Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />e <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />.... <br /> <br />26. Continued. <br /> <br />plant or animal species are known to Qccur on the site that are <br />class1fied by the ~~/DNR or USFWS as Raret Threatened. Endangeredt <br />or of Special Concern. <br /> <br />26. Do any histor1ct arc~aeolog1cal or archltect~ral resources <br />exist on or near the project site? If yeSJ explain (show <br />resources on a site map and describe impact): ~NQ ___Yes <br /> <br />The project was reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Office Qf <br />Minnesota (Mn. SHPO). The SHPO lettpr of coon:ent 15 contained in the <br />append1x. This review revealed the 10cat1Qn of no known sites of <br />h1storict al'chitectural, cultura\ t archaeolQg1cal, or engineer1ng s~9nl- <br />f1cance within the area of the ~ropo~ed proje~t. There are no sites 1n <br />the project area which are on the Nat1~n3l Register or eligible for <br />inclusion on the National Register, and thereforet none which may be <br />affected by the project. <br /> <br />27. Will the project cause the impalnment or destruction of: <br /> <br />a. designated park or recreation areas? <br />b. prillle or unique farmlGnds? <br />c. ecologically sensitive areas? <br />d. scenic v1ew~ and viSt3S? <br />e. other unique reSQurces (speCify)? <br />If yeSt explain: <br /> <br />a. The proje~t will maintain &nd add property to an exist1ng park and <br />ballfield. <br /> <br />X No Yes <br />THo -Yes <br />THo -Yes <br />THo -Yes <br />THQ ='(es <br /> <br />28. For each affected road indicate the current average daily traffic (ADT)I <br />increase 1n ACT rontr1buted by t~~ project and the directional distribu- <br />tions of traffic. <br /> <br />~ traffic study of the proposed project is contained 1n the ~ppend1x. <br />fhe traffic study addresses a slightly larger project than is currently <br />proposed; 321 residential dwelling units rdther than the 260 dwelling <br />units proposed. Thus, the traffic impacts of the project ~s currently <br />proPQsed wi" be less than those documented in the traffic study. The <br />proposed prGject will generate approximately 4.200 daily trips as com- <br />pared to the est~mate ~f 4.552 trips contained in the appendix. The <br />number of PM peak hour trips will be leduced to approx1~tely 245 <br />inbound and 190 outbound. <br /> <br />29. Are adequate utilities and publiC services now available <br />to service the project? <br /> <br />_tlo ~Yes <br /> <br />If not. what additional utIlities will be required? <br /> <br />13 <br />