoning District and is a reasonable request for the subject property. Recommendation The findings of fact for this variance request support a recommendation for approval. However, if the City Councilchooses to make a recommendation for denial, the Findings of Fact would need to be amended to reflect the reasons for the denial. The Planning Commission reviewed Planning Case 14-017 and recommends approval (4-1, Holewa) of the variance request for the property located at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard , based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans as presented in the July 28, 2014, Report to the City Council, as amended by the following ten (10) conditions: City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for July 28, 2014 P:\\Planning\\Planning Cases\\2014\\PC 14-017 -Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\\Memo_Reports_14-017 79 Page of NEW BUSINESS –8B 1.That the project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commissionand City Council. 2.That the proposed accessory structure shall be permittedwith a setback of two (2) foot two (2)inches from the west property line and seven (7) feet three(3) inches from the south property line. 3.That the proposed accessory structure shall not exceed the footprint of the existing accessory structure that is twenty-two (22) feet by twenty-two (22) feet. 4.That the proposed accessory structure shall be permitted to be rotated so that the alignment matches that of the western property line and the angle of the existing single familydwelling. 5.That the proposed accessory structure shall be permitted to change the direction of the roofline from an east/west orientation to a north/south orientationwith one (1) foot eaves on the north/south facades and (1) foot six (6) incheaveseast/westfacades in order to match the existing home 6.That the exterior façade and roofing materials of the proposed garage shall match the colors and materials used on the single family dwelling. 7.That the existing driveway apron leading to the accessory building shall be removed and that any damage to the right-of-way shall be repaired by the property owner. 8.That no living quarters shall be constructed within the proposed accessory structure and that the attic area shall be used for storage purposes only. 9.That the structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. That building and demolition permits for the construction of the new accessory building and a zoning permit for the construction of the driveway shall be required. 10.That the applicant shall obtain a Grading and Erosion Control Permit from the City before the building permit is issued. Requested Action Motion to approve Planning Case 14-014 for two(2) variances inorder to reconstruct the nonconforming accessory structure locatedat 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard. 1)Alignthegarage with the western property line resulting in a setback of two (2) foot two (2) inchesfrom the west property line, and seven (7) feet three (3) inches from the south property line. 2)Expand the eaves on the north/south facades to (1) foot and expand the eaves on the east/west facades to (1) foot six (6) inch in order to match the eaves on the existing home. City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for July 28, 2014 P:\\Planning\\Planning Cases\\2014\\PC 14-017 -Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\\Memo_Reports_14-017 89 Page of NEW BUSINESS –8B Options 1.Approve the proposal as submitted. 2.Approve the proposal with conditions (Recommended Action). 3.Deny the application with reasons for denial. 4.Table for additional information. Notice Although a variance does not require a public hearing, a public meeting notice was prepared by the City and mailed to properties within three-hundred fifty (350) feet of the subject property. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on May 5, 2014. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City was required to act on this request by July 4, 2014 (60 days), unless the City provided the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. The petitioner was notified on June 9, 2014, of the City’s request for an additional 60-day review period. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must now act on this request by September 2, 2014 (120 days). The City may, with the consent of the applicant, extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. Attachments A.Draft Planning Commission Minutes –July 9, 2014 B.Planning Commission Report –July 9, 2014 C.Planning Commission Minutes –June 4, 2014 D.Planning Commission Report –June 4, 2014 E.Application and Narrative F.Survey and Site Plan G.Garage Elevations/Building Plans H.Aerial Photo I.Property Photos J.Letters from Neighboring Residents City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for July 28, 2014 P:\\Planning\\Planning Cases\\2014\\PC 14-017 -Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\\Memo_Reports_14-017 99 Page of Attachment A Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, JULY 9,2014 6:30 P.M. -ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Chair Clayton Larson called to order the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:30p.m. ROLL CALL Present were: Chair Clayton Larson, Commissioners Brent Bartel, Andrew Holewa, Steven Jones (Alternate), and Clayton Zimmerman. Absent: Commissioner Angela Hames, Sam Scott, and Roberta Thompson. Also present were: City Planner Ryan Streff; Associate Planner Matthew Bachler; and Councilmember Fran Holmes. APPROVAL OF AGENDA –JULY 9,2014 Chair Larson stated that the agenda for the Regular Planning Commission Meeting will stand as published. Chair Larson stated that item 2A would be removed from the agenda for the Planning Commission Work Session. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS A.Planning Case 14-017;Variance –3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard –Not a Public Hearing City Planner Streff stated that at the June 4,2014, Planning Commission meeting the applicants proposed to reconstruct and expand a nonconforming accessory structure from twenty-two (22) feet by twenty-two (22) feet to twenty-four (24) feet by twenty-six (26) feet, an increase of 140 square feet. After a close review of the application by the Commission,the variance request was tabled in order to give the applicant’s additional time to reevaluate their proposal and provide an alternate plan that would more closely conform to the existing nonconforming structure in terms of the building footprint and setbacks. The applicants have since reviewed and updated their plans for the nonconforming accessory structure. Their proposal for the new accessory structure ARDEN HILLS PLANNINGCOMMISSION –July 9, 20142 now includes a footprint that is identical to the existing structure with slight variations to the placement and roof design. City Planner Streff explained that the applicants are proposing to reconstruct the twenty-two (22) foot by twenty-two (22) foot existing nonconforming accessory structure on the property. Along Fairview Avenue, the proposed structure would be realigned to be parallel with the western property line and constructed with a setback of two (2) foot two (2) inches. The previous proposal suggested a setback of eight (8) inches from the west property line. From the south property line,the proposed structure would be moved to the north an additional one (1) foot, which would result in a seven (7) foot three (3) inch setback. The setback proposed between the structure and the south property line during the previous review was four (4) feet one (1) inch. City Planner Streff commented that as proposed the roofline of the accessory structure would change from an east/west orientation to a north/south orientation in order for the garage to be accessible from the existing driveway. The new design of the accessory structure would also incorporate one (1) foot eaves on the north/south facades and (1) foot six (6) inch eaves east/west facades in order to match the existing home City Planner Streff stated that the applicants have indicated within their narrative that the façade and roofing materials to be used on the new detached accessory structure would match the materials on the existing single family dwelling. Site Data Land Use Plan: Low Density Residential Existing Land Use: Single Family Detached Residential Zoning: R-2: Single Family & Two Family Residential Current Lot Sizes: .35 Acres (15,241 Square Feet) Topography: The property has a fair amount of grade change as the lot slopes toward Lake Johanna. The area around the existing garage is fairly flat. City Planner Streff reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation and the Variance Evaluation Criteria. City Planner Streff provided the Findings of Fact for review: General Findings 1.The property is in the R-2 Single & Two Family Residential Zoning District. 2.The lot is 15,241 square feet in size with approximate dimensions of 100 feet in width, and 165 feet in depth. 3.The existing accessory structure is a nonconforming structure within the R-2 Zoning District because of its existing setbacks to the south and west property lines. 4.Because the existing accessory structure is positioned at an angle relative to the west property line, the structure encroaches between twenty-five (25) feet six (6) inches and twenty-nine (29) feet four (4) inches into the thirty (30) foot setback along the west property line, leaving a setback of four (4) feet six (6) inches at its furthest point and eight (8) inches betweenthe structure and the west property line at its closest point. ARDEN HILLS PLANNINGCOMMISSION –July 9, 20143 5.The existing accessory structure encroaches three (3) feet nine (9) inches into the ten (10) foot setback along the south property line, leaving a setback of six (6) feet three (3) inchesbetween the structure and the south property line. 6.The existing accessory structure does not encroach into the north or east property line setbacks. 7.The proposed accessory structure encroaches twenty-seven (27) feet ten (10) inches into the thirty (30) foot setback along the entire length of the structure, leaving a setback of two (2) feet two (2) inches from the west property line. 8.The proposed accessory structure encroaches two (2) feet nine (9) inches into the (10) foot setback, leaving asetback of seven (7) feet three (3) inches from the south property line. This is an increase of one (1) foot further from the property line when compared to the existing structure. 9.The proposed accessory structure will not increase the footprint and will remain twenty- two (22) feet by twenty-two (22). 10.The proposed accessory structure would be rotated approximately fifteen (15) degrees to align the garage with the western property line and the angle of the existing home. 11.The proposed accessory structure would change the direction of the roofline from an east/west orientation to a north/south orientation with one (1) foot eaves on the north/south facades and (1) foot six (6) inch eaves east/west facades in order to match the existing home 12.The existing single family dwelling and attached garage meet all property line setbacks. 13.The proposed structure and landscaping coverages are within the zoning district requirements. 14.The proposed accessory structure would not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height. 15.Detached accessory structures are permitted structures within the R-2 Zoning District. 16.All structures on the lot are outside of the 100-year flood plain, wetlands, and easements. Variance Findings: 17.The proposal is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as the Ordinance generally allows flexibility for unique parcels and situations when impacts to surrounding properties are minimized. 18.The proposal is consistent with the Arden Hills Comprehensive Plan as it allows the reasonable use of residential property. 19.Detached accessory structures are permitted and a reasonable use within the R-2 Single Family Residential Zoning District. 20.The lot has rather unique characteristics as the property slopes towards Lake Johanna approximately 18 (eighteen) feet from west to east leaving limited options for expansion or movement of the accessory structure to an area that meets the setback regulations. 21.The proposed accessory structure would be visible from neighboring properties; however, the proposed design and the use of quality materials for the detached structure that match the single family dwelling should minimize the impacts on surrounding property owners. 22.The proposed accessory structure is unlikely to have negative impacts to the property or to the neighborhood as a whole. 23.The proposed plans and requested variances for the accessory structure do not appear to be based on economic considerations alone. City Planner Streff stated that the property is unique when compared to many properties in Arden Hills because of its topography. From Fairview Avenue to Lake Johanna Boulevard the ARDEN HILLS PLANNINGCOMMISSION –July 9, 20144 property slopes approximately 18 (eighteen) feet from west to east. Because of the lot’s topography and configuration of structures on the lot, options for expansion or the movement of the accessory structure to an area that meets the setback regulations is very limited. The proposed realignment and change in the roof orientation is reasonable in order for the applicant to construct a functional garage that is accessed from the existing driveway. Due to the scope of the project and the proposed changes to the structure, the character of the neighborhood or the City is not expected to be negatively affected as a structure already exists in the general location of the proposed structure. It does not appear that the variance request is based on economic considerations alone. A detached accessory structure is a permitted use in the R-2 Zoning District and is a reasonable request for the subject property. City Planner Streff explained that the findings of fact for this variance request support a recommendation for approval. However, if the Planning Commission chooses to make a recommendation for denial, the Findings of Fact would need to be amended to reflect the reasons for the denial. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this variance, Staff recommends the following ten (10) conditions: 1.That the project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2.That the proposed accessory structure shall be permitted with a setback of two (2) foot two (2) inches from the west property line and seven (7) feet three (3) inches from the south property line. 3.That the proposed accessory structure shall not exceed the footprint of the existing accessory structure that is twenty-two (22) feet by twenty-two (22) feet. 4.That the proposed accessory structure shall be permitted to be rotated so that the alignment matches that of the western property line and the angle of the existing single family dwelling. 5.That the proposed accessory structure shall be permitted to change the direction of the roofline from an east/west orientation to a north/south orientation with one (1) foot eaves on the north/south facades and (1) foot six (6) inch eaves east/west facades in order to match the existing home 6.That the exterior façade and roofing materials of the proposed garage shall match the colors and materials used on the single family dwelling. 7.That the existing driveway apron leading to the accessory building shall be removed and that any damage to the right-of-way shall be repaired by the property owner. 8.That no living quarters shall be constructed within the proposed accessory structure and that the attic area shall be used for storage purposes only. 9.That the structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. That building and demolition permits for the construction of the new accessory building and a zoning permit for the construction of the driveway shall be required. 10.That the applicant shall obtain a Grading and Erosion Control Permit from the City before the building permit is issued. City Planner Streff reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1.Recommend Approval withConditions ARDEN HILLS PLANNINGCOMMISSION –July 9, 20145 2.Recommend Approval as Submitted. 3.Recommend Denial 4.Table Chair Larson openedthe floor to Commissioner comments. Chair Larson reportedthatthe planned garage was the same size as the existing garage. He believed that the tabling of this requestat the June Planning Commission meetingwas successful. Commissioner Bartel agreed stating the new plan would greatly improve the site. He supported the Planning Case but believed only one variance was being requested. He suggested the language of the variance be reworded regarding the rotation of the structure. Commissioner Bartelmoved and Commissioner Zimmermanseconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 14-017for a Variance at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard based on thefindings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the ten (10) conditions in the July 9, 2014, report to the Planning Commissionwith rewording of the variance. The motion carried unanimously 4-1 (Holewaopposed). MEMORANDUM 4.A DATE: July 9, 2014 PC Agenda Item TO: Planning Commission FROM: Ryan Streff, City Planner SUBJECT:Planning Case#14-017–No Public HearingRequired(Tabled on June 4th) Applicant: Chad & Sasha Myers Property Location: 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard Request: Variance Requested Action The applicants arerequestingtwo(2)variancesinorder to reconstruct thenonconforming accessory structure located at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard. 1)Rotate the structure approximately fifteen (15) degrees to align the garage with the western property line and the angle of the existing homeresulting in a setback of two(2) foot two(2) inchesfrom the west property line,and seven (7) feet three (3) inchesfrom the south property line. 2)Change the direction of the roofline from aneast/west orientation to a north/south orientation with one (1) foot eaves on the north/south facades and (1) footsix (6) inch eaveseast/westfacadesin order to match the existing home. Background 1.Background At the June 4, 2014, Planning Commission meeting the applicants proposed to reconstruct and expand a nonconforming accessory structure from twenty-two (22) feet by twenty-two (22) feet to twenty-four (24) feet by twenty-six (26) feet, an increase of 140 square feet. After aclose review of the application by the Commission thevariance request was tabled in order to give the applicant’sadditional timeto reevaluatetheir proposal and providean City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for July 9, 2014 P:\\Planning\\Planning Cases\\2014\\PC 14-017 -Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\\Memo_Reports_14-017 112 Page of alternate plan that would more closely conform to the existing nonconforming structure in terms of the building footprint andsetbacks.The applicants havesincereviewed and updated their plans for the nonconforming accessory structure. Their proposal for the new accessory structure now includes a footprint that is identical to the existing structure with slight variations to the placement and roof design. The draft Planning Commission meeting minutes (Attachment A) and the staff report to the th Planning Commission (Attachment B)from the June4meeting are attached. 2.Overview of Request The applicants are proposing to reconstruct thetwenty-two (22) foot by twenty-two (22) foot existing nonconforming accessory structure on the property. Along Fairview Avenue, the proposed structure would be realigned to be parallel with the western property line and constructed with a setback of two (2) foot two(2) inches. The previous proposal suggested a setback of eight (8) inches from the west property line.From the south property line the proposed structure would moved to the north an additional one (1) foot, which would result in a seven (7)foot three (3) inch setback.The setback proposed between the structure and the south property line during the previous review was four (4) feet one(1) inch. As proposed the roofline of the accessory structure would change from an east/west orientationto a north/south orientation in order for the garage to be accessible from the existing driveway.The new design of the accessory structure would alsoincorporateone (1) foot eaves on the north/south facades and (1) foot six (6) incheaveseast/westfacades in order to match the existing home The applicants haveindicatedwithin their narrative that the façade and roofing materials to be used on thenew detached accessory structurewould match the materials on the existing single family dwelling. The applicantshavesubmitted a narrative of the proposed projectand a response to the variance evaluation criteria (Attachment C), asurvey and a site plan of the property (Attachment D), and garage elevations and building plans (Attachment E). 3.Site Data Future Land Use Plan:Low Density Residential Existing Land Use:Single Family Detached Residential Zoning:R-2:Single Family& Two FamilyResidential Current Lot Sizes:.35Acres (Square Feet) 15,241 The property has afair amount of grade change as the lot slopes toward Lake Topography: Johanna. The area around the existing garage is fairly flat. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for July 9, 2014 P:\\Planning\\Planning Cases\\2014\\PC 14-017 -Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\\Memo_Reports_14-017 212 Page of 4.Surrounding Area DirectionFuture Land Use PlanZoningExisting Land Use R-2:Single & Two Family Single Family Detached NorthLow Density Residential ResidentialResidential R-2: Single & Two Family Single Family Detached SouthLow Density Residential ResidentialResidential EastWater –Lake JohannaWater –Lake JohannaWater –Lake Johanna R-2: Single & Two Family Single Family Detached WestLow Density Residential ResidentialResidential Plan Evaluation 1.R-1Regulations, Existing Conditions, and Proposed Redevelopment A.Lot Size & Dimensions–Meets Requirements Applicable R-2Lot Requirements 1.Minimum Lot Area (sf.)11,000 The main lot is 15,241 square feet in size with approximate dimensions of 100 feet 2. Minimum Lot Size (ft., width/depth)85/120 in width, and 165 feet in depth and the 3. Height (ft.)35 smallerlot adjacent to Lake Johanna is 4. Lot Covered by Structure25% approximately 520 square feet.Combined 5. Minimum Landscape Lot Area65% the two lots total 15,761square feet. 6. Minimum Building Setbacks (ft) Although under common ownership, the Front Yard40 property adjacent to Lake Johanna cannot Rear Yard (Principal)30 contribute toward the total lot area for the Rear Yard (Accessory)10 main lot. Side Yard Interior -Principal (Minimum/total both yards on lot)5/15 B.Structure Setbacks –Variance Required Side Yard Interior -Accessory10 Side Yard Corner40 The existing accessory structure on the property does not currently meet thesetback requirementsin the R-2 Zoning Districtand is thereforea nonconforming structure. The single family dwelling on the property meets the setback requirements for the R-2 Zoning District. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for July 9, 2014 P:\\Planning\\Planning Cases\\2014\\PC 14-017 -Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\\Memo_Reports_14-017 312 Page of The existing detached accessory structure is considered a nonconforming structure 1 because of its locationwithin the thirty (30) foot designated setback for a through-lot. The existing accessory structure encroaches between twenty-five (25) feet six (6) inches and twenty-nine (29) feet four (4) inches into the thirty (30) foot setback along the west property line, leaving a setback of four (4) feet six (6) inches at its furthest point and eight (8) inches at its closest pointfrom the west property line.The existing accessory structure encroaches three (3) feet nine(9) inches into the ten (10) foot setback along the southernproperty line, leaving a setback of six (6) feet three (3) inch between the structure and the south property line. As indicatedby the applicant,the proposed accessory structure would encroach twenty- seven (27) feet ten (10) inches into the thirty (30) foot setback along Fairview Avenue andtwo (2) feet nine (9) inches into the ten (10) foot setback along the southernproperty line. This would leave a setback of two(2) foot two(2) inches from the west property line and a setback of seven (7) feet three (3) inches from the south property line.The proposed footprint of the structure would not be increasedandwould remain twenty-two (22) feet by twenty-two (22) feet.As proposed the roofline of accessory structure would change from an east/west orientation to a north/south orientationin order for the garage to be accessible from the existing driveway.The design of the structure would also incorporate one (1) foot eaves on the north/south facades and (1) foot six (6) incheaves east/westfacades in order to match the existing home. Setbacks –Accessory Setbacks ExistingSetbacks ProposedProposed w/eaves Structure Rear Yard/West Property Line8”2’ 2”8” Side Yard/South Property Line6’ 3”7’ 3”6’ 3” 1 Through-Lots: A lot that has a pair of opposite lot lines abutting two (2) substantially parallel streets, and which is not a corner lot. On a through-lot, the determination of whether the street frontage is to be considered a front yard or rear yard shall be as subject to the provisions in the Zoning Code. The Zoning Administrator maydetermine that one of the front yards may be deemed a rear yard and shall determine appropriate rear yard setback regulations. Factors to be considered shall include topography, location of structures on the lot, location of structures on adjacent lots, and the type of streets or thoroughfares abutting the lot. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for July 9, 2014 P:\\Planning\\Planning Cases\\2014\\PC 14-017 -Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\\Memo_Reports_14-017 412 Page of C.Lot Coverage –Meets Requirements The existing and proposed lot coverage does not exceed the lot coverage limitations of the R-2Zoning District. The maximum lot coverage for impervious surfaces is 35% and the minimum landscape coverage is 65%. Proposed Lot Coverage =32.76% Proposed Landscape Coverage =67.24% ExistingProposed Square Feet%Square Feet% House/Garage 2,31415.18%2,31415.18% Accessory Structure4863.19%4863.19% Decks/Patios-------- Driveway/Walkways 1,72511.32%2,19314.39% Structural Coverage4,52529.69%4,99332.76% Landscaping Coverage70.31%67.24% Lot Size 15,241 D.Structure Height –Meets Requirements The Zoning Code states that accessory structures in the R-2 District shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet or the height of the principal structure to which it is accessory, whichever is lower. The proposed structure would not exceed the 15-foot height maximum for accessory structures. E.Structure Size –Meets Requirements The Zoning Code states that accessory structures associated with residential usesshall not exceed seven hundred and twenty-eight (728) square feet in floor area. The proposed structure at 484 square feetdoes not exceed this requirement. F.Tree Preservation –Meets Requirements The proposed construction should not impact the trees onthe property. If any trees are removed as a result of the project, the applicant will be required to meet the City’s tree preservation standards, and mitigation may be necessary. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for July 9, 2014 P:\\Planning\\Planning Cases\\2014\\PC 14-017 -Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\\Memo_Reports_14-017 512 Page of 2.Non-conforming Buildings A building found to be nonconforming because of height, setbacks or lot area, may continue to exist so long as it is used for the purposes permitted in the zoning district in which it is located and is in conformance with Section 1350.02. Nonconforming buildings shall not be expanded, but may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, and maintenance. *Twovariances are being proposed to address the nonconforming status of the accessory structure. 3.Through-Lots –Front Yard/Rear Yard Designation For properties determined to be through-lots, the Zoning Administratormaydetermine that one of the front yards may be deemed a rear yard and shall determine appropriate rear yard setback regulations. Factors to be considered shall include topography, location of structures on the lot, location of structures on adjacent lots, and the type of streets or thoroughfares abutting the lot. In 2010, when the new single family structurewas built,Fairview Avenue (western property line) was deemed the rear property line and Lake Johanna Boulevard (eastern property line) was deemed thefront property linebased on prevailing setbacks of other principalstructures in theimmediate vicinity.This allowed for a reduction in the setback along Fairview Avenue from forty (40) feet to thirty (30) feet based on the through-lot criteria stated in the Zoning Code. The rear yard designation along Fairview Avenue was appropriate when used for the placement of the principalstructureon this lot. However, the same designation allowing ten (10) foot setbacks for the placement of an accessory structure along the west and south property lines is not currently supported by staff in this case, as there are no similar prevailing setbacks for accessory structures on similar lots in the immediate vicinity. Staff has reviewed the through-lot criteria and has determined that arear yard setback of thirty (30) feet from Fairview Avenue and a ten (10) foot side yard setback from the southern property line are appropriate for accessory structures located within the rear yard.The thirty (30) foot setback designation has beenbased on the current setback of the principalstructure and the location of other principaland accessory structures on adjacent lotsin the immediate vicinity. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for July 9, 2014 P:\\Planning\\Planning Cases\\2014\\PC 14-017 -Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\\Memo_Reports_14-017 612 Page of 4.Flood Plain, Wetlands, and Easements The proposed addition is outside of any flood plains, wetlands, or easements. 5.Additional Review a. The Rice Creek Watershed District reviewed the plans for this request and determined that a RCWD Permit would not be required for the proposed project at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard. b. The Building Official reviewed the plans for the project and had no additional comments. c. The City Engineer reviewed the proposal and stated that a Grading and Erosion Control Permit is needed for this project. Variance Evaluation Criteria On May 5, 2011, the Governor signed into law new variance legislation that changed the review criteria City’s must use when evaluating variance requests. The new law renames the municipal variance standard from “undue hardship” to “practical difficulties,” but otherwise retains the familiar three-factor test of (1) reasonableness, (2) uniqueness, and (3) essential character. Also included is a sentence new to city variance authority that was already in the county statutes: “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan”. Therefore, in evaluating variance requests under the new law, in order to find a practical difficulty, cities should adopt findings addressing the following questions: Is the variance in harmony withthe purposes and intent of the ordinance? Is the variance consistent withthe comprehensive plan? Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? Are there unique circumstancesto the property not created by the landowner? Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential characterof the locality? As was the case before the new legislation took effect, economic considerations alone cannot constitute a practical difficulty. Furthermore, the new law clarifies that conditions may be imposed on granting of variances if those conditions are directly related to and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for July 9, 2014 P:\\Planning\\Planning Cases\\2014\\PC 14-017 -Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\\Memo_Reports_14-017 712 Page of Findings of Fact Staff offers the following twenty-three(23)findings of fact for review: General Findings 1.The property is in the R-2Single & Two Family Residential Zoning District. 2.The lot is 15,241square feet in size with approximate dimensions of 100feet in width, and 165feet in depth. 3.The existing accessory structure is a nonconforming structure within the R-2 Zoning Districtbecause of its existing setbacks to the south and west property lines. 4.Because theexisting accessory structure is positioned at an angle relative to the west property line,the structure encroachesbetween twenty-five (25) feet six (6) inches and twenty-nine (29) feet four (4) inches into the thirty (30) foot setback along the west property line, leaving a setback of four(4)feet six (6) inches at its furthest point and eight (8) inches between the structure and the west property lineat its closest point. 5.The existing accessory structureencroaches three (3) feet nine(9) inches into the ten (10) foot setback along the south property line, leaving a setback of six (6) feet three (3) inchesbetween the structure and the south property line. 6.The existing accessory structure does not encroach into the north or eastproperty line setbacks. 7.The proposed accessory structure encroaches twenty-seven(27) feet ten(10) inches into the thirty(30) foot setback alongtheentire length of the structure, leaving a setback of two (2) feet two (2) inches from the west propertyline. 8.Theproposed accessory structure encroaches two (2) feet nine (9) inches into the (10) foot setback, leaving a setback of seven (7) feetthree (3) inches from the south property line. This is anincrease of one (1) foot further from the property line when compared to the existing structure. 9.The proposed accessory structure will not increasethe footprint and will remain twenty- two (22) feet by twenty-two (22). 10.The proposed accessory structure would be rotated approximately fifteen (15) degrees to align the garage with the western property line and the angle of the existing home. 11.The proposed accessory structure would change the direction of the roofline from an east/west orientation to a north/south orientation with one (1) foot eaves on the north/south facades and (1) foot six (6) incheaveseast/westfacades in order to match the existing home 12.The existing single family dwelling and attached garage meet all property line setbacks. 13.The proposed structure and landscaping coveragesare within the zoning district requirements. 14.The proposed accessory structure would not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height. 15.Detached accessory structures arepermitted structures within the R-2Zoning District. 16.All structures on the lot areoutside of the 100-year flood plain, wetlands, and easements. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for July 9, 2014 P:\\Planning\\Planning Cases\\2014\\PC 14-017 -Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\\Memo_Reports_14-017 812 Page of Variance Findings: 17.The proposal is in harmony withthe purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as the Ordinance generally allows flexibility for unique parcels and situations when impacts to surrounding properties are minimized. 18.The proposal is consistent withthe Arden Hills Comprehensive Plan as it allows the reasonable use of residential property. 19.Detached accessory structures are permitted and a reasonable use within the R-2Single Family Residential Zoning District. 20.The lot has rather unique characteristics as the property slopes towards Lake Johanna approximately 18(eighteen)feet from west to east leaving limited options for expansion or movement of the accessory structure to an area that meets the setback regulations. 21.Theproposed accessory structurewould be visible from neighboring properties; however, the proposed design and the use of quality materials for the detached structure that match the single family dwelling should minimize the impacts on surrounding property owners. 22.The proposed accessory structureis unlikely to have negative impacts to the property or to the neighborhood as a whole. 23.The proposed plans and requested variances for the accessory structuredo not appear to be based on economic considerations alone. Discussion The property is unique when compared to many properties in Arden Hills because of its topography. From Fairview Avenueto Lake Johanna Boulevard the property slopes approximately 18(eighteen)feet fromwest to east. Because of the lot’stopography and configurationof structures on the lot, options for expansion or the movement of the accessory structure to an area that meets the setback regulations is very limited. The proposed realignment and change in the roof orientation is reasonable in order for the applicant to construct a functional garage that is accessed from the existing driveway. Due to the scope of the project and the proposedchanges to the structure, the character of the neighborhood or the City is not expected to be negativelyaffected as a structure already exists in the general location of the proposed structure. It does not appear that the variance request is based on economic considerations alone. A detached accessory structure is a permitted use in the R-2 Zoning District and is a reasonable request for the subject property. Recommendation The findings of fact for this variance request support a recommendation for approval. However, if the Planning Commission chooses to make a recommendation for denial, the Findings of Fact would need to be amended to reflect the reasons for the denial. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for July 9, 2014 P:\\Planning\\Planning Cases\\2014\\PC 14-017 -Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\\Memo_Reports_14-017 912 Page of If the Planning Commission recommends approval ofthis variance, Staff recommends the following ten(10) conditions: 1.That the project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commissionand City Council. 2.That the proposed accessory structure shall be permittedwith a setback of two (2) foot two (2)inches from the west property line and seven (7) feet three(3) inches from the south property line. 3.That the proposed accessory structure shall not exceed the footprint of the existing accessory structure that is twenty-two (22) feet by twenty-two (22) feet. 4.That the proposed accessory structure shall be permitted to be rotated so that the alignment matches that of the western property line and the angle of the existing single family dwelling. 5.That the proposed accessory structure shall be permitted to change the direction of the roofline from an east/west orientation to a north/south orientationwith one (1) foot eaves on the north/south facades and (1) foot six (6) incheaveseast/westfacades in order to match the existing home 6.That the exterior façade and roofing materials of the proposed garage shall match the colors and materials used on the single family dwelling. 7.That the existing driveway apron leading to the accessory building shall be removed and that any damage to the right-of-way shall be repaired by the property owner. 8.That no living quarters shall be constructed within the proposed accessory structure and that the attic area shall be used for storage purposes only. 9.That the structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. That building and demolition permits for the construction of the new accessory building and a zoning permit for the construction of the driveway shall be required. 10.That the applicant shall obtain a Grading and Erosion Control Permit from the City before the building permit is issued. Options 1.Recommend Approval with Conditions:Motion to recommend approvalof Planning Case 14-017for a variance at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard to replace the existing nonconforming accessory structure with minor modifications to the location and roofline,based on the findings of fact, the submitted plans, and the ten (10)conditions in the July 9, 2014,Report to the Planning Commission. 2.Recommend Approval as Submitted:Motion to recommend approvalof Planning Case 14- 017 for a variance at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevardto replace the existing nonconforming City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for July 9, 2014 P:\\Planning\\Planning Cases\\2014\\PC 14-017 -Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\\Memo_Reports_14-017 1012 Page of accessory structure with minor modifications to the location and roofline,based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in the July 9, 2014, Report to the Planning Commission. 3.Recommend Denial:Motion to recommend denialof Planning Case 14-017 for a variance at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevardto replace the existing nonconforming accessorystructure with minor modifications to the location and rooflinebased on the following findings of fact… 4.Table:Motion to tablePlanning Case 14-017 for a variance at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevardto replace the existing nonconforming accessory structure with minor modifications to the location and roofline:a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. Notice Although a variance does not require a public hearing, a public meeting notice was prepared by the Cityand mailed to properties within three-hundred fifty (350) feet of the subject property. Resident Comment Staff has received six (6) letters from neighboring property owners in support of the project at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard. Deadline for AgencyActions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on May 5, 2014. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City was required to act on this request by July 4, 2014 (60 days), unless the City provided the petitioner withwritten reasons for an additional 60-day review period. The petitioner was notified on June 9, 2014, of the City’s request for an additional 60-day review period. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must now act on this request by September 2,2014 (120 days). The City may, with the consent of the applicant, extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for July 9, 2014 P:\\Planning\\Planning Cases\\2014\\PC 14-017 -Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\\Memo_Reports_14-017 1112 Page of Attachments A.Draft Planning Commission Minutes –June 4, 2014 B.Planning Commission Report –June 4, 2014 C.Application and Narrative D.Survey and Site Plan E.Garage Elevations/Building Plans F.Aerial Photo G.Property Photos H.Letters from Neighboring Residents City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for July 9, 2014 P:\\Planning\\Planning Cases\\2014\\PC 14-017 -Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\\Memo_Reports_14-017 1212 Page of Attachment C Approved:July 9, 2014 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4,2014 6:30 P.M. -ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Chair Clayton Larson Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, called to order the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:30p.m. ROLL CALL Present were: Chair Clayton Larson, Commissioners Brent Bartel, Andrew Holewa, Steven Jones (Alternate), Roberta Thompson, and Clayton Zimmerman. Absent: CommissionersAngela Hames and Sam Scott. Also present were: Community Development Director Jill Hutmacher; City Planner Ryan Streff; Associate Planner Matthew Bachler; and Councilmember Brenda Holden. APPROVAL OF AGENDA –JUNE 4,2014 Chair Larson stated the agenda will stand as published. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 7,2014–Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Holewa requested the minutes be corrected to reflect the changes he presented to staff and be brought back to the Commission at the July meeting for approval. Commissioner Holewa movedand Commissioner Thompson seconded a motion to table action on the May 7, 2014 meeting minutes to the July Planning Commission meeting. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). PLANNING CASES A.Planning Case 14-017;Variance;3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard–Not a Public Hearing ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION –June 4, 20142 City Planner Streff stated that the applicants in this case own the property located at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard. The property is zoned R-2 Single & Two Family Residential and is generally positioned north of Noble Road, south of Grant Road, east of Fairview Avenue North and west of Lake Johanna/Lake Johanna Boulevard. The property is located on a through-lot between Fairview Avenue and Lake Johanna Boulevard and consists of a conforming single-family dwelling and a nonconforming detached accessory structure. City Planner Streff indicated that the applicants are proposing to reconstruct and expand the nonconforming accessory structure on the property from twenty-two (22) feet by twenty-two (22) feet to twenty-four (24) feet by twenty-six (26) feet, an increase of 140 square feet. Along Fairview Avenue, the proposed structure would encroach at the same distance along the entire length of the garage as a new alignment is being proposed to align the structure with the western property line. As proposed,the roofline of the accessory structure would also change from an east/west orientation to a north/south orientation in order for the garage to be accessible from the existing driveway. City Planner Streff reported that the applicants have indicated within their narrative that the façade and roofing materials to be used on the new detached accessory structure would match the materials on the existing single-familydwelling. Following the construction, an addition to the existing drivewaywould be added so that the new garage would be accessible from the current access to the property. Site Data Land Use Plan: Low Density Residential Existing Land Use: Single Family Detached Residential Zoning: R-2: Single Family & Two Family Residential Current Lot Sizes: .35 Acres (15,241 Square Feet) Topography: The property has a fair amount of grade change as the lot slopes toward Lake Johanna. The area around the existing garage is fairly flat. City Planner Streff reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation and the Variance Evaluation Criteria. City Planner Streff provided the Findings of Fact for review: General Findings 1.The property is in the R-2 Single & Two Family Residential Zoning District. 2.The lot is 15,241 square feet in size with approximate dimensions of 100 feet in width, and 165 feet in depth. 3.The existing accessory structure is a nonconforming structure within the R-2 Zoning District because of its existing setbacks to the south and west property lines. 4.Because the existing accessory structure is positioned at an angle relative to the west property line, the structure encroaches between twenty-five (25) feet six (6) inches and twenty-nine (29) feet four (4) inches into the thirty (30) foot setback along the west property line, leaving a setback of four (4) feet six (6) inches at its furthest point and eight (8) inches between the structure and the west property line at its closest point. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION –June 4, 20143 5.The existing accessory structure encroaches three (3) feet eleven (11) inches into the ten (10) foot setback along the south property line, leaving a setback of six (6) feet one (1) inch between the structure and the south property line. 6.The existing accessory structure does not encroach into the north oreastproperty line setbacks. 7.The proposed accessory structure encroaches twenty-nine (29) feet four (4) inches into the thirty (30) foot setback along the entire length of the structure. 8.The proposed accessory structure encroaches an additionaltwo (2) feet into the south property line setback. 9.The proposed accessory structure increases the footprint from twenty-two (22) feet by twenty-two (22) feet, or 484 square feet,to twenty-four (24) feet by twenty-six (26) feet, or 624 square feet. This would amountto an increase of the building footprint by 140 square feet. 10.The proposed accessory structure would be rotated approximately fifteen (15) degrees to align the garage with the western property line and the angle of the existing home. 11.The proposed accessory structure would change the direction of the roofline from an east/west orientation to a north/south orientation. 12.The existing single family dwelling and attached garage meet all property line setbacks. 13.The proposed structure and landscaping coverages are within the zoning district requirements. 14.The proposed accessory structure would not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height. 15.Detached accessory structures are permitted structures within the R-2 Zoning District. 16.All structures on the lot are outside of the 100-year flood plain, wetlands, and easements. Variance Findings: 17.Detached accessory structures are permitted and a reasonable use within the R-2 Single & Two Family Residential Zoning District. 18.The lot has rather unique characteristics as the property slopes towards Lake Johanna approximately 18 feet from west to east leaving limited options for expansion or movement of the accessory structure to an area that meets the setback regulations. 19.The proposed accessory structure would be visible from neighboring properties; however, the proposed design and the use of quality materials for the detached structure that match the single family dwelling should minimize the impacts on surrounding property owners. 20.The proposed plans and requested variances for the accessory structure do not appear to be based on economic considerations alone. City Planner Streff statedthatthe findings of fact for the variance do not specifically support a recommendation for denial or approval. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this variance, Staff recommends the following ten (10) conditions: 1.That the project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2.That the proposed accessory structure shall be permitted to encroach no further into the west and south property lines than the existing structure, leaving a setback of four (4) feet six (6) inches from the west property line and a setback of six (6) feet one (1) inch from the south property line. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION –June 4, 20144 3.That the proposed accessorystructure shall not exceed the footprint of the existing accessory structure that is twenty-two (22) feet by twenty-two (22) feet. 4.That the proposed accessory structure shall be permitted to be rotated so that the alignment matches that of the western property line and the angle of the existing single family dwelling. 5.That the proposed accessory structure shall be permitted to change the direction of the roofline from an east/west orientation to a north/south orientation. 6.That the exterior façade and roofing materials of the proposed garage shall match the colors and materials used on the single family dwelling. 7.That the existing driveway apron leading to the accessory building shall be removed and that any damage to the right-of-way shall be repaired by the property owner. 8.That no living quarters shall be constructed within the proposed accessory structure and that the attic area shall be used for storage purposes only. 9.That the structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. That building and demolition permits for the construction of the new accessory building and a zoning permit for the construction of the driveway shall be required. 10.That the applicant shall obtain a Grading and Erosion Control Permitfrom the City before the building permit is issued. City Planner Streff reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1.Recommend Approval with Conditions 2.Recommend Approval as Submitted. 3.Recommend Denial 4.Table Chair Larson openedthe floor to Commissioner comments. Chair Larson questioned what the rear yard setback would be. City Planner Streff explained that after the garage structure was completed, the rear yard (Fairview) setback would be 8 inches. Commissioner Zimmerman questioned the age of the current garage. City Planner Streff deferred this question to the applicant. He noted the home was replaced in 2010, but the garage was pre-existing. Commissioner Bartel inquired if any variances were requested in 2010 for the home. City Planner Streff stated that the property owner at the timerequested a variance for the home, however, this request was denied. Commissioner Zimmerman indicated that the proposed 24’ x 26’ foot garage was reflective of modern garage design. Chad Meyers , 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard, thanked the Commission for considering his variance request. He noted he has lived at the propertyfor the past year and was not the party ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION –June 4, 20145 that reconstructed the home. He believed that the existing two car garage did not suitthe home and was an eyesore for the neighborhood. He requested the Commission allow him to rebuild the garage to meet the needs of his family on this lake lot. He believed the conditions recommended by staff were too restrictive. He discussed the current encroachment of the garage was nine feet and four inches and he explained he was not asking to encroach further to the west property line. He reported he would be working with the same contractor that was used to build the house. Commissioner Jones asked if the power pole would be moved. Mr. Meyers stated that Xcel Energy would be moving the transmission pole to the other side of the garage. Commissioner Thompson questioned what options were available to build a structure that would be in conformance with City setbacks and asked why this was not pursued. Mr. Meyers explained that after discussions with staff,it was determined that the rear yard (Fairview Avenue) setback for an accessory structure was 30 feet. He commented this setback would make a new garage impractical. He stated with a 10 foot setback a garage would be more feasible, but would require 250 cubic feet of fill and would be located on a drainage field. Commissioner Thompson inquired if the drainage field had been reviewed by staff. City Planner Streff stated the Assistant City Engineer had reviewed the request and determined the drainage would not be affected with the current proposal. However, staff did not provide comment on how a different placement of the garage would impact the property. Chair Larson questioned if the variance were to be approved, if the new garage would become a conforming use. City Planner Streff indicated the garage would be nonconforming in terms of setbacks, but would be permitted due to the variance. Chair Larson stated he was not typically in favor of expanding nonconforming uses; however, he believed turning the garage made sense. Commissioner Thompson commented she was torn by this request. She statedsetbacks were established for a reason. She then discussed the unique aspects of this lot noting it had two front yard setbacks and had topography issues to deal with. She explained that by turning the garage, the structure would look better on the lot. Commissioner Zimmerman concurred with Chair Larson regarding the expansion of nonconforming uses. He struggled with approving the expansion, but was supportive of the proposed reorientation of the garage. Commissioner Bartel stated the existing garagewas an eyesore, but he did not believe the increased garage size was necessary. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION –June 4, 20146 Commissioner Thompson understood that two car garages were normal, but she did not believe that a three car garage was a requirement. Commissioner Holewa understood why the homeowners wanted to replace the garage; however, he did not support allthree variances. He questioned if the Commission should table action to allow the applicant to reconsider his request, or make a motion for denial. Chair Larson stated the expansion of a nonconforming use was a concern for the Commission. He suggested the owner provide comment on why the garage needed to be expanded. Mr. Meyers believed that the proposed garage would allow him reasonable use of his property. He stated the garagewould cost him $50,000 to reconstruct and he wanted the garage to become reasonably useful. He commented that Condition 2 should be revised to reflect that the setbacks would be changed. He reported that he was not interested in building a garage if he had to follow these conditions, as one stall of the garage would be unusable. Mr. Meyers questioned whether the Commission would be supportive of a plan to rebuild the garage so as not to encroach further into the rear and side setbacks, but rather expand the garage towards the house. Chair Larson believed the consensus of the Commission was to not expand a nonconforming use. He asked if Mr. Meyers was willing to reconsider his request. Mr. Meyers was willing to reconsider his garage expansion. Chair Larson questioned how the Commission would like to proceed with this variance request. Commissioner Zimmerman stated the easiest solution would be to rebuild the existing garage on the current footprint. Commissioner Bartel feared that tabling action on this may not allow for this matter to be resolved as the applicants were hoping for a garage larger than 22’ x 22’. Chair Larson stated tabling the matter would allowMr. Meyers to continue with the request without making Mr. Meyers reapply for a variance. Commissioner Holewa was in favor of the applicant rebuilding on the existing footprint. He indicated he could go either way on this request but noted he would support the matter being tabled. Commissioner Bartel recommended the request be tabled. Commissioner Jones stated this was a unique lot and discussed the number of homes that have beenrebuilt along this street. City Planner Streff discussed the setbacks as determined by the City for through-lots. Staff believed that a 40 foot setback was appropriate for the lakeside and front of the home.It was determined that a 30 foot setback was appropriate for the rear yard along Fairview Avenue. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION –June 4, 20147 Commissioner Bartelmoved and Commissioner Holewaseconded a motion to table action on Planning Case 14-017 for aVariance at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevardto allow for further examination of the request by the applicant and staff. City Planner Streff requested the Commission provide staff comment on what setbacks would be acceptable. Chair Larson believed that eight inches was not a desirable setback. He stated he could entertain a lesser setback than 30 feet;however, the size of the structure should not be overly expanded. He recommended a reasonable setback from Fairview be created. Commissioner Bartel agreed stating the size of the garage was more of a concern than the setbacks. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). B.Planning Case 14-019;Zoning Code Amendment –Lighting Regulations–Not a Public Hearing Associate Planner Bachler stated that the 2014 Planning Commission Work Plan was discussed and adopted at the March 17, 2014, City Council Work Session. One of the items on the plan concerns light-emitting diode (LED) lighting. Compared to incandescent lighting, LED lights produce a greater amount of luminosity, or brightness. The City Council asked staff to review the City’s existing regulations on lighting and to update relevant ordinances if necessary to address the potential impacts associated with brighter LED lights. This memo provides an overview of the sections in the Zoning Code that regulate lighting and also discusses ideas for additional regulations that could be considered. Based on the direction provided by the Planning Commission, staff will draft an ordinance that would amend the Zoning Code to update the City’s lighting regulations. Associate Planner Bachler indicated that provisions on lighting are generally confined to Section 1325.05 Design Standards in the Zoning Code. Lighting is required to be directed away from adjacent lots and streets and the source of illumination must be controlled in such a way that light is only directed onto the site. The Zoning Code restricts light trespass by stipulating that light cast onto adjacent travel lanes or roadways cannot exceed 1.0 foot candle and 0.4 foot candles on adjoining residential properties. No morethan 25 percent of non-residential façades that are visible from residential properties can be illuminated by direct light from a source such as a flood light. Associate Planner Bachler indicated that Section 1320 District Regulations includes special requirements for specific districts in the City. The Neighborhood Business, B-4 Retail Center, Gateway Business, and Civic Center Districts all have special requirements regarding lighting that go beyond the provisions in Section 1325.05: •In the Neighborhood Business District, accent lighting is only permitted when used to delineate the main entrance into a building. Parking lot lighting is restricted to a maximum of 14 feet in height. Attachment D MEMORANDUM 3.A DATE: June 4, 2014 PC Agenda Item TO: Planning Commission FROM: Ryan Streff, City Planner SUBJECT:Planning Case#14-017–No Public HearingRequired Applicant: Chad & Sasha Myers Property Location: 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard Request: Variance Requested Action The applicant is requesting three(3) variancesin order to reconstruct and expand a nonconforming accessory structure located at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard. 1)Expand the nonconforming structure from twenty-two (22) feet by twenty-two (22) feet to twenty-four (24) feet by twenty-six (26) feet and change the direction of the roofline from an east/west orientation to a north/south orientation. 2)Rotate the structure approximately fifteen (15) degrees to align the garage with the western property line and the angle of the existing home. 3)Encroach into the side yard setback an additional two (2) feet leaving a setback of approximately four (4) feet between the property line and the accessory structure. Background 1.Overview of Request The applicants in this case own the property located at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard. The property is zoned R-2 Single & Two Family Residential and is generally positioned north of Noble Road, south of Grant Road, east of Fairview Avenue North and west of Lake Johanna/Lake Johanna Boulevard. The property is located on a through-lot between City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for June 4, 2014 P:\\Planning\\Planning Cases\\2014\\PC 14-017 -Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\\Memo_Reports_14-017 111 Page of Fairview Avenue and Lake Johanna Boulevard and consists of a conforming single family dwelling and a nonconforming detached accessory structure. The applicants are proposing to reconstruct and expand the nonconforming accessory structure on the property from twenty-two (22) feet by twenty-two (22) feet to twenty-four (24) feet by twenty-six (26) feet, an increase of 140 square feet.Along Fairview Avenue,the proposed structure would encroach at the same distance along the entire length of the garage as anew alignment is being proposed to align the structure with the western property line. As proposed the roofline of the accessory structure would also change from an east/west orientation to a north/south orientationin order for the garage to be accessible from the existing driveway. The applicants haveindicatedwithin their narrative that the façade and roofing materials to be used on thenew detached accessory structurewould match the materials on the existing single family dwelling.Following the construction,anaddition to the existing driveway would be added so that thenew garage would be accessible from the current access to the property. The applicantshavesubmitted a narrative of the proposed projectand a response to the variance evaluation criteria (Attachment A), asurvey and a site plan of the property (Attachment B), and garage elevations and building plans (Attachment C). 2.Site Data Future Land Use Plan:Low Density Residential Existing Land Use:Single Family Detached Residential Zoning:R-2:Single Family& Two FamilyResidential Current Lot Sizes:.35Acres (Square Feet) 15,241 The property has afair amount of grade change as the lot slopes toward Lake Topography: Johanna. The area around the existing garage is fairly flat. 3.Surrounding Area DirectionFuture Land Use PlanZoningExisting Land Use R-2:Single & Two Family Single Family Detached NorthLow Density Residential ResidentialResidential R-2: Single & Two Family Single Family Detached SouthLow Density Residential ResidentialResidential EastWater –Lake JohannaWater –Lake JohannaWater –Lake Johanna R-2: Single & Two Family Single Family Detached WestLow Density Residential ResidentialResidential City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for June 4, 2014 P:\\Planning\\Planning Cases\\2014\\PC 14-017 -Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\\Memo_Reports_14-017 211 Page of Plan Evaluation 1.R-1Regulations, Existing Conditions, and Proposed Redevelopment A.Lot Size & Dimensions–Meets Requirements Applicable R-2Lot Requirements 1.Minimum Lot Area (sf.)11,000 The main lot is 15,241 square feet in size with approximate dimensions of 100 feet 2. Minimum Lot Size (ft., width/depth)85/120 in width, and 165 feet in depthand the 3. Height (ft.)35 smallerlot adjacent to Lake Johanna is 4. Lot Covered by Structure25% approximately 520 square feet.Combined 5. Minimum Landscape Lot Area65% the two lots total 15,761square feet. 6. Minimum Building Setbacks (ft) Although under common ownership, the Front Yard40 property adjacent to Lake Johanna cannot Rear Yard (Principle)30 contribute toward the total lot area for the Rear Yard (Accessory)10 main lot. Side Yard Interior -Principal (Minimum/total both yards on lot)5/15 B.Structure Setbacks –Variance Required Side Yard Interior -Accessory10 Side Yard Corner40 The existing accessory structure on the property does not currently meet thesetback requirementsin the R-2 Zoning Districtand is thereforea nonconforming structure. The single family dwelling on the property meets the setback requirements for the R-2 Zoning District. The existing detached accessory structure is considered a nonconforming structure 1 because of its locationwithin the thirty (30) foot designated setback for a through-lot. The existing accessory structure encroaches between twenty-four (24) feet six (6) inches and twenty-nine (29) feet four (4) inches into the thirty (30) foot setback along the west property line, leaving a setback of five (5) feet six (6) inches at its furthest point and eight (8) inches at its closest pointfrom the west property line.The existing accessory 1 Through-Lots. A lot that has a pair of opposite lot lines abutting two (2) substantially parallel streets, and which is not a corner lot. On a through-lot, the determination ofwhether the street frontage is to be considered a front yard or rear yard shall be as subject to the provisions in the Zoning Code. The Zoning Administrator maydetermine that one of the front yards may be deemed a rear yard and shall determine appropriate rear yard setback regulations. Factors to be considered shall include topography, location of structures on the lot, location of structures on adjacent lots, and the type of streets or thoroughfares abutting the lot. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for June 4, 2014 P:\\Planning\\Planning Cases\\2014\\PC 14-017 -Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\\Memo_Reports_14-017 311 Page of structure encroaches three (3) feet eleven (11) inches into the ten (10) foot setback along the southernproperty line, leaving a setback of six (6) feet one (1) inch between the structure and the south property line.The Zoning Code permits detached accessory structures within this district;however, they are not permitted within the designated setbacks forathrough-lot. As indicatedby the applicant,the proposed accessory structure would encroach twenty- nine (29) feet four (4) inches into the thirty (30) foot setback along Fairview Avenue and an additionaltwo (2) feet into the ten (10) foot setback along the southernproperty line. This would leave a setback of eight (8) inches from the west property line and a setback of four (4) feet three (3) inches from the south property line. The proposed structure would increasethe footprint of the existing detached garage from twenty-two (22) feet by twenty-two (22) feet to twenty-four (24) feet by twenty-six (26) feet. This would be an increase of 140 square feet.As proposed the roofline of accessory structure would change from an east/west orientation to a north/south orientationin order for the garage to be accessible from the existing driveway. C.Lot Coverage –Meets Requirements The existing and proposed lot coverage does not exceed the lot coverage limitations of the R-2Zoning District. The maximum lot coverage for impervious surfaces is 35% and the minimum landscape coverage is 65%. Proposed Lot Coverage =33.66% Proposed Landscape Coverage =66.34% ExistingProposed Square Feet%Square Feet% House/Garage2,31415.18%2,31415.18% Accessory Structure 4863.19%6244.09% Decks/Patios -------- Driveway/Walkways1,72511.32%2,19314.39% Structural Coverage 4,52529.69%5,13133.66% Landscaping Coverage 70.31%66.34% Lot Size15,241 D.Structure Height –Meets Requirements The Zoning Code states that accessory structures in the R-2Districtshall not exceed fifteen (15) feet or the height of the principal structure to which it is accessory, whichever City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for June 4, 2014 P:\\Planning\\Planning Cases\\2014\\PC 14-017 -Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\\Memo_Reports_14-017 411 Page of is lower. The proposed structure would not exceed the 15-foot height maximum for accessory structures. E.Structure Size –Meets Requirements The Zoning Code states that accessory structures associated with residential uses shall not exceed seven hundred and twenty-eight (728) square feet in floor area. Both the existing structure at 484 square feetand proposed accessory structureat 624 square feetdo not exceed this requirement. F.Tree Preservation–Meets Requirements The proposed construction should not impact the trees on the property. If any trees are removed as a result of the project, the applicantwill be required to meet the City’s tree preservation standards, and mitigation may be necessary. 2.Non-conforming Buildings A building found to be nonconforming because of height, setbacks or lot area, may continue to exist so long as it is used for the purposes permitted in the zoning district in which it is located and is in conformance with Section 1350.02. Nonconforming buildings shall not be expanded, but may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, and maintenance. *Three variances are being proposed to address the nonconforming status of the accessory structure. 3.Through-Lots –Front Yard/Rear Yard Designation For properties determined to be through-lots, the Zoning Administratormaydetermine that one of the front yards may be deemed a rear yard and shall determine appropriate rear yard setback regulations. Factors to be considered shall include topography, location of structures on the lot, location of structures on adjacent lots, and the type of streets or thoroughfares abutting the lot. In 2010, when the new single family structurewas built,Fairview Avenue (western property line) was deemed the rear property line and Lake Johanna Boulevard (eastern property line) was deemed the front property linebased on prevailing setbacks of other principle structures in theimmediate vicinity.This allowed for a reduction in the setback along Fairview Avenue City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for June 4, 2014 P:\\Planning\\Planning Cases\\2014\\PC 14-017 -Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\\Memo_Reports_14-017 511 Page of from forty (40) feet to thirty (30) feet based on the through-lot criteria stated in the Zoning Code. The rear yard designation along Fairview Avenue was appropriate when used for the placement of the principle structureon this lot. However, the same designation allowing ten (10) foot setbacks for the placement of an accessory structure along the west and south property lines is not currently supported by staff in this case, as there are no similar prevailing setbacks for accessory structures on similar lots in the immediate vicinity. Staff has reviewed the through-lot criteria and has determined that arear yard setback of thirty (30) feet from Fairview Avenue and a ten (10) foot side yard setback from the southern property line are appropriate for accessory structures located within the rear yard.The thirty (30) foot setback designation has beenbased on the current setback of the principle structure and the location of other principle and accessory structures on adjacent lotsin the immediate vicinity. 4.Flood Plain, Wetlands, and Easements The proposed addition is outside of any flood plains, wetlands, or easements. 5.Additional Review a. The Rice Creek Watershed District reviewed the plans for this request and determined that a RCWD Permit would not be required for the proposed project at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard. b. The Building Official reviewed the plans for the project and had no additional comments. c. The City Engineer reviewed the proposal and stated that a Grading and Erosion Control Permit is needed for this project. Variance Evaluation Criteria On May 5, 2011, the Governor signed into law new variance legislation that changed the review criteria City’s must use when evaluating variance requests. The new law renames the municipal variance standard from “undue hardship” to “practical difficulties,” but otherwise retains the familiar three-factor test of (1) reasonableness, (2) uniqueness, and (3) essential character. Also included is a sentence new to city variance authority that was already in the county statutes: “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan”. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for June 4, 2014 P:\\Planning\\Planning Cases\\2014\\PC 14-017 -Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\\Memo_Reports_14-017 611 Page of Therefore, in evaluating variance requests under the new law, in order to find a practical difficulty, cities should adopt findings addressing the following questions: Is the variance in harmony withthe purposes and intent of the ordinance? Is the variance consistent withthe comprehensive plan? Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? Are there unique circumstancesto the property not created by the landowner? Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential characterof the locality? As was the case before the new legislation took effect, economic considerations alone cannot constitute a practical difficulty. Furthermore, the new law clarifies that conditions may be imposed on granting of variances if those conditions are directly related to and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. Findings of Fact Staff offers the followingtwenty(20)findings of fact for review: General Findings 1.The property is in the R-2Single & Two Family Residential Zoning District. 2.The lot is 15,241square feet in size with approximate dimensions of 100feet in width, and 165feet in depth. 3.The existing accessory structure is a nonconforming structure within the R-2 Zoning Districtbecause of its existing setbacks to the south and west property lines. 4.Because theexisting accessory structure is positioned at an angle relative to the west property line,the structure encroachesbetween twenty-four (24) feet six (6) inches and twenty-nine (29) feet four (4) inches into the thirty (30) foot setback along the west property line, leaving a setback of five (5) feet six (6) inches at its furthest point and eight (8) inches between the structure and the west property lineat its closest point. 5.The existing accessory structureencroaches three (3) feet eleven (11) inches into the ten (10) foot setback along the south property line, leaving a setback of six (6) feet one (1) inch between the structure and the south property line. 6.The existing accessory structure does not encroach into the north or west property line setbacks. 7.The proposed accessory structure encroaches twenty-nine (29) feet four (4) inches into the thirty(30) foot setback alongthe entire length of the structure. 8.The proposed accessory structure encroaches an additional two (2) feet into the south property line setback. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for June 4, 2014 P:\\Planning\\Planning Cases\\2014\\PC 14-017 -Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\\Memo_Reports_14-017 711 Page of 9.The proposed accessory structure increases the footprint from twenty-two (22) feet by twenty-two (22) feet or 484 square feet to twenty-four (24) feet by twenty-six (26) feet or 624 square feet. An increase of 140 square feet. 10.The proposed accessory structure would be rotated approximately fifteen (15) degrees to align the garage with the western property line and the angle of the existing home. 11.The proposed accessory structure would change the direction of the rooflinefrom an east/west orientation to a north/south orientation. 12.The existing single family dwelling and attached garage meet all property line setbacks. 13.The proposed structure and landscaping coveragesare within the zoning district requirements. 14.The proposed accessory structure would not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height. 15.Detached accessory structures arepermitted structures within the R-2Zoning District. 16.All structures on the lot areoutside of the 100-year flood plain, wetlands, and easements. Variance Findings: 17.Detached accessory structuresare permitted anda reasonable use within the R-2Single & Two Family Residential Zoning District. 18.The lot has rather unique characteristics as the property slopes towards Lake Johanna approximately 18 feet from west to east leaving limited options for expansion or movement of the accessory structure to an area that meets the setback regulations. 19.The proposed accessory structurewould be visible from neighboring properties; however, the proposed design and the use of quality materials for the detached structure that match the singlefamily dwelling should minimize the impacts on surrounding property owners. 20.The proposed plans and requested variances for the accessory structuredo not appear to be based on economic considerations alone. Discussion A detached accessory structure is a permitted use in the R-2 Zoning District and is a reasonable request for the subject property. However, it is unclear to staff if the expansion of this nonconforming use meets the City’s Variance Criteria under theState’s Law for “Practical Difficulties”. The variance is unlikely to negatively impact the neighborhood or the City as a structure already exists in the proposed locationon the property, but the expansion to increase its nonconforming status may or may not be warranted in this situation. Staff is not directly in support of the proposal as submitted;however, with the conditionsstated in this report,staff’s concernscould be mitigated. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for June 4, 2014 P:\\Planning\\Planning Cases\\2014\\PC 14-017 -Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\\Memo_Reports_14-017 811 Page of Recommendation The findings of fact for the variance do not specifically support a recommendation for denial or approval. If the Planning Commission recommends approval ofthis variance, Staff recommends the following ten(10) conditions: 1.That the project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commissionand City Council. 2.That the proposed accessory structure shall be permitted to encroach no further into the west and south property lines than the existing structure, leaving a setback of five (5) feet six (6) inches from the west property line anda setback of six (6) feet one (1) inch from the south property line. 3.That the proposed accessory structure shall not exceed the footprint of the existing accessory structure that is twenty-two (22) feet by twenty-two (22) feet. 4.That the proposed accessory structure shall be permitted tobe rotated so that the alignment matches that of the western property line and the angle of the existing single family dwelling. 5.That the proposed accessory structure shall be permitted to change the direction of the rooflinefrom an east/west orientation to a north/south orientation. 6.That the exterior façade and roofing materials of the proposed garage shall match the colors and materials used on the single family dwelling. 7.That the existing driveway apron leading to the accessory building shall be removed and that any damage to the right-of-way shall be repaired by the property owner. 8.That no living quarters shall be constructed within the proposed accessory structure and that the attic area shall be used for storage purposes only. 9.That the structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code.That buildingand demolitionpermitsfor the construction of the new accessory building and a zoning permit for the construction of the driveway shall be required. 10.That the applicant shall obtain a Grading and Erosion Control Permit from the City before the building permit is issued. Options Before making a motion for approval or denial, the Planning Commission must make findings to determine whether or not the request falls under the State’s Law for “Practical Difficulties” by addressing the following questions: City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for June 4, 2014 P:\\Planning\\Planning Cases\\2014\\PC 14-017 -Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\\Memo_Reports_14-017 911 Page of Is the variance in harmony withthe purposes and intent of the ordinance? 1. Is the variance consistent withthe comprehensive plan? 2. Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? 3. Are there unique circumstancesto the property not created by the landowner? 4. Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential characterof the locality? 5. 1.Recommend Approval with Conditions:Motion to recommend approvalof Planning Case 14-017for a variance at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard to replace the existing nonconforming accessory structure with minor modifications to the location and roofline,based on the findings of fact, the submitted plans, and the ten (10)conditions in the June 4, 2014,Report to the Planning Commission. 2.Recommend Approval as Submitted:Motion to recommend approvalof Planning Case 14- 017 for a variance at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevardto replace and expand the existing nonconforming accessory structure with minor modifications to the location and roofline, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in the June 4, 2014, Report to the Planning Commission. 3.Recommend Denial:Motion to recommend denialof Planning Case 14-017 for a variance at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevardto replace and/or expand the existing nonconforming accessory structure with minor modifications to the location and rooflinebased on the following findings of fact… 4.Table:Motion to tablePlanning Case 14-017 for a variance at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevardto replace and/or expand the existing nonconforming accessory structure with minor modifications to the location and roofline:a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. Notice Although a variance does not require a public hearing, a public meeting notice was prepared by the City and mailed to properties within three-hundred fifty (350) feet of the subject property. Resident Comment Staff has received six (6) letters from neighboring property owners in support of the project at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for June 4, 2014 P:\\Planning\\Planning Cases\\2014\\PC 14-017 -Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\\Memo_Reports_14-017 1011 Page of Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on May 5, 2014. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by July 4, 2014(60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. The City may extend the review period beyond the 120 days, with the applicant’s permission. Attachments A.Application and Narrative B.Survey and Site Plan C.Garage Elevations/Building Plans D.Aerial Photo E.Property Photos F.Letters from Neighboring Residents City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for June 4, 2014 P:\\Planning\\Planning Cases\\2014\\PC 14-017 -Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\\Memo_Reports_14-017 1111 Page of July 1, 2014 Mr. Ryan Streff, City Planner Department of Planning and Zoning City of Arden Hills 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112 Re: Planning Case #14-017 Dear Mr. Streff: I am writing to provide a revised plan for our variance request, Planning Case #14-017. Based on feedback from the Planning Commission meeting on June 4, we have revised our proposal in the following ways: (1) (2) We have moved the proposed structure off of the west property line an additional 18 for a total of 26 To fit with the style of our house, the new garage will have an eave overhang o on the east/west sides , such that the eave on the new building would encroach no further into the setback than the existing structure. I would also note that as originally proposed, our plan is to move the garage doors from the west side (facing the street) to the north side (facing the proposed new driveway) to make this building more conforming. I have included a revised drawing of the property outlining the proposed placement of the new garage as well as a modified concept drawing with corrected dimensions. We hope that you and the Planning Commission will find this revised request more acceptable. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks for your time and consideration, Chad Myers Analysis of Hardship Criteria: A specific response to each hardship criterion is included below: 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. Given that the existing garage is non-conforming, any change to the structure would not be allowed by official controls. Furthermore, the unique topology of our lot severely limits the practicality of any conforming arrangement of the detached structure, so it would not be reasonable to reconstruct this garage in a conforming location. We are proposing the following changes: a rotation of the garage to align it with our house and move the garage doors off the street, shifting of the structure by 26 to the east and 12 to the north to reduce the encroachment into the front and side-yard setbacks, a small expansion of the eaves to match the look of our house, and a change from a 10/12 roof pitch to a 6/12 roof pitch (to match the house) with a ~1 ft. increase in the peak height of the building. The current garage footprint is not aligned with our house and the roof pitch does not match and thus, will significantly detract were to be reconstructed as is. The eaves of the current structure are quite small (2 in. on east/west, 7 in. on north/south), which currently results in improper drainage of rainwater off the roof down the walls of the building, and also do not match the aesthetic of our house. Regarding the height of the building, we are adding approximately 1 foot to the peak height of the building to accommodate room for storage in the attic. With the extra foot, the average height in the storage area (see drawing) would be ~5 3 as compared to an average height of ~4 5, which would make this area much more functional in terms of access to the storage space. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Our situation is the result of three factors: location and condition of the existing detached garage, the relative location of the house to the detached structure, and the steep incline (26 ft.) of our lot from the west to east property lines. We had no role in creating any of these circumstances. 3. The deviation from the Ordinance with any attached conditions will still be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. We believe the proposed variance preserves the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. We are proposing relatively modest changes to the existing garage structure that will result in a substantially more functional garage that allows for reasonable use of our property for us and any future owners. The end product will be an aesthetically pleasing garage with high-quality construction that blends in with and raises the character of our neighborhood with little to no negative impact on our own or our neighbo We are also improving the conformance of the structure with respect to the placement of the garage doors relative to the street and its encroachment into the side and front- yard setbacks. 4. The variance will not create a land use not permitted in the zone. The proposed garage will be used only for personal storage, which is permitted in the current zoning of the property. 5. The variance will not alter the essential character of the City. We believe that the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the city. On the contrary, if approved, our garage reconstruction project will remove a major eyesore from our neighborhood, which will improve the character and encourage investment in other properties in the area. 6. The variance is not for economic reasons alone. We are not requesting this variance for economic reasons. Our primary motivation is to improve the aesthetics of our property and neighborhood, and to make the garage as functional as possible while not negatively impacting the site for us or our neighbors. For Review 06/17/2014 11:24:33 AM For Review 06/17/2014 11:24:35 AM For Review 06/17/2014 11:24:35 AM For Review 06/17/2014 11:24:35 AM For Review 06/17/2014 11:24:35 AM Attachment H Photos of existing garage and property % Attachment 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard Garage Project, May 2014 Aerial photo of property 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard Garage Project, May 2014 Attachment J