pf07-002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

6. Comment: Traffic increases both on the campus itself and in the surrounding streets and neighborhoods is a major environmental issue. Noise, air, and stormwater pollution all increase as a result. Mitigation suggestions are either impossible to implement or create more environmental damage. Response: Comments acknowledged. The traffic mitigation measures are feasible without further risk of degrading the environment. Table 5 in the Traffic Study demonstrates that with mitigation in p/ace, all intersection and approach levels of service are better or the same as future conditions without mitigation and, srmilarly, average de/ays and vehicle queues are better or nearly the same with mitigation. As noted in the Draft EAW, based on,the traffic model SimTraffic, Year 2018 carbon monoxide emissions at the two study intersecfions most affected by new campus trips decreased by 60%' at Lydia Avenue/College entrance and increased by 6% at Lydia Avenue/Snelling AVenue with mitigation measures in p/ace, compared to 2018 conditions without mitigation. The signal timings assumed for the with-mitigation scenario at Lydia Avenue/Snelling Avenue may be adjusted slightly af implementation to minimize'this marginal ��.;, .-� increase in CO emissions. It is not likely that noise due fo the sr►iall'increases in traffic at the College will be noticeably greater in the area. 7. Comment: The proposed large increase in enrollment and the failure of the modeling to take into account new traffic pattems emerging from the College plans for the Edina Realfy building are clearly substantive issues. , :�t� Response: Comment acknowledge�d.��Th,�ere; a�e only about 100 - 125 administrative e'r`i�ployees that"will�be.transfelred;to the Edina Realty site. Many of the necessary sfudent trips from fhe north ca�mpus to the Administration Office can be accommodated by walking/biking or via the existing shuttle bus service. The shift in staff vehicle trips to fhe' Edina Realty site would likely result in a mino`r��increase in vehicle.delay at Snelling Avenue/County Road C-2 and a small decrease in vehicle delay; at Snelling Avenue/Lydia Avenue. ° 2�^� �, '"�' � �a: �_+ r ``�� 8. Comment: Citizen, proposed alternative solutions such as off-site parking with shuttle service�or::placement of parking facilities only near the entrance to avoid tra�c on the interior,� po�rtions of the campus have resulted in no changes in -:�.;,�_; :;,; College plans. �,�,. Response: The potential traffic and parking impacts have been analyzed through a Traffic and Parking Impact Study (as revised April 24, 2007). The mitigation measures outlined in that document have a/so been placed by the Planning Commission as a condition to approval of the PUD. A shuttle service is currently operating for students living near campus. 9. Comment: It is a bit difficult to understand why, with no increase from the College, the Snelling/Lydia interchange is so much more seriously impacted compared to the other three interchanges. Without further explanation, this anomaly might indicate a problem with the modeling. Response: Comment acknowledged. This is the result of the traffic forecasts and College trip distribution, not the modeling. Traffic on Snelling Avenue is increasing by about 1% a year, whereas traffic on Lydia Avenue between Snelling and Fairview Avenues is increasing by about 0. 6% per year. In addition, TKDA Project No. 13529.002 Page 18 Draft Date: July 9, 2007