HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCP 01-21-2003
May...:
. ~ApJIkowsId
C,..u Members:
David Grant
'... Bolden
GfC!PLarson
Leis Rem
.~
~H1LLS
Arden Bills City-CouneB"
WORK SESSION
4:45 p.m.
Tuesday~Januarv 21..2003
Agenda
(]'he times may vary depending upon lengtkof di$CU93{onJ
t.CaD loOnier
DEPARTMENT
1. COMMUNITY SERVICES
A. Guidant - Final AUAR and
. MitigatioB Plan
B. Ramsey County Pm Master Plan
Amendment
C. Letter to the GSA
STAFF
Aaron Parrish
Aaron Parrish
Aaron Parrish
3. OPERATIONS &: MAINTENANCE
A. Ramsey County Public W"Olb
Facility Cost Comparison
1. Capital and Design Costs
(Memo Forthcoming)
1. Planning Review
B. Karth Lake Water Level RepOrt
4. ADMINISTRATION
A. 2003 Retreat (Updates)
B. Lake Josephine Lake Association
(2003 PMPllngerson)
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Council Member Grant
B. Council Member Holdea
C. Council Member Larson
Joe Lynch
Greg Brown
Joe Lynch
Joe Lynch
File Copy
~ 'f
.......(. ."
"1~~11O
11MB
4:45
.1;~
_.....oIiC1k:..:.i....~::~."-.. ;.
/
Arden Hills City Council WORK SESSION Agenda
January 17, 2003
Pa 2
D. Council Member Rem
E. Mayor Aplikowski
e
.
.
~
~~HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
2.A
January 16, 2003
Agenda Item
TO:
Mayor Beverly Aplikowski
Council Member David Grant
Council Member Brenda Holden
Council Member Gregg Larson
Council Member Lois Rem
Joe Lynch, City Administrator
jt!
MOM:
Aaron Parrish - Community Services Director
SUBJECT:
Guidant Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review and Mitigation Plan
ENCLOSURES:
I. Guidant Campus Master Plan Final Alternative Urban Areawide
Review and Mitigation Plan for City Council Approval
Overview
BaSed on information submitted during the public comment period for the Alternative Urban
Areawide Review (AUAR), SRF Consulting has prepared the final AUAR document for the
Council's review and comment.
While much of the AUAR document remains unchanged from when the Council approved the
public comment draft of the AUAR, this version includes the following notable additions:
1. Appendix D: Draft AUAR Comments and Responses- This section outlines and
provides responses to comments received during the public comment period. Once
Council is comfortable with the responses, staff will forward them along to the
respective individuals and agencies.
2. Appendix E: AUAR Mitigation Plan- This section, a key element of the AUAR
process and document, outlines how any identified environmental impacts will be
mitigated and who will be responsible for the mitigation.
Page 2
January 16, 2003
Memo to Mayor and City Council
The following represents the remaining schedule and process:
· SRF Distributes Draft Mitigation Plan to Mn/DOT, City of
Shoreview, Ramsey County and Met Council
. City Council Work Session to discuss/review Final AUAR and
Mitigation Plan
· City Council considers approval of Final AUAR and Mitigation
Plan for distribution
· Submit Final AUARlMitigation Plan to EQB Monitor and
distribute document to EQB List and Draft AUAR commentors
. Objection period ends
. City considers adoption of Final AUAR/Mitigation Plan(l)
· Submit City's approval of Final AUAR/Mitigation Plan to EQB
Monitor for publication on Feb. 18
(1) Assumes no objections to final AUARlMitigation Plan are filed by government agencies_
Complete
1/21/03
1/27/03
1/27/03
2/10/03
2/10/03
2/11/03
A representative of SRF, tbe consulting team preparing the AUAR, will be available to answer
any questions that the Council might have.
Requested Action
Provide comment on the AUAR, responses to comments, and mitigation plan.
.
.
.
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
I
I
GUIDANT CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
FINAL
ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW
(AUAR)
and
MITIGATION PLAN
FOR CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL
January 2003
Prepared for:
City of Arden Hills
Prepared by:
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
SRF No. 0024547
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction........................... ........ ........ ............. ................... ............................................... .........1
1. Project Title................................................................................................................... 2
2. Proposer....... .................................................... .................... .................. ....................... 2
3. RGU .............................................................. ............................................................... 2
4. Reason for EA W Preparation ....................................................................................... 2
5. Project Location ........................................................................................................... 2
6. Description ...................... ........ .................................................................... ................. 3
7. Project Magnitude Data ............................................................................................... 6
8. Permits and Approvals Required ................................................................................. 8
9. Land Use ...................................................................................................................... 9
10. Cover Types ................................................................................................................. 12
l1. Fish, Wildlife, and Ecology Sensitive Resources ........................................................ 13
12. Physical Impacts on Water Resources ......................................................................... 15
13. Water Use ..................................................................................................................... 17
14. Water-Related Land Use Management Districts .......................................................... 18
15. Water Surface Use ....................................................................................................... 19
16. Erosion and Sedimentation .......................................................................................... 19
17. Water Quality- Surface Water Runoff ........................................................................ 20
18. Water Quality - Wastewater ........................................................................................ 24
19. Geologic Hazards and Soil Conditions ........................................................................ 25
20. Solid Wastes; Hazardous Wastes; Storage Tanks ........................................_............... 27
21. Traffic.. ..... ............ ..... .................... ....... ............. .........._.................. .......... ................... 28
22. Vehicle-Related Air Emissions .................................................................................... 41
23. Stationary Source Air Emissions ................................................................................. 44
24. Dust, Odors and Noise ................................................................................................. 44
25. Sensitive Resources .................... .................... ...... ....................... ............... ................. 52
26. Visual Impacts .............................................................................................................. 54
27. Compatibility with Plans ....................................................._........................................ 55
28. Impact on Infrastructure and Public Services .............................................................. 56
29. Cumulative lmpacts ..................................................................................................... 57
30. Other Potential Environmental Impacts ....................................................................... 57
31_ Summary of Issues ..................................._................................._................................. 57
APPENDICES:
Appendix A: Fib'1lres
Appendix B: City Council Resolution Ordering the AUAR
Appendix C: COlTespondence
Appendix D: Draft AUAR Comments and Responses
Appcndix E: Final AUAR Mitigation Plan
J-/:\Planning'14547'IRepor/',FinaJ AUARWina! ALlAR OI1403_dor:
-j-
I
'.
I
I
I
I
I
.1
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
LIST OF TABLES
Page
_ Staging Intensity of the Proposed Development ................................................. 5
_ Building and Parking Ramp Heights (Existing and proposed)............................ 7
_ Required Permits and Approvals ........................................................................ 9
_ Existing and Proposed Cover Types ................................................................... 12
_ Wetland Summary ...............................................................................................16
_ Existing and Proposed Impervious Surface and Proposed Treatment Strategy .. 23
_ Existing A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Capacity Analysis LOS Results -
Signalized Intersections .. ...................................................... .............................. 31
Table 8 _ Existing A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Capacity Analysis LOS Results-
Unsignalized Intersections .......... ............................................................. ........... 32
Table 9 _ Future No-Build A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Capacity Analysis LOS Results-
Signalized Intersections .... .......................................................................... ........ 33
Table 10 _ Future No-Build A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Capacity Analysis LOS Results-
Unsignalized Intersections ......... .................. ....... ..... ........... ............... ................. 34
Table 11 _ Future Build A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Capacity Analysis LOS Results-
Signalized Intersections .... ...... ....... ...... ............ ...... ..... ........... ............... ...... ........36
Table 12 _ Fuhlre Build A.M. and P.M. Pcak Hour Capacity Analysis LOS Results-
Unsignalized Intersections ... ...... ........ ..... ............ ................ ...... ..... .......... ........... 37
Table 13 _ Future 2005 A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Capacity Analysis LOS Results-
Signalized Intersections .... ....... ....... ...... .................. .......... ...... ..... ................ ....... 3 8
Table 14 _ Fuhlre 2005 AM. and P.M. Peak Hour Capacity Analysis LOS Results-
Unsignalized Intersections ... ....... ....... ..... ....... ........... ..... ...... ...... ......... ...... .......... 38
Table 15 _ Future 2020 A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Capacity Analysis LOS Results-
Signalized Intersections .... ....... ............. ....................... ...... ............... ..... ....... ...... 39
Table 16 _ Future 2020 AM. and P.M. Peak Hour Capacity Analysis LOS Results -
Unsignalized Intersections .......... ............. ...... ....... .......... ...... ..... ..... .......... .......... 39
Table 17 _ Carbon Monoxide Modeling Assumptions .........................................................42
Table 18 _ Calculation of CO Background Concentrations .................................................. 43
Table 19 _ Carbon Monoxide Modeling Results - 2020 AM. .............................................45
Table 20 _ Carbon Monoxide Modeling Results - 2020 P.M. .............................................46
Tablc 21 _ Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels at 50 Feet ..................................48
Table 22 _ Minnesota State Noise Standards ........................................................................49
Table 23 _ Noise Monitoring and Modeling Results - Daytime ..........................................51
Table 24 _ Noise Monitoring Rcsults - Nighttime ............................................................... 51
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
-ii-
I
-.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
INTRODUCTION
This Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) was completed by the Guidant Corporation to
provide environmental planning and documentation for further development of the Guidant
Campus in Arden Hills. As provided for in Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410.3610, Subpart I, this
AUAR substitutes for preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) or
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for future developments in the study area, provided they
are consistent with the assumptions of the AUAR. The land uses described in the proposed
development are consistent with those designated by the City's land use plans and zoning
identified in thc 1998 City of Arden Hills Comprehensive Plan. (Note: Since the Draft AUAR
was distributed, the City's 1998 Comprehensive Plan was approved by the Metropolitan Council.)
THIS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW WAS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD (EQB) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PROGRAM, MINNESOTA RULES 4410.3610, AND THE EQB MEMORANDUM,
"RECOMMENDED CONTENT AND FORMAT: ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE
REVIEW DOCUMENTS," DATED OCTOBER 2000. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS
GUIDANCE, THE STANDARD EAW FORM HAS BEEN USED TO COMPLETE THIS
REVIEW. FOR EACH ITEM DISCUSSED BELOW, A NOTE HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN
ITALICS INDICATING EITHER THE EQB'S RECOMMENDATION OF INFORMATION
NEEDED FOR THE AUAR (WHERE IT DIFFERS FROM THAT NEEDED FOR THE EAW)
OR THAT THE EA W ITEM IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE AUAR.
NOTE TO REVIEWERS:
The Draft AUAR was distributed for public review on October 14, 2002 to the required
Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Distribution list. The public revicw and comment period
cnded on November 13, 2002. Comments received on the Draft AUAR have been addressed in
this Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan, including an appendix (see Appendix D) specifically
responding to each timely, substantive comment received. The Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
have been distributed to all Draft A UAR recipients and commentors as required by state
regulations.
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
-1-
January 2003
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
1.
PROJECT TITLE:
Guidant Campus Master Plan
2.
PROPOSER:
CONTACT PERSON:
TITLE:
ADDRESS:
Guidant Corporation
Mr. Dave Reimer
Director of Facilities
4100 Hamline Avenue North
Arden Hills, MN 55112
6511634-5125
PHONE:
3.
RGU:
CONTACT PERSON:
TITLE:
ADDRESS:
City of Arden Hills
Mr. Aaron Parrish
Community Services Director
1245 West Highway 96
Arden Hills, MN 55112-5794
6511634-5125
aaron. parrish@ci.arden-hills.mn.us
PHONE:
EMAIL:
4. REASON FOR EAW PREPARATION:
Not applicable to AUAR.
5. PROJECT LOCATION
SECTIONS .1L
COUNTY
CITY/TOWNSHIP
TOWNSHIP 30N
Ramsey
City of Arden Hills
RANGE 23W
EAW:
A. A COUNTY MAP SHOWING THE GENERAL LOCATION OF THE PROJECT.
The county map is not needed for an A UAR.
B. COPY(IES) OF USGS 7.5 MINUTE, 1:24,000 SCALE MAP INDICATING THE
PROJECT BOUNDARIES.
C. A SITE PLAN SHOWING ALL SIGNIFICANT PROJECT AND NATURAL
FEATURES.
AUAR:
Instead of a site plan, include: (I) a map clearly depicting the boundaries of the AUAR
and any subdistricts used in the A UA R analysis; (2) land use and planning and zoning
maps as required in conjunction with Items 9 and 27; and (3) a cover type map as required
by Item 10. Additional maps may be included throughout the document wherever maps are
useful for displaying relevant information.
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Final AUAR and 1....1itigation Plan
- 2-
January 2003
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
se
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
The required graphics are provided in Appendix A:
. Figure I Project Location-Local Area
. Figure 2 AUAR Boundary
. Figure 3 Existing Site Plan
. Figure 4 Proposed Site Plan
. Figure 5 Existing Land Uses (1998 Adopted Comprehensive Plan)
. Figure 6 Planned Land Uses (1998 Adopted Comprehensive Plan)
. Figure 7 Zoning Map (1998 Adopted Comprehensive Plan)
. Figure 8 Existing Cover Types
. Figure 9 Proposed Cover Types
6. DESCRIPTION
AUAR:
Instead of the information called for on the EA W Form, the description section of an
A UAR should include the following elements for each major development scenario:
.
anticipated types and intensity (density) of residential and commercial
/warehousellimited industrial development throughout the A UAR area;
.
infrastructure planned to serve the development (roads, sewers, water, storm water
system, etc.). Roadways intended primarily to serve the adjoining land uses within an
AUAR area are normally expected to be reviewed as part of an AUAR. More
"arterial" types of roadways that would cross an A UAR area are an optional inclusion
in the A UAR analysis; if they are to be 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.
Note: The RGU must assure that the development described complies with the
requirements of MN Rules 4410.3610, Subpart 3 (and also that it properly orders the
AUAR and sets the description in that order as required by 4410.3610, Subpart 3).
INTRODUCTION
This Alternative Urban Areawidc Rcview (AUAR) was initiatcd by the Guidant
Corporation (Guidant) to identify and document potential cumulative environmental
impacts and infrastructure needs related to the further development of the Guidant Campus
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
January 2003
- 3 -
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
through the year 2019. The AUAR allows the City to evaluate the cumulative effects of all
anticipated development in the area at once rather than reviewing individual phases of
development separately.
Although the training center (Building L) received site plan review approval from the City
in April 2002 as an independent action prior to the actions for the proposed Master Plan,
the entire Guidant Campus (including Building L) will be included in the AUAR. The City
of Arden Hills City Council ordered the preparation of an AUAR for the Master Plan on
September 9,2002. See Appendix B.
STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION
The Guidant Campus (the AUAR study area) is a 92.7-acre site in the northwestern part of
the City of Arden Hills (see Figures I and 2). While the campus lies entirely within the
City of Arden Hills, its eastern boundary is directly adjacent to the City of Shoreview.
Major highways in the area include Interstate 694 (1-694) approximately one quarter-mile
to the south, and 1-35W approximately 1.5 miles to the west. The 1-35W/I-694 interchange
is approximately 2 miles west of the proposed campus. The campus is south of Guidant
Drive North, north of County Road (CR) F, west of Lexington Avenue and east of Hamline
Avenue. Hamline Avenue and Lexington Avenue both have interchange access
to I-694 south of the proposed campus area. Traffic traveling west on I-694 can exit at
Hamline A venue and gain access to the site; however, traffic traveling east on 1-694 can
only travel south on Snelling A venue thereby not providing access to the Guidant Campus.
The entire site is owncd by Guidant, including Building 0, a 7.I-acre parcel located in the
northwest comer of the site known as the Nestle's property. This parcel was purchased by
Guidant in August of 2002. The AUAR study area currently includes office and limited
industrial land uses, as well as approximately 28.5 acres of vacant land. The study area is
within the Metropolitan Council's current Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and
is served by City sewer and water. The Guidant Campus Master Plan is consistent with the
proposed land use and zoning found in the City's adopted 1998 Comprehensive Plan.
DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO TO BE STUDIED IN THE AUAR
The AUAR process studied one development scenario that represents the "worst case"
(i.e., most intensive) development concept being considered for the site (see Figure 4). The
Guidant Campus Master Plan has a three-stage development concept (see Table I). Phase]
is planned for construction within the southern half of the campus and includes Addition]
to existing Building D, Buildings K (with only three floors to be occupied, initially) and L
and Ramps #1 (600 cars) and #5 (900 cars). The location for Phase II is primarily in the
western half of the campus with a new ramp on the most southeastcrn portion of
the campus and includes Buildings G and H and Addition J to Building E as well as
Ramps #2 (750 cars), #3 (400 cars) and #6 (900 cars). Phase III will conclude the
development and occur in the northern half of the campus and includes Buildings M and N
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
January 2003
- 4-
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ae
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
and Ramps #4 (1,335 cars) and #7 (2,142 cars). The proposed development will add
1,029,000 square feet of office/limited industrial space to the existing 1,158,893 square
foot of office/limited industrial uses for a total of 2,187,893 square feet of office/limited
industrial. To accommodate the additional parking demand on the campus, seven new
parking ramps will be constructed and will provide 7,027 parking spaces. The proposed
development will also include 615 surface parking spaces. The proposed parking spaces
will replace the existing 3,331 surface parking spaces, resulting in a net increase
of 4,31l parking spaces. Figure 4 shows the Master Plan for development of the Guidant
Campus through 2019. Table I shows the worst-case development scenario assumptions
for intensity and staging of development within the AUAR study area.
TABLE 1
STAGING AND INTENSITY OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Staging
Existing (2002)
Intensity
1,158,893 GSF office/limited industrial
(includes Building 0)
3,331 surface parking spaces*
Phase I (2005)
419,800 GSF office/limited industrial
1,500 parking ramp stalls
Phase II (20 I 0)
332,000 GSF office/limited industrial
2,050 parking ramp stalls
Phase ill (20l5)
277,200 GSF office/limited industrial
3,477 parking ramp stalls
2,187,893 GSF office/limited industrial
7,027 parking ramp stalls and 615 surface
parking spaces
* All but 615 surface lot parking spaces of the existing 3,331 will be replaced by parking ramp stalls through
a phased process to meet the parking demands of the added office space. Surface parking areas may not be
replaced by the parking ramps but may be replaced by other cover types. (Refer to Item 10 for more
information on cover types.)
Total
INFRASTRUCTURE
Infrastructure improvements to facilitate the development of the Guidant Campus include
transportation and storm water conveyance/treatment systems. The City of Arden H ills has
confirmed that the existing water and sanitary sewer service to the site has the capacity for
the additional proposed campus needs.
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Final AllAR and Mitigation Plan
January 2003
- 5 -
1
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
Roadways
One public road, Femwood Avenue, currently bisects the campus (see Figure 3).
Femwood Avenue serves the AUAR study area buildings as well as the businesses just
north of the study area along Guidant Drive North. The other main roadway on the site is
Guidant Drive North. Although this is a private roadway owned by Guidant, the roadway
is also used by businesses to the north to gain access to and from Lexington Avenue. The
concept plan for Phase I (see Table l) of the Master Plan proposes to convert Guidant
Drive North to a public roadway and ultimately vacate Fernwood Avenue to provide safer
movement of employees through the proposed campus. Although these roadway
improvements are included in the Master Plan concept that is currently being developed for
the site, the improvements have not been approved by the City. Refer to Items 21 and 25.C
for more details.
Sanitarv Sewer
The study area is currently served by city sanitary sewer. Three lines serve the campus and
are located in CR F, Hamline Avenue and in Fernwood Avenue. The City of Arden Hills
has confirmed that the existing sanitary sewer main lines have adequate capacity to serve
the proposed development. Lateral line extensions will be made, as needed, to the existing
sanitary sewer main line in Fernwood Avenue to serve the new buildings. Refer to
Item 18 for more details.
Water Supply
Existing water mains are located in CR F, Hamline Avenue and in Fernwood Avenue. The
City of Arden Hills has confirmed that the existing water mains have adequate capacity to
serve the proposed development. Connections from the existing water lines in Femwood
A venue to the new buildings will be required and added as needed. Refer to Item 13 for
more details.
Storm Water
Storm water runoff from the existing site condition discharges directly into the wetlands on
and adjacent to the campus. The campus expansion will provide for treatment prior to
storm water entering the wetlands by methods of infiltration, retention and NURP ponds in
accordance with the City of Arden Hills and Rice Creek Watershed District requirements.
The overall storm water runoff volumes will decrease from existing conditions as the
proposed campus expansion will decrease the amount of impervious surface area. Refer to
Item 17 for more details.
7. PROJECT MAGNITUDE DATA
AUAR:
The cumulative totals of the parameters called for should be given for each major
development scenario, except that inFormation on "manufacturing," "other industrial, "
"institutional," "agricultural," and "building heights" is optional.
TOTAL PROJECT AREA (ACRES): 92.7 OR LENGTH (MILES) NA
Guidant Campus Master Plan
final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
- 6-
January 2003
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
The scope of the Master Plan is based on Guidant's growth over the next 18 years.
Guidant plans to have a net increase of 4,000 employees on the 92.7-acre site currently
used for office/limited industrial uses. The total development will include six new office
buildings, two additions to current buildings and the use of the recently acquired Building
o (refer to the project description in Item 6 for more detail). The proposed development
will add 1,029,000 square feet of office/limited industrial space to the existing
1,158,893 square foot of office/limited industrial uses for a total of 2,187,893 square feet
of office/limited industrial. To accommodate the additional parking demand on the
campus, seven new parking ramps will be constructed and will provide 7,027 parking
spaces. The proposed development will also include 615 surface parking spaces. The
proposed parking spaces will replace the existing 3,331 surface parking spaces, resulting in
a net increase of 4,311 parking spaces.
The buildings and parking ramps proposed in the Master Plan will range in height
from 30 to 135 feet above grade. Parking ramps on the campus have been designed to
accommodate parking levels below grade to the extent feasible, thereby reducing the
overall height of the ramps and further minimizing the visual impact to adjacent residents.
Ramps 3 and 4 in the northwest portion of the site will be constructed with one and two
levels below grade, respectively. Ramps 5, 6 and 7 will be constructed with two levels
below grade and Ramps I and 2 will be constructed with half a level below grade.
Table 2 identifies the height of the existing and proposed buildings and ramps.
TABLE 2
BUILDING AND PARKING RAMP HEIGHTS (EXISTING AND PROPOSED)
Building/ Existinl! (feet) Pro Dosed (feet)
Height Height Height Height
Parking Number of Stories
Ramp from Above Sea from Above
Grade Level Grade Sea Level
Building A 3 57 1037
Building B 3 42 1034
Building C 3 42 1034
Building D 3 25 995
Building E 3 30 1005
Building F 3 46 1032
Building G 3 60(1) 1023
Building H 3 60(1) 1025
Building I 2 30 1005
Building J 2 30 1005
Building K 8 135(1) ll05
-- 6zi')
Building L 3 1036
Building M 4 75(1) l059
Building N 4 75(1) 1065
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
-7 -
January 2003
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
TABLE 2 (continued)
BUILDING AND PARKING RAMP HEIGHTS (EXISTING AND PROPOSED)
Building/ Existinl! (feet) Proposed (feet)
Height Height Height Height
Parking Number of Stories
Ramp from Above Sea from Above Sea
Grade Level Grade Level
Building 0 I 40 1,040
Ramp I 4 (1/2 level below grade) 40(2) 1005
Ramp 2 5 (1/2 level below grade) 50(2) 1005
Ramp 3 4 (1 level below grade) 30(2) 1000
Ramp 4 5 (2 levels below grade) 30(2) 1015
Ramp 5 6 (2 levels bclow grade) 40(2) 1026
Ramp 6 6 (2 levels below grade) 40(2) 1030
Ramp 7 6 (2 levels below grade) 40(2) 1032
11) Building height from grade includes approximate 15-foot height of penthouse.
(2) Ramp heights include the height above grade to the upper-most portion of the structure. The wall on the
upper level parking surface is approximately 8 to 10 feet lower than the maximum height provided in the
table.
In planning for the needs of the Guidant Campus, the architect had the opportunity to
maintain visibly compatible building heights by taking advantage of the lower elevation in
the southern portion of the campus. Buildings planned for the southern portion of the
campus will accommodate more of the capacity needs of the proposed campus and
therefore, be taller but will appear similar in height to the existing and proposed buildings
and ramps due to the lower grade elevation.
8. PERMITS AND APPROVALS REQUIRED
EAW:
LIST ALL KNOWN LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL PERMITS, APPROVALS AND
FUNDING REQUIRED.
AUAR:
A listing of major approvals likely to be required by the anticipated types of development
projects should be given. This list will help orient reviewers to the idea that the A UAR
process is only one piece of the regulatory framework that will protect environmental
resources. The list can also serve as a starting point for the development of the
implementation aspects of the mitigation plan to be developed as part of the A UAR.
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
- 8 -
January 2003
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
TABLE 3
REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS
Unit of Government Permit or Approval
City of Arden Hills Preliminary and Final Plat Approval, Preliminary and
Final Planned Unit Development Approval; Land
Disturbance and Erosion Control Plan and Permit;
Water Connection Permits; Building Permits; Street
Vacation; Site Plan Reviews for Each Building
-~ --
Rice Creek Watershed District Storm Water and Water Quality Plan Review and
Approval; Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act
--. Replacement Plan review and approval
Ramsey County Contiguous Plat Review
-
Ramsey County Department of Public Health Plan Review of any Food Services;
Small Quantity Hazardous Generator license
Metropolitan Council Permit for Utility Connection;
Industrial Waste Discharge Permit
---- -- -----
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency NPDES Construction Permit
Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 approval for wetland impacts.
9. LAND USE
EAW:
DESCRIBE CURRENT AND RECENT PAST LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT ON
THE SITE AND ON ADJACENT LANDS. DISCUSS THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE
PROJECT WITH ADJACENT AND NEARBY LAND USES; INDICATE WHETHER
ANY POTENTIAL CONFLICTS INVOLVE ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS.
IDENTIFY ANY POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD DUE TO PAST LAND
USES, SUCH AS SOIL CONT AMINA TlON OR ABANDONED STORAGE TANKS.
AUAR.'
No changes from the EA W form.
The A UAR study area is an approximatcly 92.7 -acre site in thc eastern central part of the
City of Arden Hills locatcd approximately three-quarters of a mile north of the Lexington
Avenue/I-694 interchange (see Figure 2). The AUAR study area has been dcvcloped for
approximately 40 years and currently includes office and limited industrial land uses.
Approximately 28.5 acrcs of undcveloped land has remained on the site including
wctlands, woodcd areas, brush and grassland.
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
- 9-
January 2003
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
Guidant Corporation has owned a rectangular parcel of the site encompassing
approximately 45 acres in the southwest corner (where existing Buildings A, B, C, D and E
are located) since the mid-1970s. The eastern portion of the site (where existing
Building F is located) was owned and occupied by Control Data Systems from 1962 until
1998. The site was originally used in 1962 by Control Data Systems as a computer
manufacturing facility but was converted into office spaces for Control Data Systems and
individual tenant spaces when manufacturing was discontinued at the site in the 1980s.
Control Data Systems occupied a majority of the office space and the remainder was leased
to tenants that had limited manufacturing or office space needs. The site was owned by
LAlCBBC, Inc., a California firefighter's pension, from 1998 until 2000. Several tenants
including Guidant, lease space in Building F.
Guidant has been a tenant of Building F since 1995, and they purchased the majority of the
site (all properties except for Building 0) in 2000. The other tenants will not continue to
occupy the campus as part of the Master Plan.
The 35,000-square foot Building 0 (the former Nestle's building) situated on a 7.I-acre lot
located northwest of the existing Guidant structures was recently (August 2002) purchased.
Building 0 was formerly used for manufacturing dog food but will be used by Guidant for
a research team (consisting of 25 to 30 employees) as well as for storage. As part of this
acquisition, process equipment will be removed from the west side of the building.
The land uses proposed for the campus Master Plan are consistent with the existing site
land use, as well as the City's 1998 Comprehensive Plan (see Figures 5 and 6). The
1998 Comprehensive Plan zoning map identifies the proposed campus and areas north and
south of the campus as I-I (Limited Industrial District) (sce Figure 7). The purpose for an
I-I (Limited Industrial District) is to allow only those types and intensities of industrial
uses that do not detract from the surrounding area and to maintain performance standards
to keep the intensity of land utilization lower than in the general Industrial District. The
Guidant Master Plan proposes campus developmcnt within the area currently occupied by
office/limited industrial uses and maintains a "green" buffer between the campus and
adjacent land uses in conformity with zoning regulations.
Land use in the areas northwest and west of the AUAR study area (in the City of Arden
Hills) includes single-family residential. Land use immediately north and south of the
study area (also in the City of Arden Hills) is dominated by commercial/business
development (office buildings). The CSM Corporation owns and occupies office buildings
north of the campus. The Fair Isaac Company is a tenant of this office complex and
employs approximately 700 people. An Xcel Energy electrical sub-station is located
directly south of the campus, north of CR F. Arden Woods Office Building, located south
of CR F and the campus, is a three-story multi-tenant office building. Also located south
of the campus is the Land 0' Lakes corporate headquarters. Land use east of the study area
(in the City of Shoreview) is dominated by business campuses, including the Medtronics
business campus, and also includes townhomes and apartment buildings.
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
January 2003
- ]0-
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
The land use zoning districts in the area are identified by the City of Arden Hills
as I-I zoning to the north and south, and R-l (single-family residential) zoning to the
west and northwest. Currently, office buildings are located in these areas zoned
as 1-1. The City of Shoreview's Comprehensive Guide Plan (approved April 2000)
identifies land uses in the study area as medium density (RM) and high density (RH)
residential as well as office use. The City of Shoreview's zoning document identifies
multi-dwelling residential (R-3) and Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning in the study
area. The existing land uses are consistent with these zoning districts.
Potential Environmental Hazards
Prior to purchasing the property formerly owned by Control Data Systems, two
Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) were completed for this portion of the site.
The 1997 ESA covered Building F and its boilers (see Figure 3) and the 1998 ESA covered
the 37.21-acre Control Data Campus in Arden Hills, which includes Building F and
adjacent land.
The 1997 ESA revealed no indications of recognized environmental conditions. The
1998 ESA concluded that operations on the Control Data Campus did not pose a
significant environmental concern. However, it was the recommendation of the 1998 ESA
that a limited subsurface investigation be conducted in the vicinity of the former fuel oil
underground storage tanks (USTs) and that sampling of elevator hydraulic fluids for
polychlorinated biphenyls be conducted. A Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures
(SPCC) Plan and Risk Managcment Plan (RMP) was recommended for the Control Data
Systems operations occurring on the site at the time of this ESA. The Guidant Corporation
has an SPCC and RMp for their operations.
A subsurface investigation in the fonner UST area (identified in the 1998 ESA) was
conducted. Fuel oil impacts were noted in two of the boring locations. Further
investigation was conducted at these locations and it was determined that the impacts wcre
limited to the shallow subsurface soils. The fuel oil impacted soils were removed and the
MPCA stated that no further action was required related to the former fuel oil USTs.
A liquid oil sample was taken from each of the four elevator hydraulic oil reservoirs. The
test results revealed there were no concentrations of poly chi orin at cd biphenyls (PCBs) at or
above laboratory method detection limits and therefore, no recommendations were
provided for further investigation.
No further studies have been completed by Guidant for the rcmainder of the Guidant
Campus not included in the aforementioned ESA's; however, in September 2001, as part of
the completion of the Arden Hills Local Storm Water Management Plan (February 2002),
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency provided the City of Arden Hills information
regarding contaminated site in the vicinity of Arden Hills. No sites of concem were
idcntificd on or immediately adjacent to the AU AR study area_ It is not anticipated that
other environmental hazards will be encountered on the Guidant Campus site.
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Final AUAk and Mitigation Plan
-11-
January 2003
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
10. COVER TYPES
EAW:
ESTIMATE THE ACREAGE OF THE SITE WITH EACH OF THE FOLLOWING
COVER TYPES BEFORE AND AFTER DEVELOPMENT (BEFORE AND AFTER
TOTALS SHOULD BE EQUAL).
A UAR: The following information should be provided instead:
A. 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 protected waters status and shoreland management classification
woodlands - breakdown by classes where possible
grassland - identify native and oldfield
cropland
current development
.
.
.
.
.
.
Table 4 summarizes the estimated acreage of the site with each of the following cover
types before and after development. Figures 8 and 9 depict existing and proposed cover
types, respectively.
TABLE 4
EXISTING AND PROPOSED COVER TYPES
(WORST-CASE SCENARIO)
Before acreage After acreage
(square feet) (square feet)
Type 1-8 wetlands 5.9 (257,004 ft2) 5.9 (257,004 ft2il1
W ooded/F orest 17.6 (766,656 ft2) 13.7 (596,772 ft2)
Brush/grassland 5.0 (217,800 ft2) 2.0 (87,120 ft2)
Cropland - 0 - - 0 -
Lawn/Landscaping l1.4 (496,584 ft2) 23.5 (1,023,660 ft2)
Impervious (Buildings & pavement) 52.8 (2,299,968 ft2) 45.0 (1,960,200 ft2)
Created ponding - 0 - 0.5 (2l,780 ft2)
Created infiltration areas - 0 - 2.1 (91,4762)
TOTAL 92.7 (4,038,012 ft2) 92.7 (4,038,012 ft2)
(I) Refer to Item 12 for a detailed description of wetland impacts and the proposed wetland mitigation.
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
J an\lary 2003
- 12 -
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
B. An "overlay" map showing anticipated development in relation to the cover types; this
map should also depict any ''protection areas, " existing or proposed, that will preserve
sensitive cover types. Separate maps for each major development scenario should
generally be provided.
. Figure 8 in Appendix A illustrates existing cover types within the AUAR study area,
along with current development.
. Figure 9 in Appendix A depicts proposed redevelopment parcels with proposed cover
types.
11. FISH, WILDLIFE, AND ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE RESOURCES
EAW:
A: DESCRIBE FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES ON OR NEAR THE SITE AND
DISCUSS HOW THEY WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT. DESCRIBE
ANY MEASURES TO BE TAKEN TO MINIMIZE OR AVOID ADVERSE IMP ACTS.
AUAR:
A: The description of wildlife and fish should be related to the habitat types depicted on the
cover types maps of Item 10. Any differences in impacts between development scenarios
should be highlighted in the discussion.
As identified in Item 9, the majority of the AUAR study area and surrounding property is
developed. Wooded and grassy areas on the property and residential yards near the project
provide habitat to small mammals suited to urban environments (typically including
squirrels, raccoons and chipmunks). Birds commonly found in urban areas include
grackles, robins, starlings, crows, blue jays and cardinals. Several wetlands on the site and
adjacent land may provide habitat for frogs and turtles (see discussion of Blanding's turtles
in Item 11.B, below).
Construction of the project will necessitate some wetland filling and trec removal. As a
result, the proposed project will result in some negative impact on habitat. Impacts to
wildlife will be minimized by avoiding disturbance to most of the wooded areas around the
perimeter of thc site and avoiding impacts to wetlands where possible. A wooded area at
the northeast comer of the property will remain undisturbed. Wetlands and associated
undeveloped uplands at the northwest corner of the property will also remain largely
undisturbed. Impacts to wetlands are described in detail in Item 12.
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
- 13 -
January 2003
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,e
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
.-
I
EAW:
B. ARE THERE ANY STATE-LISTED ENDANGERED, THREATENED, OR SPECIAL-
CONCERN SPECIES; RARE PLANT COMMUNITIES; COLONIAL WATERBIRD
NESTING COLONIES; NATIVE PRAIRIE OR OTHER RARE HABITAT; OR OTHER
SENSITIVE ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES ON OR NEAR THE SITE? NO lL YES
IF YES, DESCRIBE THE RESOURCE AND HOW IT WOULD BE AFFECTED BY
THE PROJECT. INDICATE IF A SITE SURVEY OF THE RESOURCES WAS
CONDUCTED. DESCRffiE MEASURES TO BE TAKEN TO MINIMIZE OR AVOID
ADVERSE IMP ACTS.
AUAR:
B. For an A UAR, prior consultation with the DNR Natural Heritage program for information
about reports of rare plant and animal species in the vicinity is required. If such
consultation indicates the need, an on-site habitat survey for rare species in the
appropriate portions of the AUAR area is required. Areas of on-site surveys should be
depicted on a map, as should any "protection zones" established as a result.
A search (ERDB# 20030006) of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) -
Natural Heritage database was conducted for an area within an approximate I-mile radius
of the project site. The DNR report is included in Appendix C. No observations of rare
plant or animal species or significant natural features were identified on the project site.
However, the database search revealed that the project site is within a "known
concentration" area of Blanding's turtles (Emydoidea blandingii), a species listed as
threatened in Minnesota. The DNR has identified 13 such "known concentration" areas in
the state and gives these areas highest priority for rcsearch and management activities. In
addition, these areas are relied upon to maintain the species' security in the state.
The prefened habitat of the Blanding's turtle is calm, shallow water and dense aquatic
vegetation. The Blanding's turtle prefers to nest in large areas of undisturbed, sandy
uplands. The Blanding's turtle's late maturation, low reproductive potential, long-lived
adults and high mortality of eggs and juveniles are factors that make it particularly
susceptible to human disturbanccs. As stated in thc excerpt from the DNR publication
Minnesota's Endangered Flora and Fauna (included in Appendix C), "Population and
reproductive dynamics suggest viable populations of Blanding's turtles are dependent on
large numbers of animals and adequate areas of undisturbed habitat"
The DNR search includes ten observations of Blanding's turtles near the project site. The
dates of these observations rangc from 1988 to 1998. The sightings of Blanding's turtles
included in the DNR report were noted 200 feet west of the Guidant Campus; near
Marsden Lake (locatcd one-half to one and one-half miles north of the project site along
the east side of the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant (TCAAP) site); and near Snail
Lake (located approximately one half mile northeast of the project site). Three of the
sightings wcrc observed within approximately one half mile of the site to the north,
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
- 14-
January 2003
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
we
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
presumably around Karth Lake. Since the Draft AUAR was published, the DNR has added
another Blanding's turtle sighting in the vicinity of the campus to their database based on
adjacent resident sightings (see the DNR's November 14, 2002 letter in Appendix C).
Almost all of the land between the project site and the areas where turtles have been
identified is developed, medium density, residential land and is not considered favorable
habitat for Blanding's turtles. Nevertheless, there is a possibility that Blanding's turtles
could use portions of the site, particularly the shallow wetland (see Figure 10, Wetland L)
and surrounding undisturbed sandy loam (132B and 132C) upland located at the northwest
comer of the property. Refer to Items 12 and 19 for more details on wetlands and soils on
the campus.
No survey of the AUAR study area has been conducted to determine the presence of
Blanding's turtles. Coordination with the DNR Natural Heritage division confirms that a
survey of the study area is not necessary as the recommended avoidance and mitigation
measures identified below will be implemented as practicable.
A list of recommendations for avoiding and minimizing impacts to Blanding's turtles and
their habitat is included in the DNR report. These recommendations will be implemented
where feasible. The measures that will likely be appropriate for project construction
include:
I) Placement of silt fencing around construction areas to keep turtles out of
construction areas in the spring.
2) Notifying contractors of the possibility of threatened turtles III the area and
instructions on how to avoid harm to turtles if they are spotted.
3) Minimization of impacts to wetlands on the site.
4) Preservation of un-mowed upland buffer around wetlands on the site.
5) Preservation of some undisturbed upland at the northwest comer of the site.
12. PHYSICAL IMPACTS ON WATER RESOURCES
EAW:
WILL THE PROJECT INVOLVE THE PHYSICAL OR HYDROLOGIC ALTERATION
(DREDGING, FILLING, STREAM DIVERSION, OUTFALL STRUCTURE, DIKING,
IMPOUNDMENT) OF ANY SURFACE WATER (LAKE, POND, WETLAND,
STREAM, DRAINAGE DITCH?) NO l YES
IF YES, IDENTIFY THE WATER RESOURCE TO BE AFFECTED AND DESCRIBE:
THE ALTERATION, INCLUDING THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS; VOLUMES OF
DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL; AREA AFFECTED; LENGTH OF STREAM
DIVERSION; WATER SURFACE AREA AFFECTED; TIMING AND EXTENT OF
FLUCTUATION IN WATER SURFACE ELEVATlONS; SPOILS DISPOSAL SITES;
AND PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE IMP ACTS.
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
January 2003
- 15 -
I
'.
'.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
'.
I
I
AUAR:
The information called for on the EA W form should be supplied for any of the
infrastructure associated with the AUAR development scenarios, and for any residential or
commercial development expected to physically impact any water resources. Where it is
uncertain whether water resources will be impacted, depending on the exact design of
future developments, the AUAR should cover the possible impacts through a "worst case
scenario" or else prevent impacts through the provisions of the mitigation plan.
Wetlands
Twelve wetlands were identified within the AUAR study area. Wetlands on the project
site were identified, characterized and delineated by Sanders Wacker Bergly, Inc.
The results of this work are presented in a Wetland Delineation Report dated
May 28, 2002. Twelve wetlands were identified on the site and labeled A, B, D through
K 1, and K2 (see Figure 10).
Impacts to wetlands will be avoided where possible. Based on preliminary design
information, four of the twelve basins will be impacted with the Guidant Campus
expansion. A summary of the wetlands identified on the project site and proposed impacts
is presented Table 5.
TABLE 5
WETLAND SUMMARY
Wetland Name Wetland Type Approximate Size of Approximate Area
Wetland of Impact
Wetland A Deep marsh (Type 4/5) 0.4 Acre 0.15 Acre
Wetland B Wet meadow (Type 2) 0.2 Acre No Impact
Wetland D Shallow marsh (Type 3/4) 2.3 Acres No Impact
Wetland E Deep marsh (Type 4/5) 1. 7 Acres No Impact
Wetland F Deep marsh (Type 4) 0.2 Acre No Impact
Wetland G Deep marsh (Type 4) 0.2 Acre No Impact
Wetland II Deep marsh (Type 4) 0.1 Acre No Impact
Wetland 1 Deep marsh (Type 4) 1.2 Acre No Impact
Wetland J Deep marsh (Type 4) 0.1 Acre 0.1 Acre
Wetland Kl Shallow marsh (Type 2/3) 0.1 Acre 0.1 Acre
Wetland K2 Shallow marsh (Type 2/3) 0.1 Acrc 0.1 Acrc
Wetland U" Shallow Marsh (Type 3) 0.1 No Impact
Total Area: 6.7 Acres(2) 0.45 Acre
(l)\\retland \'Vas not delineated, size and type are estimated.
(2) Not all of the \vetlands lie entirely within the AUAR Study area boundary.
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
- 16-
January 2003
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I-
I
To comply with requirements of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act, wetland
impacts will be offset by creating mitigation at a 2: 1 ratio (2 acres of mitigation area for
each acre of impacted area). A detailed wetland mitigation plan has not been completed;
however, the plan will include new wetland creation as well as the use of Public Value
Credits (PVC) through the design of storm water ponds in accordance with WCA. Existing
wetlands located near the northwest corner of the site will likely be enlarged to create new
wetland area.
As outlined in Item 8, permits will be required from the Army Corps of Engineers and the
Rice Creek Watershed District for wetland alterations. As part of the permit approval
process, a final mitigation plan will be submitted to these agencies documenting proposed
wetland impacts and detailed mitigation.
Item 17 describes mitigation for storm water impacts, including impacts on existing
wetlands of the proposed development.
The proposed storm water treatment plans will improve wetland quality by removing
sediment, organics and other debris prior to the storm water entering the wetlands as it does
under thc existing condition.
13. WATER USE
EAW:
WILL THE PROJECT INVOLVE THE INST ALLA TION OR ABANDONMENT OF
ANY WELLS, CONNECTION TO OR CHANGES IN ANY PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY
OR APPROPRIATION OF GROUND OR SURFACE WATER (INCLUDING
DEW A TERING)?
NO L YES
IF YES, AS APPLICABLE, GIVE LOCATION AND PURPOSE OF ANY NEW WELLS;
PUBLIC SUPPLY AFFECTED, CHANGES TO BE MADE, AND WATER
QUANTITIES TO BE USED; THE SOURCE, DURATION, QUANTITY AND
PURPOSE OF ANY APPROPRIATIONS; AND UNIQUE WELL NUMBERS AND DNR
APPROPRIATION PERMIT NUMBERS, IF KNOWN. lDENTlFY ANY EXISTING
AND NEW WELLS ON THE SITE MAP. lF THERE ARE NO WELLS KNOWN ON
SITE, EXPLAIN METHODOLOGY USED TO DETERMINE.
AUAR:
If the area requires new water supply wells, specific information about that appropriation
and its potential impacts on groundwater levels should be given; if groundwater levels
would be affected, any impacts resulting on other resources should be addressed.
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
January 2003
- 17-
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
The City of Arden Hills has confirmed that the existing water lines servicing the proposed
campus have the capacity to handle the additional volume of water required for campus
needs. The City has also confirmed that their drinking water source, the St. Paul Water
Utility, can provide the additional drinking water required for the proposed campus through
the City of Roseville. As discussed in Item 6, existing water lines servicing the study area
are located in CR F, Hamline Avenue and Fernwood Avenue. These additional
connections will be made as needed during tbe phased development of the AUAR study
area. The proposed campus will require approximately 41,715 additional gallons of water
per day over the existing need of 47,560 gallons per day for a total of 93,866 gallons per
day. These quantities do not include water used by Building F, which is served by two
wells. No additional connections will need to be made to the City water lines located in
CR F or Hamline Avenue with the campus expansion. However, additional connections to
the water and sanitary mains will need to be made in Fernwood Avenue. Calculations for
determining the amount of water assume that for office/limited industrial space there is
three employees per 1,000 square feet, requiring 15 gallons of water per person per day.
There are two wells located on the campus (see Figures 3 and 4). These wells serve
Building F and will continue to serve only Building F.
The water tower, located on the campus, is no longer used. At one time water was drawn
from the tower for fire protection. The existing automatic fire sprinkler system is now
connected to Ci ty water.
14. WATER-RELATED LAND USE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS
EAW:
DOES ANY PART OF THE PROJECT SITE INVOLVE A SHORELAND ZONING
DISTRICT, A DELINEATED 100-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN, OR A STATE OR
FEDERALLY DESIGNATED WILD OR SCENlC RIVER LAND USE DISTRICT? ----"L
NO YES
IF YES, IDENTIFY THE DISTRICT AND DISCUSS THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE
PROJECT WITH THE LAND USE RESTRICTIONS OF THE DISTRICT. ALSO,
SUCH DISTRICTS SHOULD BE DELINEATED ON APPROPRIATE MAPS AND THE
LAND USE RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE IN THOSE DISTRICTS SHOULD BE
DESCRIBED. IF ANY VARIANCES OR DEVIATIONS FROM THESE
RESTRICTIONS WITHIN THE AUAR AREA ARE ENVISIONED, THIS SHOULD BE
DISCUSSED.
AUAR:
Such districts should he delineated on appropriate maps and the land use restrictions
applicable in those districts should be described. lfany variances or deviations from these
restrictions within the A UAR area are envisioned, this should be discussed.
Not Applicable.
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
- 18 -
Jamlal] 2003
I
I.
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
.
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
15. WATER SURFACE USE
EAW:
WILL THE PROJECT CHANGE THE NUMBER OR TYPE OF WATERCRAFT ON
ANY WATER BODY? THIS ITEM NEED ONLY BE ADDRESSED IF THE AUAR
AREA WOULD INCLUDE OR ADJOIN RECREATIONAL WATER BODIES.
l NO YES
IF YES, INDICATE THE CURRENT AND PROJECTED WATERCRAFT USAGE AND
DISCUSS ANY POTENTIAL OVERCROWDING OR CONFLICTS WITH OTHER
USERS OR FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES.
AUAR:
This item need only be addressed if the A UAR area would include or adjoin recreational
water bodies.
Not Applicable.
16. EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION
EAW:
GIVE THE ACREAGE TO BE GRADED OR EXCAVATED AND THE CUBIC YARDS
OF SOIL TO BE MOVED: ACRES ; CUBIC YARDS . DESCRIBE
ANY STEEP SLOPES OR HIGHLY ERODIBLE SOILS AND IDENTIFY THEM ON
THE SITE MAP. DESCRIBE ANY EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
MEASURES TO BE USED DURING AND AFTER PROJECT CONSTRUCTION.
AUAR:
The number of acres to be graded and the number of cubic yards of soils to be moved need
not be given; instead, a general discussion of the likely earthmoving needs for development
of the area should be given, with an emphasis on unusual or problem areas. in discussing
mitigation measures, both the standard requirements of the local ordinances and any
special measures that would be added for A UAR purposes should be included.
While it is premature to determine the detailed earthmoving requirements for the future
development phases, because the redevelopmcnt sites arc relatively fiat and most arcas
have been previously developed, unique and/or unusual earthwork requirements for the
proposcd redevelopment are not anticipated.
The potential for erosion and sedimentation of soils exposed during redevelopment of the
AUAR study area will be minimized by using Bcst Managcment Practices (BMPs) during
and afier construction. Erosion control practices will be identified in the final site grading
and construction plans as required by the NPDES pem1it and in accordance with the City of
Arden Hills and Rice Creek Watershed District's erosion/sedimentation control standards.
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
-]9 -
January 2003
I
I.
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
All erosion control measures shall be installed prior to grading operations and maintained
until all disturbed areas have been restored. Streets will be swept as necessary where
construction sediment has been deposited. Also, NURP ponds must be constructed before
main grading. After construction, all disturbed areas will be either paved or vegetated to
eliminate exposed soil surfaces. Removal of erosion control measures will not occur until
all disturbed areas have been stabilized.
17. WATER QUALITY - SURFACE WATER RUNOFF
EAW:
A. COMPARE THE QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF SITE RUNOFF BEFORE AND
AFTER THE PROJECT. DESCRIBE METHODS TO BE USED TO MANAGE
AND/OR TREAT RUNOFF.
B. IDENTIFY THE ROUTE(S) AND RECENING WATER BODIES FOR RUNOFF
FROM THE SITE. ESTIMATE THE IMPACT OF THE RUNOFF ON THE QUALITY
OF THE RECENING WATERS.
AUAR:
For an AUAR, the following additional guidance should befollowed in addition to that in
the "EA W Guidelines. "
.
It is expected that an AUAR will have a detailed analysis of storm water issues.
.
A map of the proposed storm water management system and of the water bodies that
will receive storm water should be provided.
The description of the storm water management should identifY on-site and "regional"
detention ponding and also indicate whether the various ponds will be new water
bodies or converted existing ponds or wetlands. Where on-site ponds will be used but
have not yet been designed, the discussion should indicate the design standards that will
be followed.
.
If present in or adjoining the A UAR area, the following types of water bodies must be
given special analyses:
Lakes: Within the Twin Cities metro area a nutrient budget analysis must be
prepared JiJr any "priority lake" identified by the Metropolitan Council (see
Appendix E of "}''A W Guidelines" (1990) or contact the Council stafJ). Outside of
the metro area, lakes needing a nutrient budget analysis must be determined by
consultation with MPCA and DNR staIJs;
Trout streams: If storm water discharges will enter or aIJect a trout stream, an
evaluation of the impacts on the chemical composition and temperature regime of
the stream and the consequent impacts on the trout population (and other species
of concern) must be included.
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
- 20-
January 2003
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
According to the February 2002 Local Storm Water Management Plan (LSMP) for the City
of Arden Hills, the AUAR study area is located within the Valentine Lake district in the
Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD). There are 13 wetlands in or near the study area.
Seven of the wetlands are affected by the existing and future drainage from the proposed
project. These seven wetlands include Wetlands A, C, D, E, F, G and L and are shown in
Figure 10.
The City's storm water management plan lists the seven wetlands and Valentine Lake as
Tier 3 water bodies, which indicates that the intended uses do not include direct human
contact with the water. Tier 3 water bodies include all DNR protected lakes, wetlands, and
watercourses not included in Tiers 1 and 2. Tier I consistently supports swimming and
Tier 2 lakes are capable of supporting swimming or having significant public use.
Based on the site and utility plan and storm water analysis provided by Rehder and
Associates, Inc., the AUAR study area can be divided into six unique drainage areas as
shown in Figure 10. The areas are defined by topographic boundaries, storm drain
alignments and where water discharges from the site. The areas are addressed individually
within this section.
For most of the existing site, runoff from pavement (parking lots and roadway surfaces) is
carried via storm sewer to the receiving wetlands and carries with it the sediment and
pollutants associated with these types of areas untreated to the water body. A few areas
drain into municipal storm sewer cither via overland flow or via storm sewer connections.
Area I, which will not undergo any site plan changes at this time, flows to the existing
storm sewer system on Lexington Avenue to the east. Area II drains into Wetland A,
which crosses the southern property line in the southeast quadrant. Area III drains to
Wetland D within the study area at the northwest comer of the intersection of CR F and
Fernwood Avenue. Drainage from Wetland A flows into Wetland C outside of the study
area and subsequently flows into Wetland D. Wetland D then discharges to the south
through a culvert under CR F.
Area IV drains to Wetlands E, F and G. These are linked wetlands, which eventually drain
out of the AUAR study area north along Hamline Avenue. Area V flows into Wetland I
and then out of the site to the northwest The northeastern portion of Area V (the
Building 0 site) is not expected to undergo any site plan changes at this time. Area VI,
which will undergo only slight site plan changes at this time, drains onto the adjacent
roadways and into cxisting storm sewer at the northeast corner of the study area.
According to the Comprehensive Drainage Survey Maintenancc Plan and Ponding
Recommendations prepared for the City of Arden Hills (dated May 1999), there are no
planncd regional stOlID water ponds in or ncar the AUAR study area. Design criteria for
on-site storm water treatment are listed below.
. The total phosphorous removal efficiency for each pond or pond network must be at
least 65 percent. (LSMP)
(3uidant Campus Master Plan
Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
- 21 -
January 2003
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
.
The permanent pool for wet ponds should have a volume equal to or greater than the
runoff resulting from a 2.5-inch rainstorm under complete watershed development.
(RCWD Rules, adopted August 12, 1998, and LSMP)
.
Storm water runoff rates for the proposed project must not exceed existing runoff rates
for the critical one-year or two-year and 100-year frequency events. (RCWD Rules)
.
While not a requirement, the RCWD promotes the use of infiltration devices capable of
infiltrating the impervious surface runoff from the Minneapolis-St. Paul median storm
in 72 hours. (RCWD Rules)
The drainage patterns proposed for the expanded campus are similar to the eXlstmg
condition, but provide for storm water treatment prior to discharging to any wetland,
wherever feasible. Small diversions of water from an existing drainage area may result in
order to provide treatment for changes in other parts of the campus. The quantity of storm
water runoff will likely increase in some drainage areas due to the increased impervious
surfaces proposed for these areas, however, there will be an overall decrease in impervious
surface area within the AUAR study area compared to existing conditions.
Guidant continues to coordinate with the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) to
develop mitigation measures for treating stonn water runoff associated with the proposed
development. These measures will include several surface water treatment strategies for
each identificd drainage area undergoing site plan changes. The strategies proposed are
based on the best available infonnation, but will require further study and discussion with
the Watershed District prior to final design. During the design phase of this project, soil
and groundwater data will be required to ensure that appropriate treatment areas and Best
Management Practice (BMP) designs are selected.
To the extent possible, storm water runoff from new impervious areas will be directed into
infiltration basins and wet ponds prior to leaving the site. Infiltration basins provide
mitigation for the increase in runotT volume by infiltrating storm water and provide water
quality treatment by filtering particulate matter from the runoff. Wet ponds provide water
quality treatment by settling out sediment and attached nutrients and by skimming floating
debris and provide rate control for the water leaving the site. Design of the treatment
deviccs will be in accordance with the City and Watershed District water quality
guidelines. Design of the outlets for the treatment devices will be in accordance with the
Watershed District rate control guidelines.
Table 6 summarizes the existing and proposed impervious surface and proposed treatment
strategies for each drainage area shown in Figure 10. As can be scen in Table 6, three of
the six individual sub-watersheds show an incrcasc in total impervious area, however;
overall there is approximately a 2.2 acre decrease in impervious area within the six sub-
watersheds. Also by comparison to the existing condition, the proposed condition will
reduce pavement surfaces (parking lot and roadway surfaces) by 7.2 acres which is
substantial in terms and levels of pollutants associated with pavement versus rooftop
runoff.
GuiJant Campus Master Plan
Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
January 2003
- 22-
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
TABLE 6
EXISTING AND PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AND
PROPOSED TREATMENT STRATEGY
Existing % Future %
Area()) Impervious Impervious
Description (acres) Surface (4) Surface Comments Treatmeuts\Strategy
Paved/Rooftop PavedIRooftop
Area Area
Areal 9.7 69.0 69.0 None (no changes to
4.1 ac / 2.6 ac 4.1 ac / 2.6 ac existing)
Area II 38.5 65.2 56.3 Approximately 3.3 ac Infiltration basins/wet
20.9 ac / 6.6 ac 13.2 ac / 8.5 ac of the existing sub- ponds
watershed moved into
Area III. (2)
Area III 19.2 38.5 49.0 This area experienced Infiltration basins/wet
4.7 ac/ l.9 ac 5.5 ac / 3.9 ac a net increase of ponds
approximately 2.1 ac.
(2)
Area IV 10.6 57.3 33.9 Approximately 2.2 ac Infiltration basin
4.9 ac / 2.4 ac 1.1 ac /2.5 ac ofthe existing sub-
watershed movcd into
Area V. (2)
.
Area V 15.5 12.1 38.2 This area experienced Infiltration basins/wet
l.0 ac / 0.5 ac 4.4 ac / 1.6 ac a net increase of ponds
approx. 3.3 ac from
Areas 1II and IV. (2)
Area VI 3.4 30.4 32.1 This area experienced None (small drainage
0.9 ac / 0.0 ac 1.1 ac / 0.0 ac a net increase of area connects to
approximately 0.4 ac existing municipal
from Area II. (2) stonn sewer)
TOTALS 96.9 (l) 52.1 49.9 Overall impervious
36.5 ac / 14.0 ac 29.3 ac /19.1 ac area decreases by
roughly 2.2 ac.
Pavement acreage
decreases by roughly
7.2 ac
Source:
Notes:
Rehder and Associates, Inc., site and utility plan and stann water analysis (August 22, 2002).
(I) Total acreage is higher than that of the ADAR study area because drainage areas extend beyond the
AUAR study area.
(2)
Numbers arc based on current proposed site and storm water utility plan.
The acreages shown are for the proposed condition. See COlmnent column for description of changes in
area between the existing to future conditions.
Percent-impervious numbers for the existing condition were calculated based on the existing total
drainage area, \vhich may be different than the acreage shown. See the Comment column for a
description of the changes in total acreage.
(l)
(4)
Guidam Campus Master Plan
Final A\JAR and Mitigation Plan
January 2003
- 23-
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
18. WATER QUALITY - WASTEWATER
EAW:
A. DESCRIBE SOURCES, COMPOSITION AND QUANTITIES OF ALL SANITARY,
MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER PRODUCED OR TREATED AT
THE SITE.
B. DESCRIBE WASTE TREATMENT METHODS OR POLLUTION PREVENTION
EFFORTS AND GNE ESTIMATES OF COMPOSITION AFTER TREATMENT.
IDENTIFY RECENING WATERS, INCLUDING MAJOR DOWNSTREAM WATER
BODIES, AND ESTIMATE THE DISCHARGE IMPACT ON THE QUALITY OF
RECENING WATERS. IF THE PROJECT INVOLVES ON-SITE SEWAGE
SYSTEMS, DISCUSS THE SUITABILITY OF SITE CONDITIONS FOR SUCH
SYSTEMS.
C. IF WASTES WILL BE DISCHARGED INTO A PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT
FACILITY, IDENTIFY THE FACILITY, DESCRIBE ANY PRETREATMENT
PROVISIONS AND DISCUSS THE FACILITY'S ABILITY TO HANDLE THE
VOLUME AND COMPOSITION OF WASTES, IDENTIFYING ANY
IMPROVEMENTS NECESSARY.
D. IF THE PROJECT REQUIRES DISPOSAL OF LIQUID ANIMAL MANURE,
DESCRIBE DISPOSAL TECHNIQUE AND LOCATION AND DISCUSS CAPACITY
TO HANDLE THE VOLUME AND COMPOSITION OF MANURE. IDENTIFY ANY
IMPROVEMENTS NECESSARY. DESCRIBE ANY REQUIRED SETBACKS FOR
LAND DlSPOSAL SYSTEMS.
AUAR:
Observe the jollowing points of guidance in an A UAR:
.
Only domestic wastewater should be considered in an AUAR - industrial wastewater
would be comingfrom industrial uses that are excludedfrom review through an AUAR
process.
.
Wastewater flows should be estimated by land use sub-areas of the AUAR area; the
basis ojjlow estimates should be explained.
.
The major sewer system features should be shown on a map and the expected flows
should be identified.
.
if not explained under Item 6, the expected staging of the sewer system construction
should be described.
.
The relationship of the sewer system extension to the RGU's comprehensive sewer plan
and (.for metro areas) to Metropolitan Council regional systems plans. including
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
- 24-
January 2003
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
MUSA expansions, should be discussed. For non-metro area AUARs, the AUAR must
discuss the capacity of the RGU's wastewater treatment system compared to the flows
from the A UAR area; and necessary improvements should be described.
.
If on-site systems will serve part of the AUAR the guidance in "EAW Guidelines"
(pages 16-17) should befollowed.
Parking garage drainage and other site-generated wastewater will be discharged directly
into the City's sanitary sewer system, which is processed by the Metropolitan Council
Environmental Services (MCES) system. The City of Arden Hills has confirmed that the
existing sanitary sewer lines servicing the proposed campus have the capacity to handle the
additional wastewater volumes required for the campus needs. There was also
coordination with the MCES to confirm that their system could handle the additional
volumes of wastewater. The proposed campus will add approximately 46,305 gallons per
day of wastewater to the existing 52,150 gallons per day for a total of 98,456 gallons per
day. While the proposed project will not require additional connections to the sanitary
sewer lines located in CR F and Hamline Avenue, the development will require additional
connections to the sanitary line located in Fernwood Avenue. These additional connections
will be made as needed during the phased development of the AUAR study area.
Calculations for determining the amount of wastewater assume that for office/limited
industrial space there are three employees per 1,000 square feet, producing 15 gallons of
wastewater per person per day. Guidant will work with the City of Arden Hills to
detcrmine the manner in which the internal drainagc from the parking garage will be
treated prior to entcring the sanitary sewer consistent with Section 1010.08 Subd. I of the
City of Arden Hills ordinance. Drainage from the top uncovered level of each parking
ramp will enter the city stonn water system.
19. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND SOIL CONDITIONS
EAW:
A. APPROXIMATE DEPTH (IN FEET)
TO GROUND WATER: 0 Feet MINIMUM, 90 Feet AVERAGE
Source: Water table elevation data was calculated using the USGS 7.5 Minute Series
Topographic Map for Ramsey County, Minnesota-New Brighton quadrangle (1997) and
the Geologic Atlas of Ramsey County, Minnesota Surficial l-Iydrogeolgy map (l992).
APPROXIMATE DEPTH (IN FEET)
TO BEDROCK: 250 Feet MlNIMUM,
300 Feet AVERAGE
Source: Bedrock infonnation obtained from the Phase I ESA (November 2l, 1997).
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
- 25 -
January 2003
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
DESCRIBE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING GEOLOGIC SITE HAZARDS TO GROUND
WATER AND ALSO IDENTIFY THEM ON THE SITE MAP: SINKHOLES,
SHALLOW LIMESTONE FORMATIONS OR KARST CONDITIONS. DESCRIBE
MEASURES TO AVOID OR MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS DUE TO
ANY OF THESE HAZARDS.
B. DESCRIBE THE SOILS ON THE SITE, GIVING NRCS (SCS) CLASSIFICATIONS, IF
KNOWN. DISCUSS SOIL GRANULARITY AND POTENTIAL FOR
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION FROM WASTES OR CHEMICALS SPREAD
OR SPILLED ONTO THE SOILS. DISCUSS ANY MITIGATION MEASURES TO
PREVENT SUCH CONTAMINATION.
AUAR:
A map should be included to show any groundwater hazards identified. A standard soils
map covering the area should be included.
The Bedrock Geology (1992) portion of the Geological Atlas for Ramsey County was
reviewed for the AUAR study area and does not identify any geologic features (karst
topography, shallow limestone, etc.) that will result in potential groundwater hazard
conditions.
The Washington and Ramsey County Soil Survey (U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Soil
Conservation Service, 1980) was reviewed and indicates that native soils within the AUAR
study area consist mostly of the Hayden-Urban variety which are undulating to steep, well-
drained, moderately coarse textured soils and urban lands; or uplands. Much of the AUAR
study area is now considered Urban Land, which includes 70 percent coverage by buildings
and pavement, and native soil has been greatly altered by excavation and grading.
Figure II shows the location of various soil types in the study area, including slope
percentages for each soil subgroup. Soils information for the study area was obtained from
the Washington and Ramsey Counties Soil Survey (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service, 1980). The following soil types occur in thc study area (slopes are
given in parentheses):
. 1039 Urban Land
. 132B Hayden fine sandy loam (2-6%)
. 132 C Hayden fine sandy loam (6-12%)
. 860 C Urban land-Hayden-Kingslcy Complex (3-15%)
1055 Aquolls and Histolsols, ponded
The permeability of the soils in the area is moderate.
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Final AllAR and Mitigation Plan
- 26-
January 2003
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
Small areas of Hayden fine sandy loam with 2 to 6 percent slopes are found within the
AUAR study area and are classified as prime farmland. None of this land is actively
farmed at this time, however. The AUAR area is not part of any agricultural land
protection program, consistent with the area's urban-related land use designations
identified in the Arden Hills Comprehensive Plan and the area's inclusion within the
Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) boundary.
20. SOLID WASTES; HAZARDOUS WASTES; STORAGE TANKS
EAW:
A. DESCRIBE TYPES, AMOUNTS AND COMPOSITIONS OF SOLID OR HAZARDOUS
WASTES, INCLUDING SOLID ANIMAL MANURE, SLUDGE AND ASH,
PRODUCED DURING CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION. IDENTIFY METHOD
AND LOCATION OF DISPOSAL. FOR PROJECTS GENERATING MUNICIPAL
SOLID WASTE, INDICATE IF THERE IS A SOURCE SEPARATION PLAN;
DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT WILL BE MODIFIED FOR RECYCLING. IF
HAZARDOUS WASTE IS GENERA TED, INDICATE IF THERE IS A HAZARDOUS
WASTE MINIMIZATION PLAN AND ROUTINE HAZARDOUS WASTE
REDUCTION ASSESSMENTS.
AUAR:
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.
The proposed office/limited industrial uses in the AUAR study area will produce typical
municipal solid waste. The project proposer estimated 9,878 additional pounds per day of
municipal solid waste will be produced by expansion of the campus. This will bc in
addition to the estimated 11,461 pounds of municipal solid waste created per day for the
existing uses. Calculations for determining the amount of solid waste produced assume
that for office/limited industrial space there are three employees per 1,000 square feet,
producing 3.2 pounds of solid waste per day.
B. IDENTIFY ANY TOXIC OR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TO BE USED OR PRESENT
AT THE SITE AND IDENTIFY MEASURES TO BE USED TO PREVENT THEM
FROM CONTAMINATING GROUNDWATER. IF THE USE OF TOXIC OR
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS WILL LEAD TO A REGULATED WASTE, DISCHARGE
OR EMISSION, DISCUSS ANY ALTERNATIVES CONSlDERED TO MINIMIZE OR
ELIMINATE THE WASTE, DISCHARGE OR EMISSION.
AUAR: No response is necessary.
There are a variety of hazardous chemicals used by the Guidant Corporation for
production. Fresh chemicals are supplied to Guidant to derive the necessary production
chemicals. The fresh chemicals are stored in areas separate from the rooms and cabinets
where the production chemicals are stored. Spill absorbent are readily available for all
chemicals in case of accidental spill.
Guidant Campus Master Plan
final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
- 27-
January 2003
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
The production and fresh chemicals stored on-site include the following with an
approximate 0.9 tOilS used each month. [This is the total tons of chemicals that are
classified as Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).]
. Isopropyl alcohol . Heplane
. DT 4 (organic binder) . Oxyfume
. DT 6 (organic binder) . IP AlCyclohexane
. Acetone . Dynasolve 210 (Methylane chloride)
. Tabcoat 100
The chemicals are regulated by the MPCA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EP A)
and the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA). In addition, Guidant conforms with all
requirements for the Small Quantity Hazardous Waste Generators license from the Ramsey
County Department of Environmental Health. An Emergency Response Plan is filed with
the local fire and emergency response officials.
C. INDICATE THE NUMBER, LOCATION, SIZE AND USE OF ANY ABOVE OR
BELOW GROUND TANKS TO STORE PETROLEUM PRODUCTS OR OTHER
MATERIALS, EXCEPT WATER. DESCRIBE ANY EMERGENCY RESPONSE
CONTAINMENT PLANS.
A UAR: Potential locations of storage tanks associated with commercial uses in the A UAR
should be identified (e.g., gasoline tanks at service statiom).
All below-grade storage tanks have been removed from the site. An above ground liquid
petroleum storage tank exists on thc site as a backup fuel source for the Building F boiler
house.
There are no tanks planned for commercial purposes within the AUAR study area.
21. TRAFFIC
EAW:
P ARKING SPACES ADDED 4.311 spaces
EXISTING SPACES (IF PROJECT INVOLVES EXPANSION) 3.331 spaces
ESTIMA TED TOTAL A VERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) GENERA TED*
* ADT is for Guidant generated traffic only.
CR F (between Hamline Ave. and Lexington Ave.) = varics from 5,400 and 4,300 ADT**
CR 96 (between Hamline Ave. and Lexington Ave.)= 3,300 ADT
Hamline Ave. (bctween CR 96 and CR F) = 3, I 00 ADT
Lexington Ave. (between CR 96 and CR F) = varies from 9,000 and 6,500 AUf**
1-694 ((between Hamlinc Ave. and Lexington Ave.) ~ 3,600 ADT
**Because of significant side street traffic, the ADI varies from roadway segment to the next.
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
- 28 -
January 2003
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
ESTIMATED MAXIMUM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC GENERATED (IF KNOWN) AND
ITS TIMING
2005: 1,645 trips onto the campus during the A.M. Peak 7:30-8.30 A.M.
1,474 trips off the campus during the P.M. Peak 4:30-5:30 P.M.
2020: 2,860 trips onto the campus during the A.M. Peak 7:30-8:30 A.M.
2,573 trips off the campus during the P.M. Peak 4:30-5:30 P.M.
AN ESTIMATE OF THE IMPACT ON TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON THE AFFECTED
ROADS AND DESCRIBE ANY TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS WHICH WILL BE
NECESSARY. IF THE PROJECT IS WITHIN THE TWIN CITIES METROPOLITIAN
AREA, DISCUSS ITS IMPACT ON THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.
AUAR:
For most AUAR reviews a relatively detailed traffic analysis will be needed, especially if
there is to be much commercial development in the AUAR area or if there are major
congested roadways in the vicinity. The results of the traffic analysis must be used in the
response to Item 22 and to the noise aspect of Item 24.
Instead of responding to the information called for in Item 21, the following information
should be provided:
A description and map of the existing and proposed roadway system, including state.
regional, and local roads to be affected by the development of the A UAR area. This
information should include existing and proposed roadway capacities and existing and
projected background (i.e., without the AUAR development) traffic volumes.
.
Trip generation data - trip generation rates and trip totals - for each major
development scenario broken down by land use zones and/or other relevant
subdivisions of the area. The projected distributions onto the roadway system must be
included.
.
Analysis of impacts of the traffic generated by the A UAR area on the roadway system,
including: comparison of peak period total flows to capacities analysis of Levels of
Service and delay times at critical points (ifany).
.
A discussion of structural and non-structural improvements and traffic management
measures that are proposed to mitigate problems.
NOTE: In the ahove analyses the geographical scope must extend outward as far as the
traffic to be generated would have a significant effect on the road.way system and traffic
measurements and projections should include peak days and peak hours, or other
appropriate measures related to identifj'ing congestion problems, as well as ADTs.
Ciuidant Campus Master Plan
Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
- 29-
January 2003
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
A traffic impact study was completed by Parsons Transportation Group for the AUAR
study area in July 2002 to determine the impacts resulting from traffic anticipated to be
generated by the planned development scenario. The study included an analysis of existing
(2002) traffic conditions, future (2005 and 2020) traffic conditions with and without the
proposed development (Build and No-Build), and operational impacts to area roadways.
The traffic study included an analysis of roadways within and immediately adjacent to the
AUAR study area that are anticipated to be impacted by the proposed Guidant Campus
expansion.
The traffic impact study forecasted future traffic volumes and examined the operational
characteristics of existing and future conditions. The primary measure that is used to
analyze these conditions is level of service (LOS). The LOS characteristic is an
operational comparison of the ability of a road or intersection to accommodate traffic flow
and remain uncongested. The LOS of an intersection is generally presented as an
alphabetic rating from A to F, with A indicating minimal delays and F indicating
significant delays. Intersections are generally considered to be operating at capacity at LOS
D and to exceed capacity at LOS E and F.
The following text summarizes the findings of the traffic impact study.
Existing Roadway Systcm
The Guidant Campus (the AUAR study area) is located northwest of the Lexington
A venue/I-694 interchange. Access to the site is currently providcd via CR F,
CR 96, lIamline Avenue, Lexington Avenue, and I-694. Following is a brief description of
these roadways, including how they provide access to the site and existing average daily
traffic (ADT) volumes.
.
CR F is a two-lane collector roadway that runs east-west and provides access to the
Guidant Campus on the south via Fcrnwood Drive and two driveways (known as the
west and east driveways). The existing averagc daily traffic (ADT) for CR F is 8,400.
.
CR 96 is a four-lane minor arterial roadway that runs east-west and bisects Lexington
Avenue and lIamline Avenue, north of the study area. The existing ADT for
CR 96 is 19,000.
.
Hamline Avenue is a two-Ianc minor arterial roadway. Visitor access to the Guidant
Campus is currently provided via Hamline A venuc. Hamline Avenue becomes
Snelling Avcnue south ofI-694. Traffic traveling west on 1-694 can cxit at Hamline
A venue and gain access to the site; however, traffic traveling east on l-694 can only
travel south on Snelling Avenue thereby not providing access to the Guidant Campus.
Hamline Avenue has an cxisting ADT of 12,000.
Lexington Avenue, a minor arterial roadway, has two lancs southbound, between
1-694 and CR 96. Northbound Lexington Avenue is two lanes, from 1-694 to Guidant
Drive North; however, it is only one lane from Guidant Drivc North to CR 96. There
are cLlnently two access points to the Guidant Campus from Lexington Avenue -
Guidant Drive North and Guidant Drive South. Lexington Avenue has an existing
ADT of17,100.
Guidant Campus Master Plan
final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
- 30 -
January 2003
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
.
1-694 is a four-lane principal arterial interstate highway providing access to the Guidant
Campus via the Lexington Avenue interchange. The existing ADT on I-694 is
99,000 (between the Hamline Avenue and Lexington Avenue interchanges).
There are two roadways within the AUAR study boundary that provide for internal site
circulation - Fernwood Drive and Guidant Drive North. These roadways also provide
access to businesses and a park (Cummings Park) north of the study area, just north of
Guidant Drive North. Fernwood Drive is currently a two-lane public roadway that runs
north-south and bisects the existing campus. Guidant Drive North is currently a private
roadway that runs east-west along the study area's northern boundary.
Existing Traffic Operations
The capacity of nearly every roadway segment is determined at the nodes of each end of the
segment. Capacity is hardly ever restricted along the segment itself. In the case of a
freeway, the nodes are the interchanges. For an arterial roadway, the nodes are the
intersections. It is at these interchanges and intersections where the operational issues and
capacity deficiencies of a roadway will be observed.
A traffic operations analysis was conducted for the A.M. and P.M. peak hours at key
intersections to determine how traffic currently operates in the vicinity of the AUAR study
area. Rcfcr to Table 7 for key signalized intersections analyzed and Table 8 for key
unsignalized intersections analyzed. Figure 12 shows existing geometries and A.M. and
P.M. peak hour traffic volumes at these intersections.
Results of the operations analysis indicate that with the eXlstmg traffic controls and
intersections geometries, there are several intersections within the project area that
currently operate at LOS D or worse during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours (see
Tables 7 and 8). Table 7 shows that the signalized intersections of Lexington
Avenue/Eastbound 1-694 and Lexington Avenue/CR 96 operate at a LOS E in the P.M.
peak hour. The other three signalized intersections operate a LOS D or better.
Table 8 shows that five of the unsignalized intersections currently experience LOS E or F.
TABLE 7
EXISTING A.M. AND P.M. PEAK HOUR CAPACITY ANALYSIS
LOS RESULTS - SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Signalized Intersection Existing (2002)
A.M. Peak P.M. Peak
Lexington A venue & CR F C B
Lexington A venue & WB 1-694 Ramps C C
Lexington A venue & EB l-694 C E
Lexington A venue & CR 96 D E
Hamline A venue & CR 96 C , D
I
GuiJant Campus J\1aster Plan
Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
- 31 -
January 2003
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
TABLE 8
EXISTING A.M. AND P.M. PEAK HOUR CAPACITY ANALYSIS
LOS RESULTS. UNSIGNALlZED INTERSECTIONS
Unsignalized Intersection Existing (2002)*
A.M. Peak P.M. Peak
Lexington Avenue & Guidant Drive North E F
Hamline Avenue & CR F F F
Lexington Avenue & Victoria St C F
Lexington Avenue & Guidant Dr S D F
Fernwood Drive & CR F B C
East Drive & CR F B C
West Drive & CR F B B
Hamline Avenue & West Floral Dr E E
*Note: Unsignalized LOS shows the worse LOS for the stopped movement.
Proposed Roadwav Svstem
In the future, without the proposed AUAR development, the surrounding roadway system
will remain the same as the existing roadway system, except for the following planned
improvements:
. Lexington Avenue will be expanded to two northbound lanes between Guidant Drive
North and CR 96 in 2003-2004 as planned by Ramsey County and included in their
Capital Improvement Program.
. A signal will be added at Victoria Street and Lexington Avenue by 2003-2004 as
planned by Ramsey County and included in their Capital Improvement Program.
Per discussions with the City, it is also assumed that by 2020, a north-south connection will
bc cxtended north of CR 96 to CR 1.
Futurc No-Build Conditions
Trallic Forecasts
Traffic forecasts were determincd for the 2005 and 2020 No-Build conditions. To produce
the 2005 No-Build base traffic conditions, existing (2002) background hlrning movement
counts were increascd by 2 percent for 3 years.
To establish 2020 baseline traffic volumes, the average annual growth rates on roadways
around the Guidant site wcrc dctermined using the 2000 and 2020 Metropolitan Council
regional travel demand model. The growth rates were than appointed to the base year
background tfamC counts to provide future background traffic.
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Final AUA..H. and Mitigation Plan
- 32 -
January 2003
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.e
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
!
Projected 2020 No-Build ADT volumes are as follows:
.
CR F = 12,350 ADT
CR 96 = 25,500 ADT
Hamline Avenue = 15,000 ADT
Lexington Avenue = 21,300 ADT
I-694 = 133,000 ADT
.
.
.
.
Roadway Improvements
As discussed under the "Proposed Roadway System", it was assumed for 2005 No-Build
that there were no changes from the existing (2002) roadway system except for the
expansion of northbound Lexington Avenue to two lanes between Guidant Drive North and
CR 96 that are planned by Ramsey County in 2003. Ramsey County also has plans to add
a signal at Victoria Street and Lexington Avenue by 2005.
The roadway system for the 2020 No-Build was assumed to be the same as the 2005 No-
Build with one cxception - 2020 analysis assumed that a north-south connection would be
extended north of CR 96 to CR I.
Traffic Operations Analysis
Table 9 shows the results of the signalized intersection analysis for the 2005 and 2020 No-
Build traffic conditions. Similar to existing conditions, all signalized intersections will
operate at an overall level of service (LOS) D or better in 2005, except for the intersections
of Lexington Avenue/eastbound I-694 ramps and Lexington Avenue/CR 96, which will
operate at LOS E in the P.M. peak. By 2020, all signalized intersections, except for
Lexington Avenue/Victoria Street, will opcrate at a LOS F in the P.M. peak.
TABLE 9
FUTURE NO-BUILD A.M. AND P.M. PEAK HOUR CAPACITY ANALYSIS
LOS RESULTS - SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
No-Build No-Build
Signalized Intersection (2005) (2020)
A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M.
Lexington A venue & CR F C B F F
Lexington Avenue & Victoria St A B A A
Lexington Avenue & WB 1-694 Ramps B C D F
Lexington A venue & EB I-694 C E D F
--.-
Lexington A venue & CR 96 D E F ' F
Hamline A venue & CR 96 C D F t--i--
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Final ADAR and Mitigation Plan
January 2003
- 33 -
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
1\
,-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.e
I
Table 10 displays the results of the unsignalized intersection analysis for the 2005 and
2020 No-Build traffic conditions. Four intersections will experience LOS E or F in
2005 and 2020. It should be noted that these four intersections also experience LOS E or F
under existing (2002) conditions.
TABLE 10
FUTURE NO-BUILD A.M. AND P.M. PEAK HOUR CAPACITY ANALYSIS
LOS RESULTS - UNSIGNALlZED INTERSECTIONS
No-Build No-Build
Unsignalized Intersection* (2005) (2020)
A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M.
Lexington Ave & Guidant Drive North F F F F
Hamline Avenue & CR F F F F F
Lexington Avenue & Guidant Drive South E F E F
Fernwood Avenue & CR F B C C D
East Dr & CR F B C C D
WestDr&CRF B B B B
Hamline & West Floral Drive F F F F
*Note: Unsignalizcd LOS shows the worse LOS for the stopped movement.
No-Build Conclusions
The cause of the declining LOS from 2005 to 2020 at many of the intersections is the
increase in background traffic volumes and the lack of planned improvements on the
adjacent roadways. In order to obtain a LOS D or better at these intersections, additional
roadway improvements would need to be implemented. The following improvements are
recommended to improvc traffic operations on adjacent roadways:
2005 Recommended Improvements:
.
An additional northbound left turn lane at Lexington Avenue/CR F.
A southbound and northbound right turn lane at the intersection of the I-694 ramps with
Lexington Avenue.
Installation of traffic signals at Lexington Avenue/Guidant Drive North and Hamline
Avenue/CR F.
.
.
2020 Recommended Improvements:
A dedicated westbound right turn lane at Hamline Avenue/CR F.
(JuiJant Campus Master Plan
Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
- 34 -
January 2003
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
.e
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.-
I
.
An additional eastbound left turn lane at the intersection of the 1-694 ramps and
Lexington Avenue.
If a north-south connection is extended north of CR 96 to CR I, a new lane
configuration is recommended to be built for the southbound movement at the
intersection of this connection and CR 96.
.
hnprovements to Lexington Avenue, Guidant Drive South, Hamline Avenue and West
Floral Drive are not recommended due to low cross street volumes and signal spacing
constraints.
Future Build Conditions
Traffic Forecasts/Trip Generation
The traffic analysis for future (2005 and 2020) Build conditions incorporates the
background traffic growth assumptions used in the No-Build analysis plus estimated trips
that will be generated by the proposed Guidant Campus expansion. The 1997 ITE Trip
Generation manual was used as the basis for trip estimates. With the additional
office/limited industrial space to be added to the campus in 2005 (phase I), there will be
approximately 1,893 total trips in the A.M. peak and 1,8l9 trips during the P.M. peak by
comparison to the existing (2002) and 2005 No-Build 1,541 A.M. peak and 1,401 P.M.
peak total trips. ln 2020, (full build-out scenario), the additional office/limited industrial
space will result in approximately 3,261 total trips in the A.M. peak and 3,120 total trips
during the P.M. peak.
The directional trip distribution for the site-generated traffic was determined based on
information provided by Guidant on current employee home addresscs and likely travel
routes for those employees as well as actual traffic counts and the regional travel demand
model that is based on individual cities' planned growth. The 2005 site trip distribution
during the A.M. peak hour estimates 47.9 percent of the trips to the campus originate from
the north and 52.8 percent originate from the south. During the P.M. peak hour,
59.2 percent of the trips leave the campus and travel south and 41.5 percent travel to the
north. The 2020 site trip distribution during the A.M. peak hour estimates that 48.0 percent
of the trips to the campus originate from the south and 52.7 percent originate from the
north. During the P_M_ peak hour, 59.5 percent of the trips leave the campus and travel
south and 4l.l percent travel to the north.
Projected 2020 Build ADT volumes are as follows:
. CR F ~ 15,100 ADT
CR 96 = 26,1 00 ADT
. Hamline Avenue = 16,000 ADT
Lexington Avenue = 24,400 ADT
1-694 = 135,000 ADT
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
- 35 -
January 2003
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
Roadway Improvements
In addition to the roadway improvements assumed in the 2005 No-Build condition, the
2005 Build condition assumes that existing Guidant Drive North will be turned over to the
City and will become a public street requiring the street to be modified to meet the City of
Arden Hills public street design standards. These improvements will likely require a traffic
signal to be added to the intersection of Guidant Drive North and Lexington Avenue.
Traffic signal timing was also assumed to be optimized along Lexington Avenue to
account for the higher volumes of traffic being experienced on the roadway network due to
the Guidant Campus site growth. The roadway geometry for the 2020 Build conditions are
the same as the 2005 Build conditions, with the addition of a north-south connection being
extended north of CR 96 to CR I. This improvement was also assumed in
the 2020 No-Build.
Traffic Operations Analysis
Tables II and 12 display the results of the signalized and unsignalized intersection analysis
for the 2005 and 2020 Build traffic conditions. With limited public improvements planned
between 2005 and 2020 and traffic volumes estimated to increase, the LOS at roadways
will continue to decline and the majority of intersections will experience a LOS E or F by
2020.
TABLE 11
FUTURE BUILD A.M. AND P.M. PEAK HOUR CAPACITY ANALYSIS
LOS RESULTS - SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Signalized Intersection Build (2005) Build (2020)
A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M.
Lexington Avenue & Guidant Drive North A A E B
Lexington Avenue & CR F C B F F
Lexington Avenuc & Victoria St A A A A
Lexington Avenue & WB 1-694 Ramps B C D F
Lexington Avenue & EB I-694 C F D F
Lexington Avenue & CR 96 D D F F
Hamline A venue & CR 96 C D F F
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
- 36-
January 2003
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
'.
I
I
TABLE 12
FUTURE BUILD AND P,M. PEAK HOUR CAPACITY ANALYSIS
LOS RESULTS - UNSIGNALlZED INTERSECTIONS
Unsignalized Intersection* Build (2005) Build (2020)
A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M.
Hamline Avenue & CR F F F F F
Lexington Avenue & Guidant Drive South F F F F
Fernwood Avenue & CR F C D E F
East Drive & CR F B C F F
West Drive & CR F C C D D
Hamline Avenue & West Floral Drive F F F F
'Note: Unsignalized Level of Service shows the worse LOS for the stopped movement.
Comparison of No-Build and Build Conditions
Table I3 compares the 2005 No-Build and Build signalized intersection analysis. A
comparison of the 2005 No-Build to 2005 Build conditions identifies that with the Build
condition the intersection of Lexington Avenue/Guidant Drive North will have improved
operations with the addition of a traffic signal. As part of the installation of the traffic
signals at Victoria Street and Guidant Drive North, the 2005 Build condition assumes that
the timing of other traffic signals along Lexington Avenue will be coordinated with the
timing of the new signals, optimizing the signals along Lexington Avenue. This will result
in improved operations over the 2005 No-Build at Lexington A venue/CR 96 and Lexington
A venueIVictoria Street during the P.M. peak hour. Operations at Lexington
Avenue/eastbound 1-694 ramp will continue to worsen with the Build scenario and will
operate at a LOS F in the P.M. peak hour. An additional eastbound left-turn lane onto
Lexington A venue is needed to improve operations at this intersection.
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
- 37 -
Janumy 2003
I
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
we
I
I
I
I
I
I
'.
I
I
TABLE 13
FUTURE 2005 A.M. AND P.M. PEAK HOUR CAPACITY ANALYSIS
LOS RESULTS - SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Signalized Intersection No-Build (2005) Build (2005)
A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M.
Lexington Avenue & Guidant Drive North(l) - - A A
Lexington Avenue & CR F C B C B
Lexington Avenue & Victoria Street A B A A
Lexington A venue & WB I-694 Ramps B C B C
Lexington Avenue & EB I-694 C E C F
Lexington Avenue & CR 96 D E D D
Hamline Avenue & CR 96 C D C D
(I) This intersection is currently unsignalizcd and was analyzed as an unsignalized intersection in the
2005 No-Build condition. The 2005 Build condition includes the installation of a traffic signal at this
intersection.
Table 14 compares the 2005 No-Build and Build unsignalized intersection analysis. As
with the 2005 No-Build conditions, the unsignalized intersections of Lexington
Avenue/Guidant Drive South and lIamline Avenue/West Floral Drive will continue to
expcrience poor traffic operations in the 2005 Build conditions; however, volumes are not
high enough to warrant signalization. The unsignalized intersection of Hamline
A venue/CR F will continue to operate at a LOS F in the 2005 Build conditions as well as
thc 2005 No-Build conditions. This intersection experiences poor traffic operations and
has high enough volumes and delay under both conditions to warrant signalization.
TABLE 14
FUTURE 2005 A.M. AND P.M. PEAK HOUR CAPACITY ANALYSIS
LOS RESULTS - UNSIGNALlZED INTERSECTIONS
Unsignalized Intersection* N 0- Build (2005) Build (2005)
A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M.
Lexington Avenue & Guidant Drive North(l) F F - -
Hamline A venue & CR F F F F F
Lexington A venue & Guidant Drive South E F F F
Fernwood A venue & CR F B C C D
East Drivc & CR F B C B C
West Drivc & CR F B B C C
lIamline Avcnuc & Wcst Floral Drive F F F F
* Kote: Unsigllalizcd LOS 5hO'\;\l5 the worse LOS for the stopped movement.
(I) This intersection is currently unsignalized and was analyzed as an unsignalized intersection in the 2005
1\~o-Bui]d condition. The 2005 Build condition includes the installation of a traffic signal at this
intersection.
Guidant Campus fvlastcr Plan
Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
- 3S -
January 2003
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
Tables 15 and 16 compares 2020 No-Build and Build intersection analysis. The
2020 Build conditions show that intersection operations will improve over the
2020 No-Build conditions at the intersection of Lexington Avenue/Guidant Drive North
during the A.M. and P.M. peak due to the installation of a signal. However, even with the
installation of a signal this intersection will experience a LOS E in the A.M. peak Build
conditions as a result of the heavy left turns into tbe site. The rest of the intersections
analyzed are anticipated to have similar or worse LOS in the Build conditions than the
No-Build conditions due to increased traffic generated by the site.
TABLE 15
FUTURE 2020 A.M. AND P.M. PEAK HOUR CAPACITY ANALYSIS
LOS RESULTS - SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Signalized Intersection No-Build (2020) Bnild (2020)
A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M.
Lexington Avenue & Guidant Drive North - - E B
Lexington Avenue & CR F D C F F
Hamline A venue & CR F - -
Lexington Avenue & Victoria Street A B A A
Lexington Avenue & WB 1-694 Ramps C E D F
Lexington Avenue & EB 1-694 C F D F
Lexington Avenue & CR 96 F F F F
Hamline Avenue & CR 96 F F F F
TABLE 16
FUTURE 2020 A.M. AND P.M. PEAK HOUR CAPACITY ANALYSIS
LOS RESULTS - UNSIGNALlZED INTERSECTIONS
Unsignalized Intersection* No-Build (2020) Build (2020)
A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M.
Lexington Avenue & Guidant Drive North F F - -
Hamline Avenue & CR F F F F F
Lcxington & Guidant Drive South E F F F
Fcrnwood Avenue & CR F C D E F
East Drive & CR F C D F F
--
West Drive & CR F B B D D
- -
Hamlinc Avenue & Wcst Floral Drive F F F F
*Note: Unsignalized Level of Service shows the vv'orsc LOS for the stopped movement.
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
January 2003
- 39-
I
Ie
I
'.
I
I
I
I
I
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
Mitil!ation
Guidant has worked with MnlDOT, Ramsey County and the Cities of Arden Hills and
Shoreview to identifY appropriate roadway improvements to mitigate for traffic impacts
that may result from the three stages of development (Phases I, II and III) planned as part of
the Guidant Campus expansion. These improvements are identified in the Mitigation Plan
included in Appendix E. The Mitigation Plan also identifies the timing and financial
responsibility of proposed improvements.
Travel Demand Manal!ement
In addition to the roadway improvements identified in the Mitigation Plan, included in
Appendix E, Guidant Corporation is also working with Metro Commuter Services to
identifY Travel Demand Management (TDM) measures that can help to minimize the
number of trips generated by the proposed development. As part of this process, a
commuter survey was distributed to all Guidant employees at the Arden Hills campus to
collect data to identifY current commuter routes and practices, interest in alternatives to
driving alone, attractiveness of incentives for using alternative modes of travel, and other
issues that will influence the effectiveness of TDM measures that will be successful in
reducing site-generated trips during the peak hour. The commuter survey was distributed
to 2,686 Guidant employees and a 62 percent response rate was obtained.
The results of the survey identified the following information about the Guidant Campus
and its employees.
.
The average one-way commute distance is 16.3 miles and the average one-way
commute time is 26 minutes.
No employees surveyed are currently using transit.
Few Guidant employees are lmowledgeable about transit routes (only 30 percent can
idcntify the transit stop location).
Almost 50 percent of those that drive alone would be willing to try car/vanpooling_
Almost 50 percent of the employees responded that they could vary their work hours.
.
.
.
Based on this survey, Guidant is continuing to work with Metro Commutcr Scrvices to
develop TDM strategies that Guidant can implement and promote to their employees.
Potential TDM measures being considered include:
.
Car/vanpooling, including preferential parking spaces
Flexible work schedulcs
Providing a display of commuter information for employccs, including information on
rideshare, transit schedules and bicycling commuting routes
Designation of a Commuter Benefits Coordinator (CBC), a current staff member in
Human Resources or Facilities Management who can work with new and existing
employccs as a source for commuting services and materials
Sell transit passes on the Guidant Campus
.
.
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Final ADAR and Mitigation Plan
- 40-
January 2003
I
'-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
Based on the aforementioned TDM examples, it is reasonable to expect that a long-term
commitment to coordinated application of TDM measures by Guidant could be successful
in reducing trips generated during the peak hours.
Transit
Metro Transit routes 224, 226 and 227 provide minimal transit service to the study area.
Routes 224, 226 and 227 serve the area in the morning (6:20 - 7:52 a.m.) and in the late
afternoon (3:30 - 6:00 p.m.). Service is limited and travels along Lexington Avenue.
These routes travel to and from Rosedale Shopping Mall transit center which is located
approximately five miles south of the campus. This transit center provides riders the
opportunity to transfer to several other routes to reach their residential area.
22. VEHICLE-RELATED AIR EMISSIONS
EAW:
PROVIDE AN ESTIMATE OF THE EFFECT OF TIlE PROJECT'S TRAFFIC
GENERATION ON AIR QUALITY, INCLUDING CARBON MONOXIDE LEVELS.
DISCUSS THE EFFECT OF TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS OR OTHER MITIGATION
MEASURES ON AIR QUALITY IMPACTS. (IF THE PROJECT INVOLVES 500 OR
MORE PARKING SPACES, CONSULT "EAW GUIDELINES" ABOUT WHETHER A
DETAILED AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS IS NEEDED)
AUAR:
The guidance provided in "EA W Guidelines should also he followed for an A UAR.
Mitigation proposed to eliminate any potential problems may be presented under
Item 21 and merely referenced here. The MPCA staff should he consulted regarding
possible ISP requirements for certain proposed developments; although the RGU may not
want to assume responsibility for applying for an ISP for specific developments, it may be
desirahle to coordinate the A UAR and ISP analyses elosely.
Motorized vehicles affect air quality by emitting airborne pollutants. Changes in traffic
volumes, travel patterns, and roadway locations affect air quality by changing the number
of vehicles in an area and altering traffic flow patterns. The effect of the development on
air quality was assessed by considering the changes in carbon monoxide, the primary
airborne pollutant that emitted from motorized vehicles.
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide (CO) is the traffic-related pollutant of most concern in the Twin Cities
Metropolitan Area. Concentrations of CO are generally highest at intersections with poor
levels of service and, consequently, more idling vehiclcs. Thc MPCA has established state
standards (or maximum pelmissible concentrations) for CO of 30 pmis per million (ppm)
for a I-hour period (average concentration), and 9 ppm for an 8-hour period. The MPCA
I-hour standard is more stringcnt than the fcdcral standard of35 ppm.
Thc Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) reclassillcd Minneapolis/St. Paul as an
attainment area for CO in 1999. The attainment status is contingent upon the
implementation of measures to assure that CO concentrations remain below standards. In
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
- 4] -
January 2003
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
I
I
compliance with this contingency, air quality analyses of "worst-case" conditions were
performed for the study area to estimate the effect of the proposed campus expansion on
future CO concentrations at key intersections the study area. These analyses include
monitoring of existing background CO concentrations and modeling future CO
concentrations at worst-case intersections.
Carbon Monoxide Modeling Methodology and Assumptions
Carbon monoxide concentrations near the intersections were predicted using forecasted
traffic volumes, current and proposed intersection geometries, optimized signal timing, and
with computer models, including the U.S. EPA MOBILE5A' emission model and the U.S.
EP A CAL3QHC dispersion model. The scope of the air quality analyses was developed
based on input from MPCA staff. The modeling assumptions used in this analysis are
shown in Table 17.
TABLE 17
CARBON MONOXIDE MODELING ASSUMPTIONS
Analysis Year: 2020
Cold Start Percentage: 20.6 percent for all traffie
Hot Start Percentage: 27.3 percent for all traffic
Cruising Speed: Posted Speed Limits
Traffic Mix: National Default Values
Wind Speed: 1 meter/second (3.3 feet/second)
Temperature: -6.6 degrees Celsius (20 dcgrccs Fahrenheit)
Surface Roughness]: 108 centimeters (42.5 inches)
Stability Class': D
Inspcction Maintenance: No
Oxygenated Fuel: Yes
8-Hour Persistence Factor]: 0.7
Wind Direction: 36 directions at 10 degree increments
Notes:
The Surface Roughness, Stability Class and 8-Hour Persistence Factor arc discussed in Guidelines for Air
Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis Volume 9 (Revised): Evaluating Indirect Sources, U.S. EPA,
1978, and are summarized below.
1 Surface Roughness indicates the initial ground level turbulence into which the exhaust plume will be
released. Generally, the higher the rouglmess, the lower the concentration. The number used here is
conservatively low for the project area (results in a worst-case).
Stability Class characterizes the mixing potential of the atmosphere. Stability Class D is used as a worst-
case in suburban and urban areas.
The 8-Hour Persistence Factor is used to determine 8-hour localized CO contributions, and takes into
account fluctuating wind directions, temperature and traffic, which are morc likely to occur over eight
hours than during one hour. The factor is multiplied by the I-hour modeling result.
J The EP A has recently released the improved MOBILE6 emissions model. At the time of this analysis, the MPCA
bad not yet approved regional assumptions for MOBlLE6 inputs. The MOBlLE5A model is still approved for use
by the EP A.
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
- 42-
January 2003
I
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
811
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
Background Carbon Monoxide Concentrations
Background CO concentrations are needed for air quality analysis purposes to represent
conditions without the influence of nearby vehicles. By definition, the background CO
concentration in any particular area is that concentration which exists independently of
direct contributions from nearby traffic. The background concentrations are added to
intersection-scale modeled results to yield predicted CO levels at modeled spot receptors
adjacent to intersections.
Previously monitored CO background concentrations were used for this project. The
Minnesota Department of Transportation monitored background CO concentrations for two
weeks (May 21, 1999 - June 12, 1999) at Little Canada Elementary School at 400 Eli Road
in Little Canada, (approximately four miles southeast of the Guidant development).
Maximum monitored concentrations of 1.23 ppm and 0.82 ppm for I-hour and 8-hours,
respectively, were found.
For purposes of the 2020 analyses, the background concentrations were adjusted for
region-wide increases in traffic volumes and vehicle emissions. The adjustment factor for
traffic growth was based on the regional travel forecast modcl. The adjustment factor for
vehicle emission was based on the MOBlLE5A emissions model, which incorporates
anticipated decreases in CO emissions from motor vehicles due to emission controls. The
Holzworth (temperature) correction factor was required to adjust for worst-case winter
conditions. The results are summarized in Tablc 18.
TABLE 18
CALCULATION OF CO BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS
2020
Factor I-Hour 8-Hour
Maximum 1999 Monitored Concentration (ppm) 1.23 0.82
Background Traffic Volume Adjustment Factor 2.28 2.28
Emission Adjustment Factor 0.89 0.89
Holzworth (temperature) Correction 2.00 2.00
Worst-Case Background Concentration (ppm) 5.0 3.3
State Standard (ppm) 30 9
Federal Standard (ppm) 35 9
Intersection Carbon Monoxide Modeling
Carbon monoxide analyses were performed for the Build alternative in the year 2020 at the
following key intersections: Lexington Avcnue/TII 96, Hamline Avenue/TH 96,
Lexington Avenue/County Road F, lIamline Avenue/County Road F, and Lexington
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
- 43-
January 2003
I
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
A venuelI-694. These intersections, both signalized and unsignalized, were chosen after
consultation with the MPCA because of their low levels of service and their impact on the
surrounding area. The No-Build Alternative was not modeled because the 2020 Build
Alternative represents a worst-case situation.
Forecast traffic volumes and optimized signal timing was obtained from the Guidant
Corporation Traffic Impact Study, prepared by Parsons Transportation Group in July 2002.
Locations of likely outdoor human activity adjacent to the analyzed interchanges were
selected for air quality modeling receptors; Figure 13 depicts the receptor locations.
Carbon monoxide concentrations modeled for peak traffic volumes for the year 2020 are
shown in Tables 19 and 20. The CO concentrations shown for each receptor are the
predicted maximum CO concentrations taken from the results of all modeled wind angles
(0 - 360 degrees).
Summarv of Carbon Monoxide Studv Results
CO concentrations for the 2020 Full Build-Out scenario are below state and federal
standards in 2020 for all receptors in both the A.M. and P.M. modeled conditions. The
highest modeled concentration is found at Receptor 7, and is 7.4 ppm in the afternoon
peak. Full model results are presented in Tables 19 and 20.
23. STATIONARY SOURCE AIR EMISSIONS
EAW:
WILL THE PROJECT INVOLVE ANY STATIONARY SOURCES OF AIR EMISSIONS
(SUCH AS BOILERS OR EXHAUST STACKS)? NO l YES
IF YES, DESCRIBE THE SOURCES, QUANTlTIES, AND COMPOSITION OF THE
EMISSIONS; THE PROPOSED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DEVICES; THE
QUANTITIES AND COMPOSITION OF THE EMISSIONS AFTER TREATMENT;
AND THE EFFECTS ON AIR QUALlTY.
AUAR:
This item is not applicable to an AUAR. Any stationary air emission source large enough
to merit environmental review requires individual review.
There will be additional boilers as needed for the heating requirements of new built space.
24. DUST, ODORS AND NOISE
EAW:
WILL TIlE PROJECT GENERATE ODORS, NOISE OR
CONSTRUCTION AND/OR OPERATION?
DUST DURING
NO X YES
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
-44 -
January 2003
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
I :2:
<i
0
N
I 0
N
I
CI)
l-
I ....I
:J
CI)
w
0::
I <:l
Z
::i
w
I Cl
0
:2:
w
I Cl
x
0
z
.. 0
:2:
<n
....Z
wO
....I[l)
I [l)0::
<(<(
1-(.)
I
Ql
0>
" co co
-0: co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co
~ ~ <D 0> ~ co ~ ~ "' '" N co "' ~ N N ..,. N <D <D 0> '" co ..,. 0>
'0 ~ N N '" N ~ ~ ~ N N N '" N '" N ~ '" '" N
"
~
"
0
'"
E -[lJ N N "' "' "' "' r-- ~ '" ~ <D 0> ~ "' <0 r-- ~ 0> 0>
"'- ~ N r-- r--
a. -" ~ ~ CO r-- ~ ..,. <0 N ..,. 0> N "' ~ <D '" '" r-- 0> ..,. ~ ..,.
.e, ~~ "' "' "' .,; ,.: <D <D <D ~ <'i ..,. ~ ~ .,; ~ .,; ~ ~ "' ~ ~ ~ .,;
" C
0 0
Cl u en
l!!
~ '0
~ c
:I =>
0 e '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '"
J: Cl '" <'i <'i <'i <'i <'i <'i <'i <'i <'i <'i <'i <'i <'i <'i <'i <'i <'i <'i <'i <'i <'i <'i <'i <'i
.0 '"
u
ro
OJ
'0
" N N "' "' "' "' r-- ~ '" ~ ~ <D 0> ~ "' <0 r-- ~ 0> 0>
Q) '" '" r-- ..,. <0 <0 ~ "' 0> r-- <D 0> 0> ~ '" "': '" "': ~ '" " '" ~ '" r--
'0 N <'i N <'i <'i 0 0 0 0 0 ~ N ~ N CO
0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
"
0>
c CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
-0: CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
~ <D 0> ~ CO N ~ "' '" N CO "' ;;; N N ..,. N <D <D 0> '" CO ..,. 0>
'0 ~ N N '" ~ ~ ~ N N N N '" N ~ '" '" N
C
S
c
,Q
E -<;;
ro1o <D <D "' "' "' "' ~ '" 0> '" '" '" r-- '" ~ "': ~ '" r-- r--
a. -c 0 0> 0 <D r-- r-- ,.: <D ,.: <D
0," r-- r-- r-- <0 0> <D "' <D <D <D r-- <0 <D <0 r--
.e, ""U ~ ~
" C 0
0 0
Cl U
ro '"
~
"
>
-0: '0
~ C
=> =>
0 e co co co co co co co co co co CO CO CO co CO CO co CO co co co co co co co
=1= 0> .,; .,; .,; .,; .,; .,; .,; .,; .,; .,; .,; .,; .,; .,; .,; .,; .,; .,; .,; .,; .,; .,; .,; .,; .,;
'"
~ u
ro
OJ
'0
'"
Q) <D <D "' "' "' CO "' ~ '" ~ '" '" '" <0 r-- CO '" CO "' ..,. ~ '" r-- r-- co
'0 N N N '" .,; ..,. ~ .,; ~ ~ co ~ ~ ~ N N <'i N ~ '" N N ~ N ~
0
~
<D
<D '"
'" J: "-
J: -0: ..,.
'"
-0: <n "- ~ ~
<n () ~ ()
() o<l () o<l o<l I
o<l .,; o<l .,; .,; '0
.,; > .,; ~ > ~
" -0: 0 ~ N '" ..,. '" 0 ~ N <( '" ..,. '" <D r-- <0 '" '"
0 >~ N '" ..,. "' <D r-- <0 > N N N N N N '" ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '0
<( ~ c -0: " ~ " "
:;:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ro
u '" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 " 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
'" C- - - 1:i. .." - - - - ~ 1:i. 1:i. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <n
:.:;;;0.. a. a. a. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. Cl c. c. c. c.Cl a. a. a. a. a. a. a.
~ " Ql Ql .. C .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. " " " " IV .= " .. .. " " .. .. 2
" E <) <) ~I~ 'x <) u <) u E <) u u <) <) <) 'x <) <) <) g.x <) <) <) <) <) <) <) '"
E '" " " " .. .. .. .. '" " " .. .. " .. " " " " .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
J:~ ~ Ll::ill:: --' ~ ~ ~ ~ J: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ --' ~ ~ ~ ~iI-~ ~ ~ ~ ~I~ ~ ~ iil
'"
co
co
N
i
>-,
on
..,.
"
-"
'"
OJ r
~ .~
~ '"
~.~
('j .-<;:;
::s::s
~'O
=> c
c.'"
E '"
'" ~
~;J
2~
"'d:;j
"5 c:
Qi.':
I
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
I
I
:E
c..
o
N
o
N
I
en
I-
-I
::>
en
w
e:::
Cl
Z
-I
W
C
o
:E
w
c
x
o
Z
o
:E
o
NZ
wO
-Ial
ale:::
<(<(
1-(,)
c:
o
-e - ~
ro~
~ ~ ~
., c:
Cl 0
E 0
~
~
::l
o
J:
.0
E
"-
""
.,
Cl
ro
~
.,
>
<(
~
::l
o
=f
~
c:
o
'"
u
.,
'"
~
.,
~
c:
'"
C>
c:
<(
'0
c:
3:
0000
~~LO~
..--C")C"')l,{)
U)U-)U)(,O
'0
c:
::>
o
~
u
ro
'"
~(f')MC")
(")(")(")('0')
'0
'"
Q;
'0
o
::;:
OC!OON
..--NNM
Q)
C>
c:
<(
u
c:
3:
0000
~?Gli)~
c:
.2
_10
rob
~ c:
~ ~
c:
o
U
cocnmlO
r-...:r---.:r-...:05
u
c:
::>
e
0>
""
U
ro
'"
o <:) a 0
l{)..otO..o
u
Q)
Q;
u
o
::;:
'-OO>Q)L()
NNN"'>t
<0
<0 '"
'" J:
J: <(
<( !J)
!J) 0
o <<I
<<I I ~
~ 1<(
<( ..-- N (V) "'O:t s::
'- ... '- '- 0
~oooo_
::=0.. 0.. 0.. 0.. ~
EB~BB'x
ro a..;1,Q) III Q) 4)
IO:::Icr: a:: 0::: -..J
0000
Ng~~
~~~t'--:
<.0<01'-<0
("") C"') ('f') C")
<'0 C0 <'I <'?
~~..--"<:t:
(")C'?o::tC'?
0000
Ng~~
NT"""COro
~~~o)
oqqq
L()L.()L()L()
N ..-- co ~ I
u:i l() It:i....
000000
~~~~~OC)
M ..-- q LO co I"'--
-.::t '<:t '<:t ~ -.:i -.::t
("') C") M ('I') ~ C"')
('<') (") C"') C"') C") C'?
~ co r--: ~ l[) 'V
..-- 0 0 ..-- ..... .....
o 0 0 a 0 0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ co
"'<t N Cl r-- N 0
to cD cD CD f'-- r-...:
o q q Cl 0 0
Lt:i L() I.[) L.() L.() LC:i
~ ~ q r--:
N 0
..-- ..-- ..-- ..-- N N
LL
"
o
<<I
ai
>
<(
c:
0000000
0..0..0..0..0..0.01
m Q.l OJ ill Q) Q) c:
uuuuuu'x
Q) Q) Q) Q) ill Q) Q,I
a::: cr: a:::: cr: cr: a:::: -I
ai
l.()c.or-CO~~N
... ... ... ... (1)
.8.8.8.8 c
0.. Cl.. 0.. Cl...
BBS8e
Q) Q) Q) Q) ~
o:::cr:o:::cr:I
N ("') ..q- L()
N N N N
0000
N~~N
MLO.....N
ui-..tuiui
C"":!:C"')C")(")
MMMM
ONcq~
N............,...
0000
N~~N
Q')I'-LOt'--;
1'--(01'--1'-
0000
lDLO..oli.i
mf'-lf)1'-
N~NN
i
LL
"
o
<<I
O~N
0>.........--..--
o 0 0 (;
0.0..0..0..
Q) 1) ill Q)
U U U U
Ql Q) Q) Q)
,,0::0::0::
0000000
~~~N~~~
m..--..--CO'<:tLOr--O
(,"}ID~-.:t...t..oMai
MC"')C")('o')(V}(\')("J
MMM(>')c-r)MM
CDa:>CO~~N'<:t
ONO.......-NO
0000000
~~~N~~~
COOT"""T"""lC).......wc
lrio:i<cir--.:<cicciu'i~
0000000
1.01.01.01.0uil{)1.0
COO.......T"""l.()T"""~
O"<:t.......0J.......MO
"
'"
f
<<I
ai u
> ~
<(M"<:tl.f)(O!"-COO)"'C
c.................................................r::
o '- '- '- '- '- '- '- ro
..-OOOOOOOiij
C'J0..0..0..0..0..0..0..
C Q.l (l) Q) (l) (l) <l.l <l.l !
'X~~a5a5~~~.s
.3a:a:a:o:::o:::o:::o:::",
'"
o
o
N
i
..,
'D
"
~
"
~o::
" ~
~ .g
..... (;j
~.~
c<;l :-::::
:;::;;:
w'd
~ ~
0."
Sr:r;
u<
o
co;:
"
'do;
'5 ::::
OC;::
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
-.
I
I
IF YES, DESCRJBE THE SOURCE, CHARACTERISTICS, DURATION, AND
QUANTITIES OR INTENSITY, AND ANY PROPOSED MEASURES TO MITIGATE
ADVERSE IMPACTS. ALSO, IDENTIFY THE LOCATIONS OF SENSITIVE
RECEPTORS AND ESTIMATE THE IMPACTS ON THEM. DISCUSS POTENTIAL
IMP ACTS ON HUMAN HEALTH OR QUALITY OF LIFE.
AUAR:
Dust, odors, and construction noise need not be addressed in an A UAR, unless there is
some unusual reason to do so. The RGU might want to discuss as part of the mitigation
plan, however, and dust control or 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 excess 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 21.
Odors & Dust Durin!! Construction
The proposed project will not generate any odors during construction. Dust normal to
construction will occur as a result of this projcct. Dust generated during construction will
be minimized through standard dust control measures such as watering. After construction
is complete, dust levels are anticipated to be minimal because all soil surfaces will be in
permanent cover (i.e., pavement or grassed areas).
Construction Noise
Typical construction noise will be generatcd during project construction. Noise impacts
caused by construction activities in the project area will vary depending on the type of
equipment in use, the location of equipment on the construction site, and the operating mode.
During a typical work cycle, construction equipment may be idling, preparing to perform a
task, or operating under a full load. It may be congregated in a specific area or spread out
over a larger area. For this reason, the total noise impact on a single receiver point resulting
from construction of the project will vary both day-to-day and hour-to-hour.
The range of average noise levels monitored at 50 feet from a variety of types of construction
equipment is shown in Table 2 l. These types of equipment are generally associated with site
grading and site preparation, generally the noisiest phases of construction.
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
- 47-
January 2003
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
-.
I
I
TABLE 21
TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET
Equipment Type Peak Noise Level Range (dBA) Average
(dBA)
Scraper 80-93 88
Dozer 72-84 80
Compactor 73-75 74
Truck 82-94 91
Source: From the most recent information published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building
Equipment and Home Appliances, December 31,1971.
The actual noise levels that may be experienced near a construction zone depend on:
. The distance between the construction equipment and the receiver.
. The type of equipment in use.
. The percentage of the time the equipment attains the peak level.
. Noise control features incorporated into the equipment.
In accordance with city ordinance 630.01, construction activities (i.e., construction noise)
will be limited to daytime hours, from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. during the week,
and 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on the weekend. Contractors will be required to ensure that
equipment has been properly maintained and fitted with mufflers and other noise controls,
as specified by the manufacturer.
Traffic Noise
Traffic is a common source of noise in a suburban setting and is rcgulatcd in
Minnesota by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) under Minnesota
Statute 1 16.07 Subdivisions 2 and 4. The proposed project is located in a developing
suburban setting with commercial, light industrial and residential land uses surrounding the
project site. High traffic roads such as Lexington Avenue, Hamline Avenue and 1-694 arc
located adjacent to or close to the project site to the east, west and south, respectively.
A detailed noise analysis was completed to assess existing traffic noise levels in the project
area and to determine what effect thc proposed project will have on fllture noise levels.
The proposed project will increase traffic volumcs in some parts of the study area.
Increases in traffic can rcsult in increascd noise levels, which can be perccived as an
annoyance by adjacent residents. The noise analysis consisted of monitoring existing noise
levels at adjacent residential receptor sites and predicting future noise levels using
computer modeling.
Guidant Campus 1'vfaster Plan
Final AllAR and Mitigation Plan
January 2003
- 48 -
I
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
-.
I
I
Noise Analysis
Noise is defined as any unwanted sound. Sound travels in a wave motion and produces a
sound pressure level. This sound pressure level is commonly measured in decibels.
Decibels (dB) represent the logarithmie increase in sound energy relative to a reference
energy level. A sound increase of 3 dB is barely perceptible to the human ear, a 5 dB
inerease is clearly notieeable, and a 10 dB increase is heard as twice as loud. For example,
if the sound energy is doubled (e.g., the amount of traffic doubles), there is a 3 dB increase
in noise, which is just barely noticeable to most people. On the other hand, if traffie
increases to where there is 10 times the sound energy level over a referenee level, then
there is a lO dB inerease and it is heard as twice as loud.
To approximate the way that an average person hears sound, an adjustment, or weighting,
of the high- and low- pitched sounds is made. The adjusted sound levels are stated in units
of "A-weighted decibels" (dBA). In Minnesota, traffic noise impacts are evaluated by
measuring and/or modeling the traffic noise levels that are exceeded 10 pereent and
50 percent of the time during the hours of the day and/or night that has the heaviest traffic.
These numbers are identified as the LIO and L50 levels. For example, an LIO value
of 65 decibels means that the noise level was at or greater than 65 decibels
during 10 percent of the measurement period (i.e., more than 6 minutes per hour).
Regulatory Framework
The MPCA is the governmental regulatory agency responsible for implementing
regulations controlling traffic noise in Minnesota. Minnesota State noise standards have
been established specifically for daytime and nighttime periods. For residential land uses
(identified as Noise Area Classifieation 1 or NAC- I), the Minnesota State standards for LIO
are 65 decibels for daytime and 55 decibels for nighttime; the standards for L50 are
60 decibels for daytime and 50 decibels for nighttime. For parkland with no overnight uses
(such as Cummings Park), NAC-l daytime standards apply to both daytime and nighttime
noisc levels.
Minnesota Statute 116.07, Subd. 2a. states that municipal and county roads, except in the
cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, are exempt from state noise standards. All the roads
near the proposed project site are county or city roads (with the exception ofI-694) and are
therefore exempt from standards. State standards are included in this study for reference
only and are depicted in Table 22.
TABLE 22
MINNESOTA STATE NOISE STANDARDS
MPCA State Noise Standards
Land Use Code Day (7 a.m. - 10 p.m.) dBA Night (10 p.m. - 7 a.m.) dBA
Residential NAC-1 Llo of 65 Lso of 60 LIO of 55 LsD of 50
. ~
Commercial NAC-2 LIO of 70 Lso of 65 Llo of70 LsD of 65
-"-.
Industrial NAC-3 LIO of 80 Lso of 75 LID of 80 L500f75
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
- 49-
January 2003
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
-.
I
I
Noise Level Monitorin!!
Noise level monitoring is commonly performed during a noise study to document existing
noise levels at selected receptor loeations. Existing monitored noise levels can be used as a
"baseline" against which future scenarios are compared. In addition, when studying future
noise levels projected with computer models, monitored noise levels are compared to
modeled results for existing eonditions to validate the eomputer modeling techniques and
results.
Existing noise levels were monitored at three sites (Rl, R4 and R7) in the project area on
July 9,2002. Monitoring site locations were chosen to represent areas of outdoor human
aetivity, i.e., residential yards (Figure 14). Noise monitoring results are presented in
Table 23. Monitoring results are presented along with the results of computer modeling for
existing daytime noise conditions. The computer-modeled results are within
o to 2 decibels of the monitored levels; therefore, the computer model can be considered to
be a valid predictor of future noisc lcvels.
Noise Modelini; Methodologv
Traffic noise impacts were assessed by modeling noise levels at "sensitive" receptor sites
(i.e., existing and future residences) likely to be most affected by changes in traffic
volumes and roadway alignment resulting from construction of the proposed project.
Eight noise modeling receptors (Rl - R8) were selected at existing residential properties in
the project area to represent those sites most sensitive to potential project-related traffic
noise impaets (Figure l4). Modeling was also performed for Cummings Park, which is
located north of the Guidant campus and is representcd by R9. All receptor sites are
classified within the definition of State of Minnesota Noise Area Classification One
(NAC-l).
Noise modeling was done using the noise prediction program "MINNOISE," a version of
the FHWA noise model "STAMINA" adapted by MnlDOT and approved by the MPCA.
This model uses vehicle numbers, spced, class of vehicle, and thc typical characteristics of
the roadway being analyzed. The computations for the proposed improvements were based
on existing and projected traffic volumes, existing and proposed traffic speeds, and vehicle
class percentages. Projected traffic volumes for peak daytime and nighttime hours one year
after completion of the full build out scenario (i.e., year 2020) were used to predict future
noise levels.
Noise Modeling Results
Noise modeling results for existing (2002) conditions and for the year 2020 are presented
in Tables 23 and 24. Both daytime and nighttime L[o and Lso are shown for the existing
(2002) condition and for year 2020 with the two project altematives: No-Build and Build.
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
- 50-
January 2003
I
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
-.
I
I
TABLE 23
NOISE MONITORING AND MODELING RESULTS - DAYTIME
Modeled Modeled 2020 Modeled 2020
Receptor Monitored Existing (2002) No-Build Build
LID LSD LIO LSD LIO LSD LIO LSD
R1 67 61 67 62 68 63
R2 68 63 68 61 69 63 70 64
R3 62 57 63 58 63 59
R4 66 63 68 61 69 63 70 63
R5 69 61 70 63 70 64
R6 67 61 67 62 68 63
R7 64 60 64 59 65 60 66 61
R8 61 56 62 56 63 58
R9 55 52 56 53 56 54
State Standards 65 60 65 60 65 60 65 60
Bold numbers are above state standards.
TABLE 24
NOISE MODELING RESULTS - NIGHTTIME
Modeled Modeled 2020 Modeled 2020
Receptor Existing (2002) No-Build Build
LlO Lso LlO LSD LlO Lso
RI 66 60 67 61 67 61
R2 67 60 68 62 69 62
R3 61 55 62 57 62 57
R4 67 60 68 61 69 62
R5 68 60 69 62 70 62
R6 66 60 66 60 68 62
R7 63 58 64 58 65 60
R8 60 54 61 55 62 56
R9* 54 51 55 52 55 53
State 55 50 55 50 55 50
Standards
Bold numbers are above state standards.
* As stated previously, as there are no overnight uses \vithin Cummings Park
(represented by R9) nighttime noise standards do not apply.
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
- 5 I -
January 2003
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
-.
I
I
Residential Receptors (R1- R8)
Based on projected traffic increases, daytime and nighttime noise levels will increase by up
to 3 dBA over existing conditions with the No-Build or Build Alternatives. Increases in
traffic noise between the 2020 No-Build and 2020 Build conditions range
from 1 to 2 decibels. Noise levels at Reeeptors I, 2, 4, 5 and 6 currently exeeed state
daytime standards and will continue to do so with both the 2020 No-Build and Build
Alternatives. Noise levels at Receptor 7 are currently just below state daytime standards
and will be at state daytime standards for the 2020 No-Build Alternative, and just above
these standards for the 2020 Build Alternative
Nighttime noise standards are currently exceeded at Receptors 1-8, and will continue to be
exceeded with the 2020 No-Build and Build Alternatives. Violation of the more stringent
nighttime standards is common in developed urban and suburban areas, because the
"nighttime" period is defined by the MPCA as including the 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. hour,
which is the beginning of the morning rush hour.
Park Receptor (R9)
Daytime and nighttime noise levels at R9 are predicted to increase by up to 2 decibels over
existing levels with the No-Build and Build Alternatives. Build noise levels are predicted
to be up to I decibel higher than No-Build noise levels at R9. State daytime noise
standards will not be exceeded at R9 for the No-Build or Build conditions.
Conclusions
As stated previously, it takes a doubling of traffic volumcs to rcsult in a pereeptible
(3 dBA) increase in noise. The increase in Build peak hour traffic volumes over No-Build
volumes will not increase noise levels by perceptible amounts (less than 3 dBA) compared
to No-Build levels. Therefore, no noise mitigation is being considered in conjunction with
the proposed project.
25. SENSITIVE RESOURCES
EAW:
ARE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING RESOURCES ON OR IN PROXIMITY TO THE
SITE? IF ANY ITEMS ARE ANSWERED YES, DESCRIBE THE RESOURCE AND
IDENTIFY ANY IMPACTS ON THE RESOURCE DUE TO THE PROJECT.
DESCRIBE ANY MEASURES TO BE TAKEN TO MINIMIZE OR AVOID ADVERSE
IMPACTS.
A. ARCHAEOLOGICAL, HISTORICAL, OR ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES?
...x... NO YES
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
- 52 -
January 2003
I
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
I
I
AUAR:
For an AUAR, contact with the State Historic Preservation Office is required to determine
whether there are areas of potential impacts to these resources. If any exist, an
appropriate site survry of high probability areas is needed to address the issue in more
detail. The mitigation plan must include mitigation for any impacts identified.
On June 14, 2002, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was eontacted to
determine whether there were cultural resources within the AUAR study area that could be
potentially impacted by the proposed campus expansion. No archaeologieal or historic
sites were found in the SHPO datasets for the AUAR study area. Refer to SHPO letter in
Appendix C.
B.
PRIME OR UNIQUE FARMLANDS? ...lL NO
YES
AUAR.-
The extent of conversion of existing farmlands anticipated in the AUAR should be
described. fr any farmland will be preserved by special protection programs, this should
be discussed.
c.
NO ...x.. YES
DESIGNATED PARKS, RECREATION AREAS, OR TRAILS?
AUAR:
If development of the A UAR area will interfere with or change the use of any existing such
resource, this should be described in the A UAR. The RGU may also want to discuss under
this item any proposed parks, recreation areas, or trails to he developed in conjunction
with development of the AUAR area.
Parks
Cummings Park is a city park located north of the AUAR study area (north of Guidant
Drive North) (see Figure 2). Thc park is approximately l7.5 acres in size and includes
tennis and basketball courts, a hockey/skating rink and warming house, a soccer field, a
softball/baseball diamond, playground equipment, a picnic shelter and a trail system.
Main access to the park via automobile is currently gained via Guidant Drive North or
Fernwood Avenue, with parking available in a parking lot off of Guidant Drive North.
With the proposed development, there are plans to ultimately vacate Fernwood Avenue as
a public street. This vacation will limit vehicles wishing to access the park to just one
access point - Guidant Drive North. A two-lane campus drive will be constructed to
replace the existing Femwood A venue. Traffic will be unable to travcl on thc road
between the business hours of 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, with the use
of sensitively designed control arms. One of the barricades will be located just north of the
east-west drive to parking ramps 5 and 6 (see Figure 4). The other barricade will be
located just south of thc new Guidant Drive North cul-de-sac. The gate will be activated
by guards and able to be opened by emergency personnel. Bicyclist and pcdestrian users
wi II continue to be able to access the park via local and rcgional trails, as described below.
The proposcd projcct will not result in the acquisition of park prope11y.
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
- 53 -
January 2003
I
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
-.
I
I
Trails
Existing eity trails in or near the AUAR study area include an asphalt trail that runs
through the northwestern portion of the study area, connecting Cumming Park with Floral
Park, which is just west of Hamline Avenue. This trail conneets to existing asphalt
walk/trails along Hamline Avenue and Lexington Avenue.
Planned city trail connections in the study area are identified in the
City's 1998 Comprehensive Plan and include a 0.7-mile trail connection on CR F from
Lexington Avenue to Hamline Avenue, with an extension north to the existing trail on
Hamline Avenue.
The Guidant Campus Master Plan includes an internal campus sidewalk system that will
provide proximate aceess via the east-west City trail that traverses the site in the
northwesterly portion of the campus and eventually connects into the Hamline Avenue
trail. The proposed campus will not impact any of the City trails.
D.
SCENIC VIEWS AND VISTAS? ..2L NO
YES
AUAR:
Any impacts on such resources present in the A UAR should be addressed. This would
include both direct physical impacts and impacts on visual quality or integrity. "EAW
Guidelines" contains a list of possible scenic resources (page 13).
There are no seenic resources for which the visual quality or integrity will be impacted by
the proposed campus expansion. Refer to Item 26 for more discussion of visual impacts.
E.
OTHER UNIQUE RESOURCES? ..2L NO
YES
26. VISUAL IMPACTS
EAW:
WlLL THE PROJECT CREATE ADVERSE VISUAL IMPACTS? (IJAAMPLES
INCLUDE: GLARE FROM INTENSE LIGHTS; LIGHTS VISIBLE IN WILDERNESS
AREAS; AND LARGE VISIBLE PLUMES FROM COOLING TOWERS OR EXHAUST
STACKS.) IF YES, EXPLAIN. ...x.... NO YES
AUAR:
If any non-routine visual impacts would occur Fom the anticipated development covered
by the A UAR review, this should be discussed here along with appropriate mitigation.
The proposed development will not create non-routinc adverse visual impacts but will alter
views of the AUAR study area from the adjacent properties. Although the proposed
campus will have some buildings that are taller than buildings in adjacent developments,
these heights are deemed acceptable for this site and have been approved by the City. In
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
January 2003
- S4-
I
..
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
I
I
addition, the proposed development is eonsistent with the City's existing and future land
use for this site. Adjacent residences could experience visual impacts such as increased
light.
Existing vegetation located along the western and northwestern portion of the site between
the study area and adjacent residents will continue to provide a visual buffer. Additional
mitigation will be incorporated into site development plans that will be submitted to the
city, ineluding lighting in the parking ramps that will be shielded and directed downward to
minimize glare that could be transmitted to adjacent residences. Additional planting of
deciduous, overstory, and coniferous trees will be planted all along the west and
northwestern portion of the site. Constructing levels below grade, thereby reducing the
overall height of the ramps, will further minimize visual impact of the parking ramps.
Ramps 3 and 4 in the northwest portion of the site will be constructed with one and two
levels below grade, respectively. Ramps 5, 6 and 7 will be eonstructed with two levels
below grade and Ramps I and 2 will be constructed with half a level below grade.
27. COMPATIBILITY WITH PLANS
EAW:
IS THE PROJECT SUBJECT TO AN ADOPTED LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE LAND
USE PLAN OR ANY OTHER APPLICABLE LAND USE, WATER, OR RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT PLAN OF A LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE, OR FEDERAL
AGENCY? NO .lL YES
IF YES, IDENTIFY THE APPLICABLE PLAN(S), DISCUSS THE COMPATIBILITY
OF THE PROJECT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE PLAN(S), AND EXPLAIN
HOW ANY CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE PROJECT AND THE PLAN(S) WILL BE
RESOLVED. IF NO, EXPLAIN.
AUAR:
The AUAR must include a statement of certification from the RGU that its comprehensive
plan complies with the requirements set out at 4410.3610, Subpart I.
The AUAR document should discuss the proposed AUAR area development in the context
of the comprehensive plan. If this has not been done as part of the responses to Items 6, 9,
19, 22, and others, it must be addressed here; a brief synopsis should be presented here if
the material has been presented in detail under other items. Necessary amendments to
comprehensive plan elements to allow for any of the development scenarios should be
noted. If there are any management plans of any other local, state, or federal agencies
applicable to the AUAR area, the document must discuss the compatibility of the plan with
the various development scenario studies, with emphasis on any incompatible elements.
The City of Arden Hills certifies that its 1998 Comprehensive Plan is consistent with thc
requirement set out in 4410.3610, Subpart l, including a land use plan; a public facilities
plan (including transportation, sewer and watcr supply systems); and an implementation
program.
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Fina] AUAR and Mitigation Plan
January 2003
- 55 -
I
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
-.
I
I
The proposed project is consistent with the existing and proposed land use plans identified
in the City of Arden Hills 1998 Comprehensive Plans as well as the zoning for this area
(see Fignres 5 - 7). The 1998 Comprehensive Plan zoning map identifies the proposed
campus and areas north and south of the campus as 1- 1 (Limited Industrial District). The
purpose for an 1-1 (Limited Industrial District) is to allow only those types and intensities
of industrial uses that do not detract from the surrounding area and to maintain
performanee standards to keep the intensity of land utilization lower than in the general
Industrial District. The Guidant Master Plan proposes the development of the campus
within an area currently used for office/limited industrial and maintains a "green" buffer
between the campus and adjacent land uses in conformity with zoning and existing and
proposed land uses.
28. IMPACT ON INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC SERVICES
EAW:
WILL NEW OR EXPANDED UTILITIES, ROADS, OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE, OR
PUBLIC SERVICES BE REQUIRED TO SERVE THE PROJECT? _ NO..x. YES
IF YES, DESCRIBE THE NEW OR ADDITIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE/SERVICES
NEEDED. (ANY INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IS A "CONNECTED ACTION" WITH
RESPECT TO THE PROJECT MUST BE ASSESSED IN THE EA W; SEE "EA W
GUIDELINES" FOR DETAILS.)
AUAR:
This item should first of all summarize information on physical infrastructure presented
under other items (such as 6, 19, and 22). Other major infrastructure of public services
not covered under other items should be discussed as well ~ this includes major social
services such as schools, police, fire, etc.
As noted above and in the "EA W Guidelines, " the RGU must be careful to include project-
associated infrastructure as an explicit part of the A UAR review if it is to be exempt ;rom
project-specific review in the future.
As previously detailed in Items 6, 13 and 18, existing public water and sanitary sewer
services can accommodate the additional needs of the proposed campus. Lateral line
extensions from the existing water and sanitary scwcr mains in Fernwood Avenue will be
required for the new buildings. Storm water treatment and conveyance infrastructure will
be nccessary as described in Item 17.
Item 6 describes roadway improvements planned for the Guidant campus.
Increased fire and police protection will need to be provided to the area with the proposed
expansion. However, thc nccd for these services has becn anticipated by the city and will
be provided, as required, as the site develops. As there is no residential land use associated
with the planned site development, no impacts to tbe local school system will result.
Guidant Campus Master Plan
final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
- 56-
January 2003
.
29. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
.
I
EAW:
MINNESOTA RULE PART 4410.1700, SUBPART 7, ITEM B REQUIRES THAT THE
RGU CONSIDER THE "CUMULATIVE POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF RELATED OR
ANTICIPATED FUTURE PROJECTS" WHEN DETERMINING THE NEED FOR AN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. IDENTIFY ANY PAST, PRESENT OR
REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE PROJECTS THAT MAY INTERACT WITH
THE PROJECT DESCRIBED IN THIS EA W IN SUCH A WAY AS TO CAUSE
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS. DESCRJBE THE NATURE OF THE CUMULATIVE
IMP ACTS AND SUMMARIZE ANY OTHER AVAILABLE INFORMATION
RELEVANT TO DETERMINING WHETHER THERE IS POTENTIAL FOR
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS DUE TO CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
(OR DISCUSS EACH CUMULATIVE IMPACT UNDER APPROPRIATE ITEM(S)
ELSEWHERE ON THIS FORM).
I
I
.
AUAR:
This item does not require a response for an A UAR since the entire A UAR process deals
with cumulative impactsfrom related developments within the AUAR area.
.
30. OTHER POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
.
I'
EAW:
IF TIlE PROJECT MAY CAUSE ANY ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
WHICH WERE NOT ADDRESSED BY ITEMS I TO 28, IDENTIFY AND DISCUSS
THEM HERE, ALONG WITH ANY PROPOSED MITIGATION.
AUAR:
If applicable, this item should be answered as requested by the EA W form.
No additional adverse environmental impacts are anticipated.
31. SUMMARY OF ISSUES
j
I I
I
I
EAW:
LIST ANY IMP ACTS AND ISSUES IDENTIFIED ABOVE THAT MAY REQUIRE
FURTHER INVESTIGATION BEFORE THE PROJECT IS COMMENCED. DISCUSS
ANY ALTERNATIVES OR MITIGATIVE MEASURES THAT HAVE BEEN OR MAY
BE CONSIDERED FOR THESE IMPACTS AND ISSUES, INCLUDING THOSE THAT
HAVE BEEN OR MAY BE ORDERED AS PERMIT CONDITlONS.
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Fimd AUAR and Mitigation Plan
- 57-
January 2003
I
'-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
-.
I
I
Item 16: Erosion and Sedimentation
Erosion and sedimentation will be minimized during redevelopment of the AUAR study
area by the implementation of erosion control measures that will be identified in the final
site grading and construction plans. The control measures, including those required by the
City of Arden Hills, Rice Creek Watershed Distriet and the MPCA NPDES permit, will be
implemented prior to the grading operation and will be maintained until all disturbed areas
have been restored.
Item 17: Water Quality; Surface Water Runoff
The proposed development will decrease the amount of existing impervious surface area
within the AUAR study area, thus decreasing the overall surface water runoff volumes.
However, unlike existing surface water runoff whieh discharges directly into adjaeent
wetlands, surface water runoff generated from the proposed development will be treated
prior to entering adjacent wetlands. To accommodate and treat surface water runoff,
methods of infiltration, retention and NURP ponds will be implemented. Mitigation
measures will be further defined during final design and will be in accordance with the City
of Arden Hills and Rice Creek Watershed District requirements.
Item 21: Traffic
The traffic impact study completed by Parsons Transportation Group for the AUAR study
area provided information on anticipated traffic impacts resulting from the campus
expansion. The traffic study analyzed existing and future (years 2005 and 2020) No-Build
and Build conditions. The existing traffic operations analysis identified that several
interseetions within the project area currently operate at LOS D or worse during the A.M.
and P.M. peak hours. For comparison to the proposed expansion traffic operations, future
No-Build traffic operations were analyzed including planned improvements. The planned
improvements included expanding Lexington Avenue to two northbound lanes between
Guidant Drive North on CR 96 in 2003 (as planned by Ramsey County) and adding a
traffic signal at Victoria Street and Lexington A venue by 2005 (as planned by Ramsey
County). Per discussions with the City, it is also assumed that by 2020, a north-south
connection will be extended north of CR 96 to CR 1. Following is a summary of the No-
build and Build traffic analysis.
NO-BUlLD CONCLUSIONS
Similar to existing eonditions, all signalized intersections will operate at an overall LOS D
or better in 2005, except Lexington Avenue/CR 96 and Lexington Avenuc/castbound
1-694 ramps, which will operate at LOS E in the P.M. peak. By 2020, all signalized
intersections, except Lexington AvenuelVictoria Street will operate at LOS F in the P.M.
peak. The four unsignalized intersections experiencing LOS E or F in 2002 will
experience LOS E or F in 2005 and 2020.
The cause of declining LOS from 2005 to 2020 at many of the intersections analyzed is the
increase in background traffic volumes and lack of planned improvements on the adjacent
Gujdant Campus Master Plan
final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
- 59-
January 2003
I
l-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
I
I
roadways. In order to obtain a LOS D or better at these intersections, additional roadway
improvements would need to be implemented. The following improvements are
recommended to improve traffic operations on adjacent roadways:
2005 Recommended Improvements
.
An additional northbound left turn lane at Lexington Avenue/CR F.
A southbound and northbound right turn lane at the intersection of the 1-694 ramps with
Lexington Avenue.
Installation of traffic signals at Lexington Avenue/Guidant Drive North and Hamline
Avenue/CR F.
.
.
2020 Recommended Improvements
.
A dedicated westbound right turn lane at Hamline Avenue/CR F.
An additional eastbound left turn lane at the intersection of the 1-694 ramps and
Lexington Avenue.
If a north-south connection is extended north of CR 96 to CR I, a new lane
configuration is recommended to be built for the southbound movement at the
intersection of this connection and CR 96.
.
.
Improvemcnts to Lcxington Avenue, Guidant Drive South, Hamline Avenue and West
floral Drive are not recommended due to low cross street volumes and signal spacing
constraints.
BUILD CONCLUSIONS
In addition to the roadway improvements assumed in the 2005 No-Build condition, the
2005 Build condition assumes that existing Guidant Drive North will be turned over to the
City and will become a public street requiring the street to be modified to meet the City of
Arden Hills public street design standards. These improvements will likely require a traffic
signal to be added to the intersection of Guidant Drive North and Lexington Avenue.
Traffic signal timing was also assumed to be optimized along Lexington Avenue to
account for the higher volumes of traffic being experienced on the roadway network due to
the Guidant Campus site growth. The roadway geometry for the 2020 Build conditions are
the same as thc 2005 Build conditions, with the addition of a n0l1h-soutb connection north
of CR 96 to CR 1. This improvement was also assumed in the 2020 No-Build. With
limited public improvements planned between 2005 and 2020 and traffic volumes
estimated to increase, the LOS at adjacent roadways will continue to decline and the
majority of intersections will experience a LOS E or F by 2020.
MITlGA TION MEASURES
Guidant has worked with Mn/DOT, Ramsey County and the Cities of Arden Hills and
Shoreview to identify appropriate roadway improvcments to mitigate for traffic impacts
that may rcsult from thc thrcc stagcs of development (Phases I, 1I and III) planned as part of
Guidant Campus Master Plan
Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
January 2003
- 60-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
-.
I
I
the Guidant Campus expansion. The Mitigation Plan included in Appendix E identifies
these improvements and the timing of the associated improvements. Prior to Guidant
receiving final City approval for each phase of development, the recommended traffic
improvements must be implemented. Guidant has also committed to updating the July
2002 traffic study prior to Phase II and III.
Item 26: Visual Impacts
The proposed campus expansion will alter existing views of the AUAR study area for
adjacent residents. Adjacent residents eould also experience inereased light with the
proposed development. To mitigate for the potential visual impaets, the existing vegetative
buffer along the western and northwestern portions of the site will be enhanced with
additional deciduous, overstory and coniferous trees. Visibly compatible building heights
will be maintained by taking advantage of the lower elevation in the southern portion of the
eampus. Buildings planned for the southern portion of the campus will accommodate more
of the capacity needs of the campus and therefore, be taller but will appear similar in height
to the existing and proposed buildings and ramps due to the lower grade elevation. The
parking ramps have also been designed with below grade levels thereby reducing the
overall height. Additional mitigation will be incorporated into site development plans, to
be submitted to the City, including lighting in the parking ramps that will be shielded and
directed downward to minimize glare that would be transmitted to adjacent residenees.
CERTIFICATIONS BY THE RGU
EA W: ALL THREE CERTIFICATIONS MUST BE SlGNED FOR EQB ACCEPTANCE
OF THE EA W FOR PUBLICATION OF NOTICE IN THE EQB MONITOR.
A UAR: In an A UAR document, no certifications as listed at the end of the EA W form are
necessary. But, the RGU is legally responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the
document andfor properly distributing it nonetheless.
Guidant Campus Master Plan
final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
- 61 -
January 2003
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
-.
I
I
Figure I
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
APPENDIX A
FIGURES
Project Location-Local Area
AUAR Boundary
Existing Site Plan
Proposed Site Plan
Existing Land Uses (1998 Adopted Comprehensive Plan)
Planned Land Uses (1998 Adopted Comprehensive Plan)
Zoning Map (1998 Adopted Comprehensive Plan)
Existing Cover Types
Proposed Cover Types
Drainage Areas and Potential Surface Water Treatment Locations
Soils Map
Existing (2002) Turning Movement Counts
Carbon Monoxide Modeling Locations
Noise Monitoring and Modeling Receptor Sites
I
L
-
-,
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
"
- ,
, /,
,j
~ t' ;;)
d
4
~. ,
/"":'''''. "
"T!
re.~:~,!
I ',. ...::......
\ Ii:.'
"'. hL,!
. " "OnVF i"" ". i\,u_\.:Sc'.l
" l'i~!2 ~ __ dl" KJ'1' '
J Cf .;:,- , ,,' ~'I
r-:Q .~','J> ~
;, ~';J,
: \ ."""
-..;;. ~~".,.' "-
,"',I (\';".(, .......-
:::h' i .1 "!!;:
~ ...../0. '(0'
."" f".., ,
~~~N~I0(:'
;I~ "
'. .,' ".
----- ,[ \. ", ',;3$.:[ "~I
!;r-----,;:::--=0(~..l. ,
't ~ " ~ I r~'-J '
I'~---'. -.. ',r IT'p
,- , , I -V
~'--' '! "'-I,' Y ~
A1 .:."" L>..,..'
~ ~ ., 'J ."
\ \ "' ir .'
1:1 ~~.)::---,' "i
\ f::)--Z I ,
'-JV ,I \..F J.
t:i~ : .,~" .".~,'::
I .. / L ~
,
.,,~~
ri'I
'\-..
~~it-
..... ,
~
PROJECT LOCATION.. LOCAL AREA
GUIDANT CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
Alternative Urban Areawide Review
CONSUlTINC GRo,-,<,.INc.
Job No_ 4547
')
" _ I
.
).:
", ---
)'?"'" ';'"
;;,--';"
D_." , ! /,
PROJECTJ
LOCATION
II"
'n"
'hi!
p:
/
ti
"T,~~"
'SHORE~W
..~ -vA
~
1)\ j "-
~ P )~L/,~ .vP-
i;:~<'" !
. ,'"
i~",_" 'vllE_:
-
\-. i
\.
,(
c'
.~
;,
,',<AI.' ON fit"' '. .C,C'. ..
, -'--'- i0 iF
.. ~':'\J:-", i: v,u _~
of I..,.. ",,- ~I
" -." '....
ST. PAUL
"" ~M' l'"'\ ~
, . __:::::-"'" ' ~hf:
- 'lAW
. '.-.. \.x/
l\ ! ~ . .qA
;:..; 1>>1\ ~,,' Y" d~:
;)J i \~\i~fJf::i
if.../ .~J",,~ F:;~'
" ~ ~-~VJ1A, L..
,.. ... . ~ ~f
'"~" ~ ..~ \.... ~ ~ !
RJ HFl+L~~; , "I k' r. '
'~"t--{ I!J { . ,
. . ,
--
,
Figure 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I. ~
I rmD
I
CUNSULrINGGKOIJl',INC.
Job No. 4547
AUAR BOUNDARY
GUIDANT CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
Alternative Urban Areawide Review
Figure 2
-----
-
hV'Ir.r.nfn~\1'J1i\Graptlcs\.!541,qrJ
-
- --
i
-
-
-
-
-
-
.,.
-
'"
fT1
Ul
----!
."
r
o
;U
",.
r
~~~
r~j_l L~-
HAMLI NE AVENUE
-"-L--------------
I
I
, 'If
~-;;
~~m e.- ~
r\\\1@\-I\\Il\\\\\\1\~\\\\\\~\ ' "
1 \\\~~W\\\\I\~~\l\\
l\\\\-I\\I~\\\\\@' 1 \-I\\I~\\\-I\\I\\\\\
~@~\\\-I\\I\\\\\I\\\\\\\\I\\\\I\II \\\@_
. ....:..'"~ 0 ~ ;:.
4
"
~
'"
r
'"
"
'"
I
o .. n r.
~ . (1' ~----------: .
i~ I 10
:-< I ~p I.
UlI1l I'
::0 0~ I'
j; ;~ I 0
~ I ~~ I
\.---S .
I
11I1I1I1I11I11I\1I111t ~ 0
IHlHtlltH1I11I11I1I c'
HIHIIIHIffIlIlI!1I1
..
. "
()
c:
"
"
:z
G)
'"
'U
".
:D
:><
(;)
C
0-
",.
Z
----!
,- ,
'"
r
'"
G)
-n
~,-
~
ill
~
&~l.
, .
6'080 .
~,.,
'% 1\;)>
. "
-.
1~
~
,I,
..LEX T Nr.TnN
I
,
----'y--17(
. ~
o 0
o 0
..
o ~ "'"
"
:'.
~
o
o
-.,
-.
<Q
c:
....
())
w
---------;---
__ ".p,,,,,,,,,,,'"'W,c..,,""""l1{;R<
-
- -
.,.-
'"
[T1
(f1
..,
"
r
o
::u
:t>
r
o
::u
~
<
[T1
~
\,/ U,,"
~ J~ D~~
1= or
::ul-r"o
~ p
"~r
.~
~
--- /' 'lI ~'~ - ( r )J
/. 4~ 0 ~i~! ~
i:i}~~! bel '- ; 3sL> ~i~ PI " ~
10~.~. . ~ ~ > \\f
~5;~~ ~ ("") I~ ;>1", ')!j;;i: IIJ.
3 I~a ,., _ ~t, _ I; ~;l~ ~-J ~
h ;:~I~~~ 'I i2;~' r~~, ~!g~~t ~ I ~
" ;. \\~ :=IE:! ~ //' ~
,. I l:::::J r \ ~ ~ '>;::- / ~ i
;~' Ji~s.1 ", u iil~J ~[ (j, \
~ ~ ~ II n~~m '"----1
~ ,(" "0.', I'.., >".' " , . '" l'- '7
_c::- F~V~-(_
g"')G~1 //1 i;\ 1 0;;;e:L w"L-r-t. ~
I)' (;~: ! ~_~!~~
Ii I l\(~~ · J
1!~!~0~~:2' ~
19,,111 ,
1==-___. _,_.;--.-
HAMLINE AVENUE
I
.z.
'v
<--
o
,
I u iii' .~
i I r~~II;,!,g~ ~
~ '1\':"""""
,'----
''>'
. L~8
",c"
.....
'~~l n
'..,
.:r: 0 0
;:,
Ie
;::; ,.1
l~t,I''- l
'.:' I ~
I I g-I C) ~
\ ~;~iF.'
\, )~ ..~
~ i ~
!' 0
,i"
t4.~."
.
I
tan"
rx
0-
::::::;,b ["':1
c
,
;
. .,G')
I ! ~~
,
'. ,---
.
i
~=
~ l~' 1
------- (T)
I
,[ /
\
LEXINGTON AVENUE
[
. N
o 0
o 0
"
~
<.Q'
c:
...
<t>
.1:0,.
z
o
"
"
--;
m
'"
"
'"
o
"
o
'"
m
o
m
c
r
o
Z
"
'"
a ~ ""
. N
*- g
-1
-'
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
/
ii DI
\
\
I
I.~
I
CoNsULTINC GR.OtJP,INc.
Job No. 4547
i
~
I
!
I
L
"-
-
.....h
"..
~
<t\~:HILLS
Existing
Land Use
Map
Legend
L
C
-
Existing Land Use
SFO: 5hgIB Famiy Delsched Residential
SFA:Single FlImilyAtlacl16d ReaidarJtiel
f.F: Mu11pk1 Family Resld&ntlal
fd-l:MobiI8Homa
NC: Neighbol'hood COMl'l'lElorcial
CC: Community Commercial
RC: RegiOllllI Commereial
HC:HighWllyCOIlYenienc$
OFC:Offlca
U: Ughtlndustrial
Hl:Hllayylndustrll!ll
IN: Il'lIlIlIuI~<lna[
SRO: Outdoor Sport/Recreation
OSN: N8bn1 ~ Space
OSP: Passive Open Space
RR:RaiI Road
llTl..:UlIIIly
VAC:Vacant
W8t$l'Ftlalures
Righklf-Wsy
L-
-
-
-
D
,-------
,-------
L-
-
-
-
m
~
l":
Source: City of Arden Hills conditionally approved
1998 comprehensive plan.
............
_.
v..~pf,.,~,.,....
~""tIr<r_~"'INCUy
of,;tJmlMlfullcyfl>rI.-Ju.,~,
j)o<f......"""""""'u..I.-JUr...l6f>
,JwnJdb..JJrw:bi"""'ClryD/hdeftlllfll.
LmdUu~"'mbJ<<I"'dwrg.r,
pI<au#ll>tM~I>o<Pbrjw
""..,u;.l....JUnrDaa1p/tD<u.
-,
--
llIlIor_lIiIlI
2000
EXISTING LAND USES (1998 Adopted Comprehensive Plan)
GUIDANT CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
Alternative Urban Areawide Review
N
+
o
2000 Feet
MepD8Ie:
Deeenmlll" 20, 2001
Figure 5
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I. 04.
1 rm!i
I CoNsULTING GllOUP,b.-c.
Job No. 4547
~
~~HILLS
FUTURE LAND USE
Legend
Future Land Use
1______--.1 LDR: Low Density ResidenUal
II MDR: Medium Density Residential
_ HDR: High Density Residential
D MR: Mixed Residential
_ NB: Neighborhocx:l Business
_ COM: Commercial
D MB: Mixed Business
L ..1 INO: Industrial
D P\I: Public & InstiMional
D Park
_ Park PreselVe
D Right.of.Way
D Water
Source: City of Arden Hills conditionally approved
1998 comprehensive plan.
~,
l1I<a,~n...pt",.Da~"",...
~""1!m_~"'tl.0tf
o/MrlmHilbPolir:y/r1rz-J~~
~~dwl.-J[hMop
J.orJJbcdlrrnalb'....CiI,ofMimH,s&
UrJU#Dot~_Nbltd."'~
ploaN".,..."'IM~PlmJfr
""P'...L4ttJu...~_
N
+
PLANNED LAND USES (1998 Adopted Comprehensive Plan) Figure 6
GUIDANT CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
Alternative Urban Areawide Review
-
--
C\lrol..-.-mllo
2000
o
2000 Feet
Map Date: December 20, 2001
I
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.~
I
/
I'L.~I
~
l
\
\
)
R-1
1-2
1-1
ZONING MAP (1998 Adopted Comprehensive Plan)
GUIDANT CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
Alternative Urban Areawide Review
CONSULl1NG GlUlUr,INC
Job No. 4547
~
~R~2~~}-IILLS
ZONING MAP
City of Arden Hills
Zoning Districts
.~ R-1:SlngleFamIIyRasldentlal
=-:J R-2: Single & Two Family Rasidllntial District
:==J R..J: TlI'M100uSB & Low DeIl~ty Multi1le Dwemng
~ R-4:MollipleD.\lellingDlslricl
~ B-1:lImltedBuslnessDistrh:;t
=-::J "2, G'~ffil B".~~ D"."
_ S.3: Service BUBinessDistrict
_ B-4:RetaiICenterDistrict
_ N-B: N9ighbortlood Business
_ &B:GateW8y8uBi~
:==J 1-1:LlmlladlrldustrialDlslrict
:==J 1-2: Generallndu51rilll DIBtrict
_ I-F:I-FLEXDlslrlct
_ CC:CiYicCenlarDisltict
_ Rairoad
D Right-of_Way
n Water
Source:
City of Arden Hills conditionally
approved 1998 comprehensive plan.
Neity Limns "Roadway
/'\/ Parcel Lines
""'"-
n._"'DeI~,.__",IIIiI_
~.,...Oly",.w.._~
0hA0d0<~_~""Z-Z
Iq~ll<_"'....~of'-
HIIIL~~...~",~
,....+..,.,,~~p~
--
N
+
-
--
01)'.,(....._
~lLC.
---
1000 0 1000 Feet
-
,
DlICtIITIber1720011
f.hlDah,:
Figure 7
-
00
~o
::.r;:;::
13;:
O~
o
w
- -
~
n
o
~
"
z
o
Q
o
c
"
~
:>>
.--
-<
m
:::0
:z:
:>>
-<
<
m
c
:::0
CD
:>>
:z:
:>>
:::0
m
:>>
:;;;
Cl
m
:::0
m
<
m
:;;;
~~
j;en
~:j
s::<:
:>>C>
en
-<(")
gjo
~n:i
:>>::tJ
:z:
:>>....
!j;=t;
:::0111
en
-
-
-
- -
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
I
-
-
-
-
H:\P!annlr>]\4547Ifiraptlcs\4541B/O
on
o
c:
'"
(')
[TI
'"
on
~
)>
'"
(')
I
=i
m
(')
--<
on
:is
m
(j)
....
I'
."
r
a
:0
J>
r
ill
--<
r
ill
;:!
)>
"
o
ili
~lJe
~ "
< 0
m
) '"-
~
ill
;:!
)>
15
4
"
~
'"
'"
--<
r
)>
"
o
(')
a
c
z
--<
--<
:0
a
J>
o
."
. .11111111111111111/1'.::: . . . . . . . .
.. ....:.liililllllllllllllll..:...:::..::.:.....::
'.~:-1lnJllrlllll'I~J1HI..'-"
1'lill'I'I;I'I:I'I:il;iil',:I':
. . l ::1 .~. II, '! ,1,1,. .
1IIIIIIiIllIi:;::lliil 0
::1111111111111111111111.
~-~-~-~~~l .
,
,
I
I
]
,
I
,
I
I
,
---~~.1
. . :<1!lHI :1~I~i[I~~lj!~ ,')~iOOJ:: ' , .
. . .1. ,..' .
. .1:
~ -l~J ..Il/j1.
..... .lltlI
"
c
:;:
:;:
z
'"
Ul
--c
)>
:0
'"
~
.....1:0.'...
. ':"<b<<"
..G.....
".,;,"
""." .
"'. .
"', ,.
",'"
rX
0-
",Ul
--<
. .
.
\
"di- il'l j .
. ,I,
.. ""'I'
"Ie
'. I
'. I
. , 'L
'I' .~
I ill
;:!
)>
"
* 0
011 D ~ '"
-nUl
OI
;u)>
--c
0'" . .
ow, . N
---;
)>)> r '" .. m_ m r 0 0
_;u )> '" 0 c:;: :0 ", 0 0
r", .. ---; " _--c c " .-
'" Z r 0 r", VI '"
0)> )> ", 0:0 I "
--c " 2 0 -< 0
n--c 0 2- )>
o;u r VI " "0 2
<0 )> :0 VlC 0 ~
"'x 2 Ul 0 ~
;u- '" ili ." )> "
:;: Ul 0 2Ul :0
--<)> " ---; :0 OC )>
-<---; )> r ", :0 VI
"'" --c )> Ul "." VI
",. 2 --< )>)> r
z 0 <" )>
>:0 '" VI "'''' z
n", :;:Ul '" ~ N
--< ", VI
;u-n ~ I 2~ . 0
"'''' ;" .
)>;u - '" --<- - -+ 0
." " _2 m
"'--< ... > n
-. 0 n ~r 0
CQ > ~ :0 mc
-< " '" N'" >
s::: )> :0 "' Ul '" "
fi: m '" "'Ul ;u
r Ul ,. '"
'" n ,. VI
;u n
Cl<> .. '" ;u
Ul ",
VI
-
00 n
~o 0
~~ ~
N.l>. C
S--J ~
Q
o
o
.'
Z
n
- -
-
:>>
r-
--I
m
:;0
:z:
~
--I
<
m
C
:;0
OJ
:>>
:z:
:>>
:;0
m
:>>
::E
o
m
:;0
m
<
m
::E
G)"b
C;u
00
~"b
--10
S::ti)
~~
m
:;00
LlO
~~
~;u
j;......
:;o=ti
ITJ
CI)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
.
-
-
-
;
-
-
-
h\P!Qf'in!Il(j\4547\GnJphlcs\4547/J/1
(f>
o
c:
'"
CO
m
;U
(f>
"
".
;U
CO
I
.....
m
CO
.....
(f>
~
;:J
,.
"
"
~
;:J
,.
"
"
il'i
;:J
,.
"
"
~
...
~
,.
z
"
,;
'"
-"
~
~
HAMLI NE AVENUE
v~
~
...
~
,.
z
"
11\
;:J
..
~
~
<y
'-
o
"
'::. .:':::~~:.~~~~.:":.
>. :>J~~t)..
::::-: ::.:-:.:-:s.:::::!ri'':':,''
.:>L:.
.'
:::::.. :'.~.: :':' U~:.....:.::: .':.::il:iii\!!:r:::.:.:;:: :::;,:. .'.::::: :~::.
. .. ..,'.......',.,'....,..... ,',k'"
." ""', ..,..
..........:....... :::1>:
.......
.' . ~
LEXINGTON AVENUE
11\
...
liD ~ ~
* D ,.
"
"
-"Ul ~. p m
OI
;0,. . .
'0
0'" '" '" r m_ m r
,"Ul '" 0 )> CJ:: ;0 '"
... ... 0 '" -'0 C "
)>)> r " z r," Ul '" . '"
_;0 ,. '" 0;0 I " 0 0
r," z " "- -< 0 0 0
'" D z_ " ..
0,. Ul 0 r "0 "
'0 ;0 " UlC D
"" Z Ul
0;0 '" -" D " "
<0 '" 0 '" ZUl ;0
'"X ... ;0 " oc )> ~
;O_ r '" " ;0 '" '>.;.
J:: " Ul '0 '0-" '" "
..." z ... "" r
-<--< D Z <" "
'0'" '" " '"'" z
,", J::Ul 0
";0 '" '" '"
I :.. N z~
"'" '" '" --<-
;0-" -" " -
'"'" " '" " . '"
";0 " ~r 0 :1- "
" ~ ;0 " .bC "
'"--< '" " "m "
"TJ 0 '" Ul ;0 '" "
tQ' --< '" OUl ;0
" Ul '"
" " " Ul
c:: CD ;0 "
~ r '" ;0
'" Ul '"
A Ul
(Q
-
_0 n
,"0 0
$~ ::i
N~ ~
2~ ~
"
o
c
~
Z
o
- - --
It
)>-
r-
--l
rn
;;0
Z
)>-
--l
<'
rn
c
;;0
OJ
)>-
Z
)>-
;;0
rn
)>-
~
CJ
rn
;;0
rn
<
rn
~
QI:J
~~
)>--
:':j~
~G')
~Ill
rn):..
:::0:::0
~~
Zen
~):..
)>-<:
:::OI:J
"1:J
o
n::
<:
-t
);;:
r-
en
c::
:::0
~
(")
111
~
n::
:::0
::ti
~
3:l
111
<:
-t
r-
o
~
:::!
o
<:
en
-
- -
-
/1:V'lOllnlnqI.4547\GrG:xJcs\451lEIJ
Of>
o
CO
;0
n
en
;0
m
=c
Cl
m
'"
;p.
Z
o
;p.
Of>
Of>
o
n
s;:
--<
m
.Of>
z
n
'"
m
(j)
"'"
"
r
o
:;0
)>
r
Cl
::u
~
<
m
If;
;:!
l>
"
C
/
I L-:---=
'"
.,-
I
-
-
-
-
- -
t
-
-
-
If;
;:!
)>
"
'"
."
HAMLI NE
.-,
~
-
l>
_::0
ITl
-,<l>
,
I
-
I I GOt @*@
I V ","i'>
I
'U '" '" 'U '" '" -u -u -u r
;0 ;u ~ 0 ~ ;0 0 0 0 '"
0 )> --< )> --< --< --< '"
'U "" m "" m m m '"
"' z --< z --< z z z z z
;0 )> --< )> --< --< --< '"
--< '" z z '" ~ ~
-< m '" )> '" m )> )> )>
r r r r
'" '" '" '" '"
0 0 ;u .. '" n -u
c c ,. m --< ;0 0 z 0
z z --< r m :;: ." Z
0 0 z r )> n ~ r c
,. ,. ,. )> z --<
;u ;0 '" z c z --< r
-< -< "' '" 0 '" ;0 0
z '" )> n
n :;: ~ ,.
I -u --<
,. --< 0 0
z z z 0
z C> '" Z
"' ,. '"
r --< po )>
V>
." 0 ~
z z z
tCi" ."
~ r
I:::; --< --<
~ '" ;u
)>
.... ~
Q 0
z
l>
_::0
_1Tl
_l>
I~_~
~-~ If; I
--< ,
~ )
~ I
,
f
_..../
"
fl
/1 I
-~ I ~~ I
8 (~ I D I
C I z I I'
Z '" J i
~ Gr' CJI:
::u
i:2 ,~_-\--.
Cl
~i -
If; l !
;:! ,.,
~ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l~
:1
'I
"
I
I
....... 1'~
) ~
, ~
/ ""
I ( / /"~-
1....... I ~
,.
z
c
IJj
;:!
,.
z
'"
l>
<::0
ITl
l>
"',
FERNWOEJD AVENUE
t
o
-
-
cJ
Z
o
:;0
"'"
:I:
"
c:
~
Cl
)>
Z
"'"
Cl
::u
~
<
m
L.
....
-,
l>
_::0
ITl
l>
---
f ")
, .-
_-_J 6
, -.., ,.. >
( ". J <::0
.J - fT1
...- l>
....
LEXINGTON AVENUE
If;
;:!
)>
"
c
'"
" ~
o "
o "
..
" ~~
."
.
.
+
~
"
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
rmIi
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONSULTINC GaoUl', me.
SOILS MAP
GUIDANT CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
Alternative Urban Areawide Review
Figure 11
Job No. 4547
CSAH 96
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CSAH 96
Sl
I I
4W
Cou Road F
;-- .-~
"'0',
Q>~
8~
~--- ., t..'35 (233)
. It;f':'2~1\4~~l,''''''100(215)
{OJ o..t., t,..
r.;.ali~.~~g
-'-~'N
3;;;'&
'fl'N;:!;
!3'2'~
~
fS~
~-t..6 (3};;;;: '"'L141flJ"o j
"" l. ....1:39(4C11.,J .......i43{336i
{3-)9ol..t
t?42)3OO-to
1::6fi4
~ fl
~
!\
I
A
AM Turning Movements
(PM Turning Movements)
Guidant Traffic Impact Study
Source: Parsons Transportation Group traffic impact study (July 2002)
~
CONSULTING GROllI', 1Ne.
EXISTING (2002) TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
GUIDANT CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
Alternative Urban Areawide Review
Figure 12
Job No. 4547
I
LEGEND
Carbon Monoxide
Modeling Location
AUAR Study Area
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I~
~ Cu",vu,""c",,", I,c.
I
CARBON MONOXIDE MODELING LOCA TIONS
Figure 13
GUlDANT CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
Alternative Urban Areawide Review
Job No. 4547
-
-
.
Tue Dee 17 17: 23: 46 2002
~
n
~
~
~
d
~
o
~
s=
[/).
~'j,
. "<'<':>".. >';~r ~.~ .~. '~
. ".:..:;;;":,...\',. (,:::,",\ . .'
.,' ... .,;:.<,. . ,. """:":"}'''''>'':'~;~' : ..... ..
',:1 <, :;>,~,".. ',F ....;"...'; ';:: .:' '..,' "":'-<
,\ ;j;<;i"~/' ..:':;%:;,: 1 ..' . ",:,; ~':
":,,..:,,:::,,~:~:>,. .',,~:.,. '\<'~;i': :'S:..
. ,.::: ,r ~i\;'J ~;~ . .
~,./ ~} ...,' . .. ~I" ."
C \...... ....:
'l.."> . .
;..____..: ..---:..: "1 ..
. ,..'F', '..2'..::: ':. .. 'I.~. .".'
.",,'... ""c: ,'. ;'. --::, ..
, . !"::<:.'" 1 '1.;:;1 ,
i ,{,:H:: I i. :.
,:.,~,~
. .... ;'........
,:
.-;:~
,
..\ ~i 'J
'>~::;i'" '
. .
:' i '. '.
. .. ,\ '
-- , ': ,.!;),~:! .;..
~:"l (/((
I~I I . (
! :: "'.
,'; . "", ."
..
i..'..
,
,~<
',. :~".
i
,-,,/, ;"-'~ .-
:J'
I
"."',
t,.
,':
',';,
i
.. I
,
.
.c
em:''>
'. . --
.'.. ,...
:.:" .,:~
'>:
:;
"'. <:; :!<.'
,.!:.r;,
:... <,':'
I..!" I:, '.'
, . >.':,: i~.; ....
..-' ..' :.l',~'
..:'.. . .', ,":.,
,....' :::"r;
',-,
t:~.!
~(.
~"~
~
~
r
~
s=
Z
~
[/).
~
~
t'Ij
r
~
o
~
~
'-'.
,
.
...
P-',~
'0'
1 ?O
'"
2:
"
I"i,
~ H-
1
v
I
.~ ~
ii'
!II
I,
,".,
:c:
.
I
.
...-- :'.;'"
../. " --
,..'.... -- '.,..
~N
....
,"" "
.. i
~
'. .. :
)
. ..' <',;'~: . ,,~;" " '.
. : '. .....Ie.,
. . .
}--" \ .
. . ,.. \1 . \/
. '\Z\~c::~
.' . ~
:. .
. \"'" ". .. '
,...;:
:T<!I
'.: .-'.
'.' ..n.
n'. /.:,'.. /'
". ~.... . "..' i.... .....-
.\ , . ..' .,.' I ..... ".
. { . ..; c.".', ''''''
. ... ." . ' '" . j
..' . I,.. ... ..:"".:~,:< .
\; . . :'... .n'..... '.'-
.- .." '1.__.--.__:.' ..-./'
, , --.... ,.
. ",~;'= ..
/' . ." 'T,. .;,;' '
--.... ", '.:" . ' ," ." ." '.-."
: ..' '., ,'.
" .. . 0, " , - C:; .
i ..- .:.. ,'.... .- :'
, ,~_/f 1 :j~- "
". i,. ~;L ..:2\ ..:: ....i. n..,
".' ",. .m:''';....--' -- .... . . ,'.
/1.,.,..".....:..:...,...,:.....
.'., ....--:
.:',:--T..:.:..'::':'
I
..
'"/
..
il:
,HI
.' "1" .
~~
II
In
fl.,
I~I
:.--..",
~:~
, ;; ::. 'f1:~ .- ";:>\:::'~''': ,
;\ '.. 'i ..~ ...c."..,'
: ,',: .,;i1 !, ". .-t,;;:.
. ;.-- I \\ i ::'.: ,/7;'" :,: ..,," .. <, jit (. ..
.' .. ., :' ...,i; '."". . . C''-''''..C ,J__'..~ ,
0~~ . DRAFT 1/9/2003
Ramsey County Public Works Facility
Total. Estimated Project Budget
GSFI$GSF COST ESTlMA TE
1. CONSTRUCTION & SITE DEVELOPMENT:
. BUILDING A . OFFICE BUILDING
Ramsev County Public Works 42,504 5,199,654
Arden Hills 3,974 486,152
Mounds View School District 2,643 323,327
Total Building A 49,121 @ 122.33 6,009,133
BUILDING B. HEATED VEHICLE STORAGE
Ramsev County Public Works 70,412 5,423,245
Ramsev County Librarv 963 74,172
Arden Hills 17,070 1,314,759
Mounds View School District 5,136 395,583
Total Bul/ding B 93,581 @ 77.02 7,207,759
BUILDING C . EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
Ramsev Cou ntv Public Works 50,378 3,606,189
Total Building C 50,378 @ 71.58 3,606,189
BUILDING D. UNHEATED VEHICLE STORAGE
Ramsev Countv Public Works 27,867 1,461,353
Ramsev County Librarv 995 52,178
Arden Hills 2,984 156,482
Mounds View School District 2,554 133,933
Total Building D 34,400 @ 52.44 1,803,946
BUILDING E. SAND & SALT STORAGE
Ramsev County Public Works 30,000 1,000,000
Total Building E 30,000 @ 33.33 1,000,000
SITE WORK & OUT BUILDINGS 257,480
Ramsev County Public Works 4,898,577
Ramsev County Librarv 37,083
Arden Hills 574,487
Mounds View Schaal District 250,306
Total Site Work & Out Buildings 5,760,453
EQUIPMENT
Ramsev County Public Works VJ,-rt,trYJ/<, 1,200,646
~ Arden Hills 99,952
Mounds View School District 16,193
Total Equipment (Includes 5% Contingency) 1,316,791
ADDITIONAL REDUCTIONS
Ramsev Countv Public Works (769,753)
Arden Hills (88,261)
Mounds View School District (37,538)
Total Additional Reciuctlons (895,552)
Total Construction & Site Work (Includes 15% Contingency) 25,808,719
2. Furniture, Fixtures, Equipment:
Ramsev County Public Works 373,200
Librarv 12,400
Arden Hills 75,700
Mounds View School District 40,800
502,100
Contingency (15.0%) 75,300
Total Furniture, Fixtures, Equipment 577,400
~3. Telecommunications/Data 159,100
Contingency (15.0%) 23,900
Total TelecommunicationslData 183,000
4. Professional Services:
Architects and Engineers: /bev
Phase 1 - D l> ~ est 6/J /J'lAJPn-eNr. 794,900 ,
Phase 2 (To Be Determined) TBA
Preliminary Design Services - TKDA 91,540
FF&E (8%) 46,190
Design Services for Army National Guard 442,900
Total Professional Services 1,375,530
5. Site Acquisition and Preparation:
i. Build ing Demo. 258,369 .
Army Core of Engineers 15,000 ~
Cement Slab Removal (To verify) 388,000 "
Hazardous Material Removal 317,365 "
978,734
Contingency (10.6%) 103,750
Total Site Acquisition and Preparation 1,082,484
6. Miscellaneous 100,000
Contingency (5.46%) 5,460
Total Miscellaneous 105,460
7. Project Management:
Property Management 90,372
Inclusiveness in Contracting 100,000
Builders Risk Insurance 25,000
Traffic Engineering 10,000
Special Inspections 235,100
Soil Borings 17,000
Construction Drawing Printing 100,000
. Conditional Use Permit 10,000
Pennits and Fees 10,000
SAC Charge 129,000
726,472
Project Contingency 1,084,300
Total Project Management: 1,810,772
Total Estimated Project Budget $30,943,365
AtrAe'l-ft1A.JCNT A:
e
."
~
"'D(n"'Uc)O(f.lC/.l-ltD5''''U~
a~CDOOO"Cf.'lCno_
';;'03 [ii =::;1: 3llic"O s:
n C");::+;:; - to iii' n CD !!!. CD 'lll
II' -io[W o~ g.=m(i; ~~;
3' a 0 1d ~ ; :!.~ acE ;:u ;;J s:!,g
III lD~lDo.-00"'Q-'0CDI>>(Il
2' ~ ~ "c:::S I'D ii;ll:" =::s ~
Q. a cg m:g ~ a!!::i" 5"~ a
4J~'~ (I)~~ g~'~03"
02. 2,< ... 5' tit ; g CD
!! ~ 2.tJ:l ~ !:t a
OJ i: -~ CD a
~ ~ a 5"
i3 ~. CD
~
0'
it
~
~oo_ __
UtO CD..w.....NO(D
~ ;4~.!O!IJ~!A~?!J'!='9
(oINoNNWO-...lOOOW
,flo.U)WWcg....NoOOO.....
OOOOOOOOOON
~ ~
!::. ~':;--~",!::
w N(JI~....Cfl WU)
..... 00000000000
J~
.
~-
....... .... w
w .-....,...........WN~
......cn""""CD to)Q
00000000000
i )-;~.,., ~;;i
N ~ooooooooooo
.... J
'"
1.J ~ :,.. l>.) No Ch
CD OU)NNoW "" W
00 :"''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
'" ~
..
..... 0.... No
en ....N CO......C,o)
'!. :"00000,;":'"
_ Ch.....U)Ul CD CD.....
..... . oOO'7oo~oooo
Ii
~..
....(11 .... to
~ u,.:,....:........0,
........NNCD....
Oo,,?,ooogoooo
t J
'"
..
g 000,00000,0000
~
~o_ _ '" _
CION........O.....W....NOilD
~ ~}fJppp;4Y.p~Ulpp
(oIOOooo.....ooow
0000000000.....
oooOOOOOOON
,..
;::
in
ng
0=
~~
l:".::l
~~
<00
~ 0
~0
(i~
--
..~
~:;
jj;'~
n-
~
~
~
o
o
~
,~p'j
.....'"
000
00
!"
'"
ii
~if~~~~
;;'::SN33=.o
_ ~~ CD '< Q. c
!!.:JQ.;:;Jo5'c;'
(l)tgO-OCD:;::;:
;;:~;SJ;~g
:b,'<!:30 3'lll
n-:i;;!t~;;;O::l
-g ~!!: !.:::::I' Q.
_, CD -. CD "'D
e.~~::j:i' ;
::t-:;:vO(ll "'D
g CD< ~ ~
~ 3 ~ ~
:r; 0 -. !:!:
I:l < -<:' 0
~- ~
"'0 - ..
~
..,
..
~
o'
~
~ "''"' '"
ClOlo...............
~ ~:'"_co~~
UO.cnWOi2o
OOi2o co..... 0i20
OUlOOlQ
~
:\'
a
:?~~ ~m
0go!t nUl
~'~~r [g'
ClI) 5' ~!.
;;tfr~At utCl>
~ <--2 I>> CD
- -. C ::l <
4'2 CD 0.-
out ~ m:;:
if 0' cg"tJ~!'!
~.;. en ~ S'
0... CD tit Gl
; =l < CD CD
.:c o.....ZJ
cnZ (tI ~
CDI>> UI ~
S.S- -
n ~
~!!.
'"
o
~
a
....
'"
c
..
i"
....
~
;;
nn
00
~ 3
..... g.3
0<00
ilCTI:!.
_~n
....n.
CD'<:!'
iii-:l:g
n ~0
00_
:I ~:;'
3-_
o .
~
~r
'"
o
~
~
..
...
~ -
"'~
~ ~Wy>>
00_
00
00
!>'
-n
!;
o~.
o~
0' ~~;
et~ !!
~~~
3 ~ a
S:-:l:~
ij}P'm
~ ~.c
".!:E.
s: "'D
~ 3
~ ~
In a.
.ll'
o
-;;'
3
~
:<
~ '"'
~'"'
_ ::'!'J
..~
0",
00
.~ :: ~ J ~i:~
...., 0 00
00100 00 00
10 ~~i
J ;"Ioo~t: ~ 01:: t J )i:~
co ~~~~:g~ ~o~o~ 00 ~gg
L Jm," J.d L J!l
10 .t~~i~ ~oim 10
10 ~~~~~~ ~o~J 10 .~i
10 1",,,,,,,,,, .too 10 1",
~]:l~ ~_;;:~
CD..... (01......
00 00
100 100
1",
10
q-="'''P' !"
....(.011\)1\)01
............,0.....
00000
~_..~ '"'
~ ..1",,'N 1\)("
OI.....(oI.CQOI\)
00000
~ -1-'"''"' '"
o 0.....0).....01
~ }It,? _ ~~!D.P'!D
....0 "........(,100(.01
dJo OIdJoom
00 OOlOOU)
~ '"
'"'00",
. 9~~
oo~oo
o~~~
~ -
- '"
- w i;o
o '"'
0000
~... ....
.""(0(0
. ~_O)~.....~
U)"'(1IU)
g:g~g
.
~_....
:-':"!-"
......
00
00
!"
n
o
~
~
>m(J)tDl.1Immm~
0' 8:.g ;: 5: 5: ~ ~ ~ g.
i ~-o :; ~ s= s= s= ~ ::l
(')::l ~ ~(Qa:la:I(QtO QII
g!.a.:w:"mCOtD;bo~
C/lI;:O Qiit 11l
2'3. ~ i
II") c: _ <
g.a OJ !!.
:::J g E. .g
~ CII 0: 3
en:;- 11l
~ ~ ~
c
~
!
3
~
:<
~~~f:b~~t":
(01.0"'" oOJ 0"'" CD
......oUJoo.....mO)O)
~ Ca>Cnwow:"':"'t..>
.......... en OUt CCI 0"'"
~Q).....O(ol.COCClO
~- --
..... D:I 0.....
to,) N .....(.01
~:... W :...'W
m N W./lIo
.,::!o.....ooo......m
~:o 00
'" '"
- N tn
'" '"
-2!0000
'"
~
'"
'"
00....
~- '"' "' ....
en ..... t>.) ,f/Io
~:... b :... :...
CD co ..... .....
..=:O(,.lOCDOt-.)O
~- - ...
'" '"' 00
.. b ......, '"....I
'" - '"'
.:joenoOOO.....
~ -
Cn_ C7I ..... w,f/lo
./lIoCDU)..... Ut .....00
COco.,r:.. OJ ,f/IoCJ)
~ ;..,'"co A .. ......,:...
cnCl1CD go UlCI1
..=:N.....ONOlQN
.~- '" - '"''"'
W.....CI1 W (ON
..........0)0 W 01(.01
~ Cn:"'w w tnw,
OWCOO (.01 cot>,)
....,eWdJ 0 (.01 0 W.....
000000000
~ -~--,",""'"
- caW-:"'OCDCnl..:t'"o
CD.....cnooooo
_ .9' ~,? ,?_~-;-~_:..CD
cn....,.oco...............
;~g:glt~~~
ill
~"U
i:'~
O'
m
g> 3
< c3
0' ~
g: ~
'<
i~
~ ..
r
C'
~
-<
;:: ."
'" 0
~"9
~~
in g
;::
< 0
f[
o
z
~ !!L
~ g'
c. !!.
....
~
!!.
~
t
:t
~
~
-\
~
--i
o
[
m::O
.. "
~3
3 ..
" <D
li)"'<
0.0
-.,0
~ "
o ::l
Cii'~
!:l.-.,
OJ"
cg
0.0
'g::!:
~o
~
~~
.. .."
~"
1:: ~.
0-=
o~
..
~
o'
::l
o
~
.."
--i
~
iD
..
o
o
'"
e
DRAFT
Ramsey County Public Works Facility
Financing Plan
January 6, 2003
1/9/2003
Year Source Amount
Public Works Available Funds:
1999 Operating Funds 150,000.00
2001 CIP Bonds 185,000.00
2002 CIP Bonds 5,400,000.00
Current Financing Sources 5,735,000.00
2003 CIP Request 18~ 100,000.00
2004 CIP Request 2,765,000.00
Total Requested Financing Sources 20,865,000.00
2004 Arden Hills 2,976,711.00
2004 Mounds View Public Schools 1,276,654.00
2004 Ramsey County Library 90,000.00
Total Other Revenues to be Appropriated 4,343,365.00
Total Public Works Budget 30,943,365.00
e
e
.
~
~HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
Agenda Item 3.A.2
January 16, 2003
TO:
Mayor Beverly Aplikowski
Council Member David Grant
Council Member Brenda Holden
Council Member Gregg Larson
Council Member Lois Rem
JOe Lynch, City Administrator
Aaron Parrish - Community Services Director II
Ramsey County Maintenance Faeility: Plarming Review
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Overview
The County is in process of preparing their site plan and special use permit application for their
proposed maintenance facility. From staff's perspective, it would be preferable to retain DSU to
facilitate/conduct the planning review for the following reasons:
1. To the extent that this proposal has implications for adjaeent TCAAP property and the
TCAAP pI arming process, DSU would be better equipped to deal with the review than
city staff.
2. Given the City's potential location within the facility, DSU would be in a better position
to provide an objective analysis than city staff.
If the Council is comfortable with this approach, staff will place this on the next Council meeting
agenda.
Financial.lInulications
It is anticipated that DSU would bill the City on an hourly basis for services provided in
conjunction with the Ramsey County Public Works Facility plan review. Given the uncertain
scope of review at this point, an aceurate estimate is not available at this time.
Like most pi arming cases, it is antieipated that the County will submit an escrow amount that the
City will charge any direct expenses against. Accordingly, it is anticipated that the use of DSU
in this instance will be expenditure neutral. If for some reason the escrow amount is waived or
reduced by the Council, funds from the TCAAP Special Revenue eould be utilized.
Requested Action
. Provided for discussion purposes
.
.
.
.
URS
Agenda Item 38
MEMORANDUM
Thresher Square
700 Third Street South
Minneapolis, MN 554 I 5
Phone: (612) 370.0700
Fax: (612) 370.1378
To:
Mr. Joe Lynch/
City of Arden Hills
Copy: Nick Landwer/URS File: 379510056001
Tom Moore/AH
From: Greg Brown
Arden Hills City Engineer
Date: January 15, 2003
Subject: Karth Lake Update
Background
Several residents around Karth Lake expressed concern over the unusually high water level of
the lake during the past summer. As a result of this coneern, the Council directed City staff to
pump water out of the lake using temporary pumping apparatus. The lake level was lowered
approximately 2 feet. During the pumping a number of residents along Wyncrest Drive
expressed eoncerns over lowering the lake level and a couple residents complained of adverse
effects from the pumping (City staff was unable to validate those claims).
The Council indicated an interest in further monitoring of the level ofKarth Lake and evaluating
the feasibility of a permanent means to keep the lake elevation under control. URS and City staff
are proposing to install a lake level gage while the ice is strong enough to support workers. The
gage will cost approximately $200 and require about 4 hours to install. After the installation,
URS surveyors will calibrate the gage and City staff will monitor the lake level to develop more
data regarding the effeets of rainfall on the lake level.
A feasibility study of potential permanent pumping systems may be initiated at any time the
Council desires, however Couneil may want to wait to observe the lake levels after the Spring
thaw and subsequent rainfall events.
PROJECTS\ARDENHIL\3795I \GENERAL\Documents\Agenda Memo 1-15-03 Item 3B.doc
.
.
.
~
EN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
Agenda Item 4.A
January 16, 2003
TO:
Mayor and City Council
Joe Lyneh, City Administrat~
2003 City Council Retreat
FROM:
SUBJECT:
ENCLOSURES:
City of Arden Hills 2003 Session I Retreat Agenda
Enclosed is a copy of the agenda proposed for Session I of the 2003 City Council/Staff Retreat
seheduled for Saturday, January 25,2003. This is the first of three sessions to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Establish the vision/mission for the City,
Establish goals for the City for the year 2003,
Build/rebuild trust between and amongst staff and City Council,
Update staff and City Couneil.
All activities for Session I will occur at Arden Hills City Hall. Lunch will be provided.
Welcome and introductions will be presented by Mayor Aplikowski and City Administrator
Lyneh, followed by an introduction from the facilitator, Marilyn Condon. Ms. Condon will
explain the purpose of the meeting, establish the ground rules, and take the Couneil and
management staff through an exereise designed to encourage all parties to think about the past,
present, and future. After lunch Ms. Condon will continue by establishing a process to identify the
top priority issues for 2003, from a Council/management stand point.
The Council has recently indicated that they would like to have some items included on the Staff
Retreat agenda which includes:
. Neighborhood meetings;
. Ingerson Road Project, speeifieally Lake Josephine Association discussion/negotiation
. Ramsey County Public Work Facility; etc.
The agenda was established before the Council's discussion took place about their desire to have
some of these items addressed; therefore the agenda has not been modified. If these are the most
important items, they should be established as priority goals for 2003 during the discussion about
mission, vision and goals.
Also included is a copy of the proposed agenda for Session II of the 2003 Council/Staff Retreat
scheduled for February 21, 2003. This is a meeting designed to facilitate communieation between
City Council and all City Staff, provide an opportunity for information exchange, and provide a
question and answer period between the two groups
Recommendation:
There is no need for action by the Couneil at this time. Information is provided for your review
and comments.
.
.
.
~
~~HILLS
City of Arden Hills
2003 Council Retreat
.
Session I Friday, February 21, 2003
Arden Hills City Hall 1245 W. Highway 96 Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112
AGENDA
A. ArrivalJRefreshments 8:30 a.rn.
B. Welcome and Introductions Administrator Lynch 9:00 a.rn. .
AND Mayor Aplikowski
C. Facilitator Marilyn Condon 9 - NOON
1. Purpose
2. Ground Rules
3. Guided Imagery Exercise - Past, Present, Future
D. LUNCH (will be provided) NOON - 1 p.rn.
E. Facilitator Marilyn Condon 1 p.rn. - 3:30 p.rn.
1. Mission, Vision, Values
2. Next Steps - Link to GOALS
F. Closing Comments 3:30 p.m.
.
e ~
~~HILLS
City of Arden Hills
2003 Council Retreat
Session II Thursday, March 6, 2003
Arden Hills City Hall 1245 W. Highway 96 Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112
AGENDA
A. Arrival/Refreshments 8:30 a.m.
. B. Welcome and Introductions Administrator Lynch 9:00 a.rn.
Mayor Aplikowski
C. Facilitator Marilyn Condon 9:00 a.m. - NOON
1. Ice Breaker
2. Ground Rules
3. Teams vs. Work Groups
4. Discussion
D. LUNCH (will be provided) NOON - 1 :00 p.rn.
E. Responses, Roles 1 :00 p.m. - 2:30 p.rn.
F. Next Steps and Closing Comments 2:30 p.rn. - 3:00 p.rn.
.
/
.
.
.
~
~~LLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
Agenda Item 4.B
January 17, 2003
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Joe Lynch, City Administrat
SUBJECT:
Lake Josephine Hills Assoeiation-Ingerson Court/Fernwood Channel
Improvements
ENCLOSURES:
Lake Josephine Hills Assoeiation Letter to Mayor and Council dated
January 13, 2002
The City Council has decided to proeeed with the plans for the 2003 Ingerson Road Neighborhood
Pavement Management Program. The Ingerson Road Improvement eontemplates improvements
to the end of Ingerson Court and the Fernwood Channel, which is property owned by Lake
Josephine Hill Association.
The enclosed letter identifies Lake Josephine Hills Assoeiation Taskforce Members and requests a
legal propcrty survey of the Lake Josephine Hills Association property. The Association would
like to reeeive this before proceeding with discussion/negotiations on the improvement proposed
to their property. The letter includes one statement that needs to be clarified. In the fourth
paragraph, the letter indieates that the City.. ."plans to redirect and dredge the channel and lay
pipes and drains across the association property."
The City plans to change a portion of the property, but this does not include any portion of Lake
Josephine Hills Association property. The City also plans to improve the flow of the channel by
removing the silt and debris that has built up in that channel and causes it to be less effieient. The
City has no plans to lay pipes or drains across the association property. The City does desire to
place a Freneh drain on the northern edge of the property to assist with run-off from the end of
Ingerson Court.
The proposed improvements to the Fernwood Channel are ancillary to the overall Ingerson Road
and Ingerson Court project and are not eritical. The City can just make improvements within the
street and the right of way without impacting the Association property.
However, if the Council would like to pursue making improvement to the channel, staff feels this
is an improvement to the existing condition of the channel and will benefit the property and
increase the value. In order to accomplish the proposed plan, the engineer will produee a diagram
showing the exact location of the street, right of way and any existing easements. The diagram
will not be a legal property description. As for the improvements to the channel, we will need an
,
Memo to City Council
January 17, 2003, Lake Josephine Hills-Ingerson Court/Femwood Channel Improvements
Page 2 of2
.
easement from Lake Josephine Hills Association from the end of Ingerson Court across their
property to the channel and along the channel to make the improvements. This will be a
permanent easement beeause the plan proposes that the City continues to have access to the
channel to perform routine cleaning and maintenanee.
In setting assessments for the property, the City has established a price per foot charge for all
benefiting properties. The Lake Josephine Hills Association would receive an assessment based
upon the number of front feet surrounding and along Ingerson Court. Assessments can not be
based upon the value of land or any improvements on them. The Lake Josephine Hills
Association seems to try to make an argument that the assessments are not in proportion to the
value of their land. They are correct. Assessments are based upon benefits received and not upon
the value of the property. If the Council does feel compelled to survey the property, it should do
so with the understanding that this activity is not related to assessment and will not change the
value of the assessment.
Recommendation
Staff is seeking direction from the Council on the following items:
· Does the Council want to authorize a legal survey of the Lake Josephine Hills Association
property?
.
. Determine if the City wants to negotiate for the easement across the channel to the Lake
Josephine Hills Association property.
· Establish who will meet to discuss and negotiate with Lake Josephine Hills Association.
.
.
.
.
Dorle Vawter
1226 Ingerson Rd.
Arden Hills, MN 55112
651 63 l-2076
dorlevawter@attbi.com
January 13, 2002
Mayor and Council Members
City of Arden Hills
Arden Hills, MN 55112
Dear Mayor and Couneil Members:
Thank you for working with the Ingerson Road neighborhood to craft a more reasonable
road improvement project. Your support is very much appreciated.
In response to the Council's request, the Board of the Josephine Hills Association and
other interested members met in December to discuss the proposed road improvement
plans and to seleet a Josephine Hills Association ad hoc Task Force to work on the
Fernwood Channel project.
The members of this Task Force include:
Lynn Diaz
Doug Hartford
Linda Swanson, and
Dorle Vawter.
The members ofthe Association support in eoneept efforts to improve the water quality
of Lake Josephine. We believe, however, that before we can finalize any legally binding
agreement with the City about plans to redirect and dredge the Channel and to lay pipes
and drains across Association property that it is necessary for the City and the
Association to replace the "conceptual maps" of the proposed projeet with a detailed map
that includes clear and accurate surveys ofthe property lines and easements including the
current dimensions and location of the Channel and its bridges. I am writing to you on
behalf of the Josephine Hills Association Task Force to ask that such a survey be
completed and presented to the Assoeiation together with a eorresponding revised map of
the proposed modifieations. These items are required before it is reasonable for the
Association (and the City) to proceed with these critical negotiations.
While we wish to be eooperative and not interfere with the City's plans to proceed with
this pavement improvement project, we do foresee some potentially time consuming
negotiations and therefore believe it would be most advantageous to receive these
requested items by the end of January. This will allow sufficient time for negotiations to
make changes in the master plan that reflect an agreement or a refusal by the Association
to use its land before the assessment hearings in March.
Thank you for your attention to these important matters.
.
Sincerely,
Dorle Vawter
1226 Ingerson Rd
651-631-2076
Cc: Greg S. Brown
.
.
~f
~~
H
~
~>>
~......
~~
~t"""
~CFJ.
z
"
m
z
~
n
m
~
m'TI
-'co
0-'
c::t
Ol:::
=0
-0
'<0.
30
-o::t"
-,Ol
O::t
<::t
COco
3-
co
::t
-
Q
=<1\.)
00
--no
)>w
;xl
0"'0
~$:
I "'0
r
r
(f)
.
w
.
::E
(D"
..,
en
CD
(')
~
o
::s
o
o
~
n
~
"
-oOlO
:::!.<.5" ::r
<::t0l
~..,::t
CO..,::t
~COCO
~::t-
(3-
-00
COC
;::1.-
,<0
....,
:::OJ
00
OC
0.-
coo.
::t~
::::::
ol _.
_co
,,-,
::::::
Q);::;::
'< ::t"
0'..0 ::z:
OlCol
(J)Q)_
5'=(1)
.:2'....
t--+-f-+
C"\
~i' ~
(fJ0
ol....
<co
COOl
co-
XCO
~ijj.
-'ol
::t::t
l.Q0.
-
iD-
coO
(fJ
.
("):::::0
~;::;::(tl
::t 2: 3
::t::to
COco <
-xco
CT -'(f)
Q) ~(tl
::t -'0.
^:J _"
(fJ l.Q 3
co
::t
-
G
'TI
....
co
::t
(")
::t"
0.
Q1.
::t
olOi"::O
-0 "CO
"Slco3
o~o
<-0<
olCOCO
-:::; 5.. Ul
_.co
::to.
l.Q -.
03
ZgJ
::o-
cr
3
<~(j)
(tl CQ ...,
2:0l~
(")o.~
-coc
~.-Q)
CTO_
03c
~0l=1,
ol -.(fJ
(")~:::
(")Olol
co -'-
(f)::tco
(f)
~
~~
~
m
~.
~ (fJ
<J ""
::t
l.Q
-
Cil
co
(fJ
0
-,
co
3
ol
::t
~
o
ol < (f) ol }>"::j
:Jd::r:Jc...,
o..c......o.e-CD
}>.... a-r3 co
-::t(fJ0l (fJ
o.c -,::t3
~ .3 3 g. OJ _.
- -- Q) <.C
0l.Q N::t"
o;:r CD'-
l.Q -. $: 5'
:::fl ol(")
0_ -oc
Oc -0.
.0. co _co co
<0. "
<" ::0
;::;:: <.
(") co
::t" ....
::t" OJ
ol -.
~ 0
-- -~
CO(f)Z
o.::t"co
l.Q-'""
coc",
(f)CT_
(f)....
_co
OCO
(fJ
~ol
Ol::t
CTo.
N'
co
I\.)
o
::t
co
-
.j>.
o
co
o
'TI
CO
co
-
peOl:! uosJa6U\
::s
()lQ
OCD
r:: ..,
;:l.~
::s
.
.
.
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Arden Hills City Council
Josephine Hills Association Task Foree
Fernwood Channel Improvements
January 21, 2003
The City Council has approved a pavement improvement plan that includes an intention
to make water quality improvements to Femwood Channel on Josephine Hills
Association (JHA) land, on City and state land, and perhaps on 2 or 3 other private lots as
well. This is a complicated project and we believe that there are several important
reasons the City needs a more detailed map and projeet proposal.
Based on maps we have seen and discussions we have had with property owners, there
are several inconsistencies regarding property lines.
· For instance, URS map 2003 Exhibit 11 to the City engineer's report (shown at
Dec. 9, 2002 Council meeting) does not match a survey done for the JHA in 1980.
Furthermore, the location of the property lines may affect the design.
· For instance, the engineer's proposal proposes to move the channel from one
private property onto the Association's private property. (see p. 10.)
Before the engineer can accurately design the project and the City can enter into
neeessary legal agreements with the affected property owners, the City must know where
the property and project lines are.
· More specifically, if there are to be new easements on Association property,
Association members will need the City to provide a legal description of the
easement for the purposes of registering a modification to their deeds.
Once the City has an exact map of existing properties and the Femwood Channel, then it
is possible to overlay and discuss placement of proposed improvements and the possible
location and type(s) of easements. Until all property and project boundaries are clarified
it would be difficult for us and risky for the City to finalize any project details or
proposals. We will be happy to talk to the City representatives once we know exactly
what is proposed for our portion of the land.
l! ,~aser Jet
3200
[l/)@
1 :.'
.~. ..... ~.....
i n v e n t
Fax Call Report
JAN.24.2003 4:43PM
Job Date Time Type I dent ifi cat ion Duration Pages Result
58 1/24/2003 4:34:45PM Send 9.75342195ii 1:30 2 OK
69 1/24/2003 4:36:21PM Send 9,7537050891 1:07 2 OK
70 1/24/2003 4:37:33PM Send 9.5515333846 1: 22 2 OK
71 1/24/2003 4:39:01PM Send 9.6512282191 1:20 2 OK
72 1/24/2003 4:40:27PM Send 9.5512279371 0:48 2 OK
73 1/24/2003 4:41:20PM Send 9.6514821262 0:59 2 OK
74 1/24/2003 4:42:25PM Send 9.6512659301 1:11 2 OK
.
.