Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.A.1. Approve Publication and Distribution of EAW for The Bluffs s.ft. J~ CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CONSENT Mayor and City Council TO: Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment W ()rksheet (EA W) for the Proposed Project known as "The Bluffs" MEETING DATE: April 18, 2006 INTRODUCTION: Previously, the Council approved preparation of an EA W for the proposed project known as "The Bluffs." Council is asked to approve 1) publication of notice of availability of the draft EA W in the EQB Monitor, and 2) distribution of the draft EA W to agencies for review and comment. A copy of the draft EA W is attached for the Council's information. DISCUSSION: The preparation of this EA W was triggered by receipt ofthe petition for annexation of about 330 acres ofland that currently is in Jackson Township. D. R. Horton and Ryan Contracting are proposing a staged project on the site that would include single-family homes, town homes, an elementary school, and possibly senior housing and some limited commercial development. Because of the complexity of transportation issues in this area, especially the uncertainties associated with the TH 41 River Crossing EIS, the City contracted separately with the consulting firm of SRF for an "enhanced" transportation analysis as part of this EA W. SRF was selected, in part, because of their knowledge ofthe TH 41 alternatives and the ramifications of those alternatives. Submittal of the draft notice of availability of the EA W will have been submitted to the EQB Monitor during the day prior to the Council meeting. However, if Council does not approve publication and distribution, publication of the notice will be cancelled. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Offer and pass a motion to authorize publication of notice of availability of the draft EA W for "The Bluffs" in the EQB Monitor and distribution of the draft EA W to agencies for review and comment. Council is not asked to approve the substance of EA W THE BLUFFS DISTRIBUTION/RML 1 the EAW at this time. It will be brought back to Council for action, along with any submitted comments and responses after expiration ofthe review period. 2. Do not approve publication of notice in the EQB Monitor and distribution of the draft EA W for review and comment. 3. Table the matter for additional information. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative number 1. VISIONING RELATIONSHIP: The process of developing and distributing an EA W for review and comments on the environmental impacts of a proposed development relates to Goal B, High Quality of Life. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer and pass a motion to authorize publication of notice of availability of the draft EAW for "The Bluffs" in the EQB Monitor and distribution of the draft EA W to agencies for review and comment. Council is not asked to approve the substance of the EA W at this time. It will be brought back to Council for action, along with any submitted comments and responses after expiration of the review period. ~~~~~ R. Michael Leek Community Development Director EA W THE BLUFFS DISTRIBUTION/RML 2 A WSB & Associates, Inc. Infrastructure I Engineering I Planning I Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Memorandum Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council, City of Shakopee From: Andrea Moffatt, WSB.~ Date: April 13, 2006 Re: The Bluffs at Marystown Environmental Assessment Worksheet WSB Project No. 1281-93 Attached, please find a draft copy of.the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) for The Bluffs at Marystown development for your review. The purpose of the EA W is to identify potential environmental impacts associated with the project and determine whether or not an Environmental Impact Statement is needed. Based on Minnesota Rules 4410.4300, the EA W for this project is mandatory due to the number of residential units. The EA W process is required to be completed prior to the City issuing any approvals for this project. The attached EA W evaluates two different scenarios - one with a school and one without a school. The EA W is being submitted to the City Council for authorization for public distribution as required by Minnesota Rules 4410. Upon authorization by the City Council, the EA W will be distributed for a 30-day public comment period. At the end of the comment period, responses to comments will be developed and a recommendation as to the need for an Environmental Impact Statement will be made to the City Council for consideration. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (763)287-7196. Attachments cc. Michael Leek, City of Shakopee Mike Suel, DR Horton Jennifer McLoughlin, Westwood Professional Services mjl Minneapolis I St. Cloud K:\01281-93\Admin\Docs\MEMO - 041106 - hmcc.doc Equal Opportunity Employer - --.-.--" I I s, (7, II I I The Bluffs at Marystown EAW I I I I I PEE I I I RGU: City of Shakopee, MN 129 Holmes Street I Shakopee, MN 55379 Phone: (952) 233-9300 I Fax: (952) 233-3801 I EQB Monitor Publication Date: April 25, 2006 I Comment Deadline: May 25, 2006 I I I I I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) I The Bluffs at Marystown EAW I Note to preparers: This form and EAW Guidelines are available at www.eqb.state.mn.us. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet provides information about a project that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The EA W is prepared by the Responsible I Governmental Unit or its agents to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared. The project proposer must supply any reasonably accessible data for - but should not complete - the final worksheet. If a complete answer does not fit in the space allotted, attach I additional sheets as necessary. The complete question as well as the answer must be included if the EA W is prepared electronically. Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the RGU during the 30-day comment period I following notice of the EA W in the EQB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for an EIS. I 1. Project Title The Bluffs at Marystown EA W I 2. Proposer: D .R. Horton Ryan Development, Inc. Contact Mike Suel Dennis Griswold I person: Title: Development Project Manager Director of Land Address: 20860 Kenbridge Court, Suite 100 8700 13th Ave East I Lakeville, MN 55044 Shakopee MN 55379 Phone: (952) 985-7823 (952) 894-3200 I Fax: (952) 985-7400 (952) 894-3207 3. RGU: City of Shakopee I Contact Michael Leek person: Title: Community Development Director I Address: 129 Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 Phone: (952) 233-9300 I Fax: (952) 233-3801 4. Reason for EA W Preparation I D EIS o Mandatory D Citizen DRGU D Proposer Scoping EAW Petition Discretion Volunteered I If EA W or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart numbers(s) Part 4410.4300 Subp. 19.D. and subpart name(s) Residential Development. I I 1 I The Bluffs at Marystown EA W April 2006 I 5. Proiect Location County: Scott County I City: Shakopee. Minnesota Twp: E Y2 and SW ~ of Section 14. T115N. R23W. I The proposed project is generally located west of Marystown Road, north of Both Street W, east of Old Brick Yard Road, and south of U.S. Highway 169 in western Shakopee (Exhibits I & 2). I Attach copies of each of the following to the EA W: . County map showing the general location of the project; I . u.s. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1 :24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (photocopy acceptable); . Site plan showing all significant project and natural features. I 6. Description I a) Provide a project summary of 50 words or less to be published in the EQB Monitor. Development of The Bluffs at Marystown is proposed to include up to 931 residential units, I 50,711 square feet of office condominiums / neighborhood commercial land uses, and approximately 52,500 square feet for a potential elementary school. The site is located west of Marys town Road, north of BOth Street W, east of Old Brick Yard Road, and south of U.S. I Highway 169. b) Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction. I Attach additional sheets as necessary. Emphasize construction, operation methods, and features thatwill cause physical manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes. Indicate modifications to existing equipment or industrial processes and I significant demolition, removal, or remodeling of existing structures. Indicate the timing and dur~tion of construction activities. I D.R. Horton, Inc. and Ryan Development, Inc. are proposing construction of a mixed-use residential and neighborhood commercial development in western Shakopee. The proposed I project area is located in the SW ~ and E ~ of Section 14, T115N, R23W. The proposed project is generally located south of U.S. Highway 169, west of Marystown Road, north of BOth Street West and east of Old Brick Yard Road (Exhibits 1 & 2). I This EA W addresses two development scenarios in order to incorporate a range of impacts from the project. Scenario 1 would result in the lowest number of residential units, and I includes development of 451 single family lots, 232 villa and coach townhomes, 60 condominium units, office condominiums, and an elementary school site in the south central portion of the property (Exhibit 3). Scenario 2 will address a more densely developed plan, I including an additional 61 single family units with a portion of those in lieu of the school site, an additional 52 multi-family units in place of 26 single family lots in the southwest corner of the site, and two additional60-unit condominiums instead of the office I condominiums in Scenario 1 (Exhibit 4). Proposed commercial development is the same for both Scenarios. Table 6.1 describes the unit count for Scenarios 1 and 2. I 2 I The Bluffs at Marystown EA W April 2006 I Table 6.1 Development Scenarios I Scenario 1 Scenario 2 I units square units square feet feet Single-family! 451 -- 426 -- I Single-family (school site) 0 -- 41 -- Multi-family (Townhomes) 232 -- 284 -- Multi-family (Condominiums) 60 -- 180 -- I Office Condo 50,711 28,211 Neighborhood Commercial -- -- School -- 52,500 -- -- I Total 743 103,211 93] 28,211 Refers to the portion of the site outside of the 25.4 acre school site. I Project development will convert approximately 323 acres of agricultural fields and three fannsteads to streets, homes, lawns, landscaping, parkland, trails, and stormwater ponding. I Land use within the site will include construction of up to 467 single family lots, and up to 464 multi-family units including townhomes and condominiums, in addition to a possible elementary school site. Potential adverse effects on the environment will be mitigated by I preservation and creation of between 50 and 67 acres of woodland, parkland, open space, and wetland (Exhibit 3 & 4). Open space and parkland on the site will provide natural areas to promote wildlife movement and connections to other open areas and parkland. I Each residential lot will be served by the City of Shakopee sanitary sewer and water supply systems. At least one new municipal water well and water tower will be required to service I the needs ofthe proposed development. The City of Shako pee is currently analyzing potential locations for a municipal well and a 500,000-gallon elevated storage tank. Due to the range in topography on site, a booster station is proposed to service the site prior to I construction of the water tower and well. The booster station will service topographic elevations greater than 915 feet. No on-site sewage systems are being proposed. Public streets will service the development, funneling traffic to U.S. Highway 169, Marystown I Road, and BOth Street West. Project construction will occur in phases, with the first phase expected to begin in 2006. I Full build out is anticipated in 2013; however, construction timing will ultimately depend upon market conditions. It is anticipated that construction will entail moving up to approximately 2.4 million cubic yards of soil. Construction dewatering may be conducted I on an as-needed and permitted basis to install sanitary sewer, municipal water, and storm sewer. Best Management Practices will be implemented during and after construction to protect water quality and reduce the potential for soil erosion and sedimentation. I I I 3 I The Bluffs at Marystown EA W April 2006 I c) Explain the project purpose; if the project will be carried out by a governmental unit, explain the need for the project and identify its beneficiaries. I Scott County is one of the fastest growing counties in the Twin Cites Metropolitan area. I According to US Census data, the City of Shakopee had the third largest percent increase in population, behind the cities of Savage and Elko, between the 1990 and 2000 census. The City of Shako pee Comprehen$ive Plan Update (2004) identifieg the need for additional I housing to meet the demands of this growing population. The purpose of the proposed Bluffs at Marystown development is to meet the growing demand for single and multi- family residential housing, and neighborhood commercial development. The project will be I constructed and implemented by D. R. Horton, Inc., and Ryan Development, Inc., private developers. I The Bluffs at Marystown development is not currently within the Shakopee city limits. The City of Shakopee and Jackson Township have initiated an Orderly Annexation Agreement to fi .n. govern the eventual transfer ofthe study area from the Township to the City. The City's I adopted Comprehensive Plan guides this area for low, medium, and high density residential and commercial uses. The MUSA boundary will need to be extended to include this area. When annexation is complete, the City's Comprehensive Plan will be submitted to the I Metropolitan Council for review and approval. . d) Are future stages of this development including development on any outlots planned or I likely to happen? 0 Yes 0 No. If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to the present project, timeline, and plans for environmental review. I e) Is the project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? 0 Yes 0 No. If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline, and any past environmental review. I 7. Proiect Ma2nitude Data Total Project Area: 322.98 acres I Number of Residential Units: Scenario 1 Unattached 451 Attached 292 Maximum Units per Building 60 Scenario 2 Unattached 467 Attached 464 Maximum Units per Building 60 I Commercial, Industrial, or Institutional Building Area (total sq. ft. Scenario 1: 103,211 gross floor space): Scenario 2: 28,211 I Indicate area of specific uses (in square feet): Scenario 1: 50,711 Retail/Office Scenario 2: 28,211 Other Industrial none I Scenario 1: 52,500 Warehouse none Institutional Scenario 2: none I Light Industrial none Agricultural none Manufacturing none Other Commercial (specify) None I Building Height 2 story sin~le family homes and up to 4 story condominiums I 4 I The Bluffs at Marystown EA W April 2006 I If over 2 stories, compare to heights of nearby buildings Most nearby buildings are 1-2 stories. I 8. Permits and Approvals Required List all known local, state, and federal permits, approvals, and Imancial assistance for the I project. Include modifications of any existing permits, governmental review of plans, and all direct and indirect forms of public rmancial assistance including bond guarantees, Tax I Increment Financing, and infrastructure. All required permits and approvals will be obtained. Any necessary permits or approvals that I are not listed in Table 8.1 were unintentionally omitted. Table 8.1 I Permits and Approvals Required Unit of Government Type of Application Status I City of Shakopee EA W Negative Declaration To be determined City of Shakopee Preliminary Plat Approval To be applied for City of Shakopee Orderly Annexation Agreement In process I City of Shakopee Comprehensive Plan Amendment To be applied for City of Shakopee Planned Unit Development / Conditional Use To be applied for City of Shakopee Rezoning Application To be applied for I City of Shakopee Final Plat Approval To be applied for City of Shakopee Grading Permit To be applied for I City of Shakopee Building Permit To be applied for Shakopee Public Utilities Municipal Water and Sewer Connection To be applied for Commission Permit I Scott County County Roadway Connection Permit To be applied for Jackson Township Wetland Delineation Confirmation In process Jackson Township Orderly Annexation Agreement In process I MN Department of Health Well Abandonment and Watermain Extension To be applied for MN Department of Natural Water Appropriation Permit To be applied for Resources (if needed) I MN Pollution Control NPDES/SDS General Permit To be applied for Agency MN Pollution Control 401 Water Quality Certification or Waiver To be applied for I Agency (if needed) MN Pollution Control Agency Sanitary Sewer Extension Approval To be applied for I Metropolitan Council Sanitary Sewer Connection Permit To be applied for I I I 5 I The Bluffs at Marystown EA W April 2006 I 9. Land Use Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent I lands. Discuss the compatibility of the project with adjacent and nearby land uses. Indicate whether any potential conflicts involve environmental matters. Identify any I potential environmental hazard due to past land uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage tanks, or proximity to nearby hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. I Historic aerial photography indicates that portions of the site have been under agricultural production since at least 1937. Recent aerial photography (2003) indicates the predominant land use on the site is agricultural, including the presence of three farmsteads. Land uses adjacent to I the study area include agricultural land, woodland, wetland, parkland, religious, and residential (Exhibit 5). The property is currently located within Jackson Township. The City of Shako pee and Jackson Township have initiated an Orderly Annexation Agreement to govern the eventual I transfer of the study area from the Township to the City. The City of Shako pee's City-Wide Land Use Plan (2004) shows that the site is guided for low- and medium-density residential and commercial land uses. Once the Annexation Agreement is finalized, a Rezoning Application I will be submitted to the City, which will make the project consistent with the City's future land use plans and zoning requirements. I The City of Shakopee's Natural Resource Corridor Map (December 2005) indicates that areas within the site boundary meet Corridor Priority Ranking of Good, Better, and Best based on existing natural resource data. These areas are associated with existing woodland areas on the I site, and a ravine located in the northern portion of the property. The project proposer has met with the City to confirm that priority areas have been identified and preserved in confonnance with existing regulations. Portions ofthe ravine meet the Scott Watershed Management I Organization (WMO) bluff designation (Exhibits 3 & 4). Development of the site will be in compliance with Scott WMO standards and setback requirements along these areas. I Phase I and Phase II Enviromnental Site Assessments (ESA) were conducted by American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET) in July and August 2004. The Phase I ESA performed on the Joe Theis and Don La Tour parcels (AET Project No. 03-02040JT, July 2004) indicated that I although the assessment revealed no evidence 'of recognized environmental conditions on the property, two. disposal areas were identified on the. site. The report recommended that items and equipment from the disposal areas be removed and properly disposed of at an approved landfill I or recycling facility. The Phase I conducted on the Norbert and Larry Theis Parcels (AET Project No. 03-02040NLT, I July 2004) identifies the following recognized environmental conditions: . Surface staining of the ground or dirt surfaces within the shed/shop building, I adjacent to the above ground gasoline tank, and adjacent to the exterior north side of the compressor 1'00111, attached to the barn at thefarmstead at 12226 Mmystown Road. I . The on-site septic system connected to the floor drain in the shop at the farmstead at 12226 Marystowl1 Road. I I 6 I The Bluffs at Marystown EA W April 2006 I Based on the results of the Phase II ESA (AET Project No. 03-02040.ii, August 2004), petroleum contamination was present in the shed and adjacent to the gasoline above ground storage tank (AST) west of the shop. The petroleum contamination includes diesel range I organics (DROs), gasoline range organics (GROs), and various benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene, and xylene (BETX) constituents. Samples associated with the septic system and adjacent to the I barn were analyzed and no constituents discernible by the analysis were detected at a level above the laboratory reporting limit. The report recommended that, in conjunction with development of the property, a response action plan (RAP) be developed for proper I management of the impacted soils. A search on the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA) Web site (What's In My I Neighborhood?) revealed no known potential sources of soil or groundwater contamination. Natural Gas Pipeline I Two 16-inch natural gas pipelines are located on the property and are currently operated by Xcel Energy (Exhibit 6). The Blue Lake Natural Gas Pipeline was constructed in February 2005 and runs east and south from the northwest property boundary. A second pipeline is oriented in a I north/south direction through the eastern portion of the site and serves the Rahr Malting facility. The actual pipeline depthwill be field-verified and confirmed during the early stages of project construction to avoid potential interference. I 10. Cover Types I Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development. I Exhibit 6 indicates the site currently consists of agricultural land, wetlands, woodland, lawn and landscaping, and impervious surface. Table 10.1 provides information onthe estimated acreage of land cover before and after project development. I I I I I I I I 7 I The Bluffs at Marystown EA W April 2006 I Table 10.1 Estimated Before and After Cover Types I Land Cover Before Scenario 1 Scenario 2 (acres) (acres) (acres) I Agricultural Fields! 277.25 0 0 Wetlands 0.03 0.03 0.03 Woodland 34.60 21.00 21. 00 I Impervious Surface (Pavement,' Buildings, Roadway) 8.70 125.90 129.30 Lawn and Landscaping 2.40 126.40 123.00 I Parkland/Open Space (private and public) 0 14.20 14.20 Stormwater Ponding 0 10.10 10.10 School Site (Impervious - school and parking) N/A! 4.50 7.00 I School Site (Lawn and Landscaping) N/A! 0 12.30 School'Site (park and ponding) N/A1 20.85 6.05 I Total 322.98 322.98 322.98 I The pre-development cover type for the school site is agricultural and is accounted for under "Agricultural Fields". I If Before and After totals are not equal, explain why. 11. Fish. Wildlife. and Ecolof!icallv Sensitive Resources I a) Identify fish and wildlife resources and habitats on or near the site and describe how they would be affected by the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize I or avoid impacts. . Fish and wildlife resources on and near the site are directly related to the composition, I quality, size, and connectivity of natural communities including agricultural lands, woodlands, and wetlands. The existing cover types based on aerial photography are shown on Exhibit 6. Wildlife resources that exist throughout the site likely include those species I that have adapted to open lands and cropland habitats such as pheasant, meadowlark, field sparrow, cottontail, red fox, and white-tailed deer. The open fields provide seasonal food and cover for these species. The wetland has the potential to provide habitat and cover for I many species commonly found in the upper Midwest such as woodcock, thrushes, raccoon, and amphibians; however, the wetland on site is small and likely does not provide I significant habitat compared to a larger wetland complex. Conversion of agricultural fields to residential and commercial development is expected to I result in a decline in the type and number of wildlife species that currently use the site. Populations of species that depend upon cropland, such a ring-necked pheasants, wild turkey, and meadowlarks, will likely be displaced. Migratory birds may experience I competition for a reduced number of nesting sites upon their return from wintering habitats. Some songbirds that readily adapt to suburban habitats may become more numerous. Non- migratory species with small home ranges such as small mammals will experience more I adverse effects. These species will compete with the same or other species to claim territories in neighboring habitats, or may succumb to mortality during project construction. I 8 I The Bluffs at Marystowu EA W April 2006 I Between 16 and 21 percent of the 323 acre project area will be open space and woodland, which is expected to help mitigate adverse effects on wildlife. The project is not expected to I result in a regionally significant decline in wildlife abundance or species diversity. Measures to reduce the effects on wildlife include preservation of existing woodland and I wetland, development of a trail that will be integrated with open space and parkland, and construction of stormwater ponding. In addition, open space and parkland will provide a natural CQnn~ction through the she to promote wadl~re movement and a.cMM t6 6th~l:' B~l:!n I space areas and parks. These measures are expected to provide additional habitat for wildlife and mitigate adverse effects on some wildlife. I b) Are any state-listed (endangered, threatened, or special concern) species, rare plant communities or other sensitive ecological resources such as native prairie habitat, colonial waterbird nesting colonies or regionally rare plant communities on or near the I site? 0 Yes It] No If yes, describe the resource and how it would be affected by the . project. Jndicate jf a site survey of the resources has been conducted and describe the results. If the DNR Natural Heritage and Nongame Research program has been I contacted give the correspondence reference number: ERDB 20060471. Describe measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. I The MinnesotaDepartment of Natural Resources conducted a database search in December 2005 to determine if rare plant or animal species or other significant natural features are known to occur within an approximate one-mile radius of the project site. The database I review did not identify any records of rare species or native plant cOlmnunities within the search area (Appendix A). I 12. Physical Impacts on Water Resources Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration-dredging, filling, stream I diversion, outfall structure, diking, and impoundment-of any surface water such as a lake, pond, wetland, stream or drainage ditch? 0 Yes 0No If yes, identify the water resource affected and give the DNR Protected Waters Inventory number(s) if the water I resources affected are on the PWI. Describe alternatives considered and proposed mitigation measures to minimize impacts. I Wetland boundaries were delineated using the level two routine determination method set forth in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, Waterways Experiment Station, 1987), in which a sampling transect was established in a representative I transition zone of an identified wetland. Westwood Professional Services conducted one transect, consisting of one sampling point in upland and one point in wetland. Six additional data points were sampled throughout the property to determine if other areas met wetland I criteria. Wetlands were classified according to Wetlands of the United States (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Circular 39, Shaw and Fredine, 1971) and Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of I the United States (FWS/OBS Publication 79/31, Cowardin et al. 1979). One intermittent riverine wetland (Wetland A) totaling 0.034 acre was delineated by Westwood I on May 11, 2005 (Exhibit 7). The wetland consists of a groundwater discharge zone at the bottom of a steep, wooded ravine on the north-central portion of the property. Steep slopes are dominated by boxelder and American elm trees. The bottom of the ravine is void of vegetation. I 9 I The Bluffs at Marystown EA W April 2006 I The groundwater discharges and flows approximately 30 meters downstream, then dissipates into the sandy soils. The remaining portion of this ravine was dry at the time of the delineation. The wetland boundary was flagged to include the groundwater discharge and to include I saturated soils. No other wetlands were delineated on The Bluffs at Marystown property. The wetland boundary was reviewed in the field and verbally confirmed by Jackson Township. Written confirmation of the boundary is still pending. I Th~ 0.0:34 acre wetland located in the north central porl~ort of tb~ ~l'l'I~~rty will not be affected I by the proposed project. 13. Water Use I Will the project involve installation or abandonment of any water wells, connection to or changes in any public water supply or appropriation of any ground or surface water I (including dewatering)? Ii:1 Yes 0 No. 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 I numbers and DNR appropriation permit numbers, if known. Identify any existing and new wells on the site map. If there are no wells known on the site, explain methodology used to determine. I According to the Minnesota Geological Survey's (MGS) 2005 County Well Index (CWI), there are seven wells located near the study area (unique well numbers 206812,211853, and 206806) I (Exhibit 8). The Phase I ESA completed for the study area in July 2004 indicates there are no additional wells located on the property. All existing wells are for domestic use. During construction, all wells will be identified, abandoned, and reported to the Minnesota Department I of Health according to state law prior to development of the site. Water services within the City of Shako pee are municipally-owned, but independently operated I by the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. Shakopee Public Utilities Commission currently operates 12 wells, which are permitted under DNR Water Appropriations Permit No. 806205. The combined permitted pumping capacity of all 12 wells is 25,908 million gallons per year. I Reported pumping for the municipal wells, in 2004, totaled 1,588 million gallons (average 4,350,684 gallons per day). The estimated water demand for the development is between 244,435 (Scenario 1) and 283,617 (Scenario 2) gallons per day, less than 3 percent of the total I allowable pumping. Water demand estimates are based on the assumption that consumption is approximately 110 percent of wastewater generation (see Item 18). I At least one new municipal water well and water tower will be required to service the needs of the proposed development. The City of Shakopee is currently analyzing potential locations for a municipal well and a 500,000-gallon elevated storage tank. Due to the range in topography on I site, a booster station is proposed to service the site prior to construction of the water tower and well. The booster station will service topographic elevations greater than 915 feet. The new I well and water tower will require an additional DNR Water Appropriation Permit or an amendment to the City's existing permit. Specific locations for the storage tank and well have not been finalized, but will be addressed prior to water services being required by The Bluffs at I Marystown development. I 10 I The Bluffs at Marystown EA W April 2006 I Regardless of the location of new water supply facilities, thewell(s) needed to service the project area will be installed according to the following procedures to ensure a safe and clean public water supply: I a. Complete a Feasibility Study to determine the specific timing and need for the elevated I storage tank, and welles). b. Complete the delineation ofa Wellhead Protection Area. c. Model the aquifer under the Wellhead Protection Plan to verify the zone of influence of I pumping on the drawdown of the aquifer. d. Map the area contributing to the public water supply. I e. Investigate the well yield required, the thickness of the aquifer, the integrity of the confining layer, and any hydrologic interconnection between aquifers when evaluating potential new well locations. I f. Use protective measures during well construction, such as extending the well casing to the bottom of the confining layer to maintain the natural geologic protection of overlying materials. I g. Properly case and grout off well boring(s) to prevent contamination of potentially deeper aquifers. I h. Grout the well from the bottom of the casing or the top of the filter pack to the ground surface, and grout all annular spaces adjacent to the confining layerto maintain its integrity. I 1. Complete well testing to determine the rate at which water can be reliably produced, provide a measure ofthe productive capacity of the future well, and evaluate the associated drawdown. I J. Determine the transmissivity of the aquifer for a 24-hour or 72-hour period. k. Estimate the direction and magnitude of the local groundwater flow field. I 1. Conduct chemical sampling and testing to verify that the new well is free from contamination. I The above procedures will provide for a safe, clean, and adequate municipal water supply. The new welles) will be required to meet Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) standards and I comply with the MDH Wellhead Protection (WHP) rules. The fundamental goal ofWHP rules is to prevent contaminants from entering public wells. WHP rules set requirements for time-of- travel and aquifer transmissivity to ensure safe water supplies. I Dewatering Dewatering will become necessary if surficial groundwater is encountered during utility I installation. It is unlikely, however, that dewatering will be necessary because the depth to groundwater exceeds the planned depth of sanitary sewer, municipal water, and stonn sewer in most areas within the study area. Groundwater depth within the vicinity of the site ranges from I 153 feet to 232 feet based on records from nearby wells (County Well Index, 2005) (Appendix C). . The quantity and duration of potential construction dewatering is not known at this time, but it is expected that any necessary dewatering for construction will be temporary. If I groundwater is encountered during utility installation, it will be discharged to temporary I 11 I The Bluffs at Marystown EA W April 2006 I sediment basins located within the project site, which is consistent with City of Shakopee and Scott WMO regulations. I If construction dewatering and pumping from the proposed development exceeds the 10,000- gallon per day or 1,000,000 gallons per year thresholds, a DNR Water Appropriation Permit will be obtained. If it becomes apparent that construction dewatering will not exceed 50 million I gallons in total and duration of one year from the start of pumping, the contractor or project proposer will apply to the DNR Division of Waters for coverage under the amended DNR I General Permit 97-0005 for temporary water appropriations. It is not anticipated that construction dewatering or pumping from the proposed development will be extensive or continue long enough to impact domestic or municipal wells. I 14. Water-Related Land Use Mana2ement District I Does any part of the project involve a shoreland zoning district, a delineated tOO-year flOOD plain, ora state or federally designated wild or scenic river land use district? 0 Yes ltiNo If yes, identify the district and discuss project compatibility with district land use I restrictions. The project site does not include a shoreland zoning district, a delineated 100-year floodplain, or I a state or federally designated wild or scenic river district. 15. Water Surface Use I Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body? OYesltiNo If yes, indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss any I potential overcrowding or conflicts with other uses. 16. Erosion and Sedimentation I Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to be moved: I Acres: Scenario 1: Approximately 286 acres of the 322.98 acre site will be graded Scenario 2: Approximately 304 acres of the 322.98 acre site will be graded I Cubic Yards: On-site grading Scenario 1: 2.2 million cubic yards On-site grading Scenario 2: 2.4 million cubic yards (Note: the anticipated cubic yards of grading is a preliminary estimate that is subject to change.) I 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 I project construction. I The Highly Erodible Land List for Scott County, Minnesota (USDA NRCS, 1993) indicates that fifteen soils on the site are classified as either highly erodible land (HEL) or potentially highly erodible land (PHEL) (Exhibit 9). Table 16.1 includes information on erodible soil I classifications and acreages of each soil type. I 12 I The Bluffs at Marystowu EA W April 2006 I Table 16.1 Highly Erodible Soil Classification I Map Classification Erodibility Acreage Symbol I DbC2 Dakota sandy loam, 6-12% slopes, moderately PHEL 4.0 eroded Estherville loam and sandy loam, 6-12% slopes, EaC2 moderately eroded PHEL 5.0 I EbC2 Estherville gravelly sandy loam, 6-12% slopes, PHEL 0.7 moderately eroded I HaC Hayden loam, 6-12% slopes PHEL 9.7 HaC2 Hayden loam, 6-12% slopes, moderately eroded PHEL 25.5 HaD Hayden loam, 12-18% slopes HEL 12.6 I HaD2 Hayden loam, 12-18% slopes, moderately eroded HEL 5.7 HaE2 HaydenJoam, 18-25% slopes EEL 4.6 HaF2 Hayden loam, 25-30% slopes HEL 11.3 I HbD3 Hayden sandy clay loam, 12-18% slopes, HEL 8.2 severely eroded LaC Lakeville loam, 6-12% slopes PHEL 0.4 I LbD Estherville-Burnsville complex, 12-50% slopes HEL 25.0 LcC Lester loam, 6-12% slopes PHEL 8.3 LcC2 Lester loam, 6-12% slopes, moderately eroded PHEL 4.3 I ThE Terrilloam, 18-25% slopes HEL 2.6 Total 127.9 I According to the Metropolitan Council, Digital Soil Survey for Scott County (1955), steep slopes (i.e., slopes steeper than 12 percent) are associated with seven of the soils listed in Table I 16.1. Two-foot contour mapping indicates that elevations on the site range from 796 feet in the northwestern portion of the site to 1,004 feet in the southwestern portion ofthe site. Some slopes associated with the ravine in the northern portion of the site meet the definition of a bluff. I Any development proposed along these areas will meet Scott WMO standards and setbacks. Because the project will involve disturbance of more than one acre of land, application for I coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) General Permit will be submitted to the MPCA prior to initiating earthwork on the site. This permit is required for discharge of stormwater during construction activity and I requires that Best Management Practices (BMPs) be used to control erosion and that all erosion controls be inspected after each rainfall exceeding 0.5 inches in 24 hours. Erosion control practices that will be implemented on the site include: I 1. Construction of temporary sediment basins in the locations proposed for stormwater ponding, and development of these basins for permanent use following construction. I 2. Silt fence and other erosion control features installed prior to initiation of earthwork and maintained until viable turf or ground cover is established on exposed areas. I 3. Periodic street cleaning and installation of a rock construction entrance to reduce tracking of dirt onto public streets. I 13 I The Bluffs at Marystown EA W April 2006 I 4. Stabilization of exposed soils, phased with grading, within 7 days for slopes steeper than 3:1, 14 daysfor slopes less than 3:1 but greater that 10:1, and 21 days for slopes flatter than 10: 1. I 5. Energy dissipation, such as riprap, installed at storm sewer outfalls. 6. Use of cover crops, native seed mixes, sod, and landscaping to stabilize exposed surface I soils after final grading. Erosion control plans must be reviewed and accepted by the City of Shakopee priot' t6 ~rllject I construction. Because the above BMPs will be implemented during and after construction, potential adverse effects from construction-related sediment and erosion on water quality will be minimized. I 17. Water Quality: Surface Water Runoff I a) Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe perrhanentcontrols to manage or treat runoff. Describe any stormwater pollution prevention plans. I Water Quantity The project site is approximately 323 acres. The annual runoff volume of water leaving the I site for existing and proposed conditions was analyzed using the guidance from the Minnesota Stormwater Manual (November 2005). The results of this analysis are outlined below. I Existinf! Conditions Existing site conditions are agricultural uses with some wooded areas and a farmstead. I The site generally drains east and north toward TH169. Storm water runoff from the site enters the Shakopee Upper Valley Drainageway and eventually reaches the Minnesota River. Based on the modeling data, the site generates an annual runoff volume of I approximately 77 acre-feet. This information is summarized in Table 17.1. Proposed Conditions I Two scenarios were evaluated with this EA W as discussed in Item 6. The development will consist of a mix of single family homes, townhomes, condominiums, and neighborhood commercial uses. A school may also be constructed on the site. I The drainage patterns are anticipated to remain the same as the existing conditions with storm water being directed to the east and north, eventually discharging to the Minnesota I River. Stormwater ponding and infiltration to meet City and Scott County WMO standards will be required. Prior to providing infiltration, Scenarios 1 and 2 are I anticipated to generate an average runoff volume of87 acre-feet and 84 acre-feet, respectively. This represents an increase in runoff volume, which is anticipated with development. However, infiltration shall be required to meet Scott WMO rules which I states that for projects that increase runoff volumes for the 2-year critical storm event, at least 1/2 inch of runoff from all new impervious surfaces will be infiltrated. Infiltration areas are proposed in the concept plan and will be further reviewed and addressed I through the permitting process. I 14 I The Bluffs at Marystown EA W April 2006 I The storm water discharge rates are not anticipated to increase as ponding is required to limit the proposed discharge rates to the pre-settlement discharge rates per the Scott WMO rules. Ponding will need to be provided on-site to meet these requirements. I Water Quality I A water quality analysis has been completed for existing and proposed conditions within the project area using the guidance from the Minnesota Stormwater Manual (November 2005). This analysis included annual phosphorus loading and total suspended solids loading under I existing and proposed site conditions. The multiple ponding areas proposed within the study area will be designed to provide treatment to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) recommendations prior to discharge from the site. I Existing Conditions The existing conditions analysis was used to predict pollutant discharges from the I project area. The land cover used to predict water quality conditions for the existing __ conditions assumed that a majority of the drainage area_was in-agricultural production with small segments of woodland, grass, and farmstead land uses. I Under existing conditions, the model predicted that 67 pounds of phosphorus and 17,380 lbs of total suspended solids are generated by the site annually. There is currently no I treatment or Best Management Practices (BMP) for runoff before discharging from the site. I Proposed Conditions This analysis assumed a level of overall imperviousness for the proposed land defined for developed residential and commercial land uses. Analysis of these proposed I conditions for both scenarios is shown on Table 17.1. Storm water is required to be treated to NURP recommendations. The data outlined below shows the results of the analysis with and without storm water treatment. I Table 17.1: Water Quantity and Quality Analysis Annual Runoff Annual Annual Annual Total Annual Total I Volume (acre- Phosphorus Phosphorus Suspended Suspended feet) Loading Loading After Solids Before Solids After Before Treatment Treatment Treatment I Treatment (Ibs/year) (Ibs/year) (lbs/year) (Ibs/vear) Existing 77 67 NA 17,380 NA I Conditions Scenario 1 87* 65 26-33 10,548 1,055 - 2,637 Scenario 2 84* 65 26-33 10,869 1,087 - I 2,717 * Does not take into account the required infiltration. I I I 15 I The Bluffs at Marystown EA W April 2006 I b) Identify routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site; include major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters. Estimate impact I runoff on the quality of receiving waters. According the DNR Division of Waters digital watershed mapping, the project site is I located within the Minnesota River (Shakopee) major watershed (Exhibit 2). Surface water drains overland to east and north to the Shakopee Upper Valley Drainageway. Stonnwater I is eventually discharged to the Minnesota River and/or infiltrates on-site. Post-construction drainage will follow similar pathways, with minor differences in drainage routes. Post- development stormwater runoff will either travel overland, or through storm sewers prior to I discharging to receiving waters. Based on the water quality analysis that was completed and the storm water treatment that is I required of development in this area, there is no anticipated adverse impact to downstream water bodies, ....-. ..~.. ~ --- I 18. Water Quality: Wastewaters a) Describe sources, composition and quantities of all sanitary, municipal and industrial I wastewater produced or treated at the site. Only normal domestic wastewater production is expected. The types of wastewater I produced will be typical of new residential and commercial developments. No on-site municipal or industrial wastewater treatment is anticipated. I Both the MPCA and the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) have compiled and documented extensive data that relates wastewater flow generation to population and land use. Sanitary wastewater production for the proposed development was I estimated based on the methods outlined in the Service Availability Charge (SAC) Procedure Manual (MCES, 2006). The MCES has established 274 gallons per day (gpd) to be the average daily wastewater production from a typical residential connection. One SAC I unit is defined as 274 gallons of wastewater flow volume. Scenario 1 I Single family, townhomes, and condominiums are assigned one SAC unit per dwelling. The volume of wastewater production for the school was assigned one SAC unit per 18 students, which is based on 30 sq. ft. per student or 15 gallons per student. Commercial and office I condominium land uses were assigned SAC units based on building area. The estimated maximum potential daily wastewater production for the entire development under Scenario 1 is 222,214 gpd. The following table provides information on wastewater production based I on land use. I I I 16 I The Bluffs at Marystown EA W April 2006 I Table 18.1 Wastewater' Production Predicted under Scenario 1 I Wastewater Proposed Use SAC Rate Units SAC Units (2;allons/day) I Single family units llUnit 451 451 123,574 Multi family units (townhomes) l/Unit 232 232 63,568 I Multi family units 1/Unit 60 60 16,440 (condominiums) I Elementary school 1:18 850 48 13,152 Students (students) Office/condominium 1:2,400 s.f. 22,500 10 2,740 I Neighborhood Commercial 1:3,000 s.f. * 28,211 10 2,740 Total -811 222,214 *Use assumes no water intensive users. I Scenario 2 As described above, single and multi family units are assigned one SAC unit per dwelling I unit, and the commercial land use is assigned SAC units based on the area of the building. The estimated maximum potential daily wastewater production for the entire development under Scenario 2 is 257,834 gpd. The following table provides information on wastewater I production based on land use. Table 18.2 I Wastewater Production Predicted under Scenario 2 Proposed Use SAC Rate Units SAC Units Wastewater I (2:allons/day) Single family units 11Unit 467 467 127,958 Multi family units llUnit 284 284 77,816 I (townhomes) Multi family units (condominiums) 1IUnit 180 180 49,320 I Neighborhood Commercial 1 :3,000 s.f. 28,211 10 2,740 Total 921 257,834 I I I I I 17 I The Bluffs at Marystown EA W April 2006 I b) Describe waste treatment methods or pollution prevention efforts and give estimates of composition after tnatment. Identify receiving waters, including major downstream water bodies, and estimate the discharge impact on the quality of receiving waters. If I the project involves on-site sewage systems, discuss the suitability of site conditions for such systems. I The project will not include on-site sewage systems. As described below, wastewaters will be discharged to the City of Shakopee wastewater collection system, and appropriately treated in the Blue Lake Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) where it is treated and I discharged. c) If wastes will be discharged into a publicly owned treatment facility, identify the I facility, describe any pretreatment provisions and discuss the facility's ability to handle the volume and composition of wastes, identifying any improvements necessary. I _~,.-, . The.. City of Shakopee system outlets through the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) Chaska interceptor force main and ultimately reaches the Blue Lake I WWTP in Savage, Minnesota. Per information from the Metropolitan Council's web site, the Blue Lake WWTPhas a design capacity to treat 38 million gallons of wastewater per day. The daily flow in 2004 was 28 million gallons of wastewater per day. No wastewater I facility or treatment capacity issues are anticipated. d) If the project requires disposal of liquid animal manure, describe disposal technique I and location and discuss capacity to handle the volume and composition of manure. Identify any improvements necessary. Describe any required setbacks for land disposal systems. I The project will not include facilities that generate liquid animal manure requiring disposal. I 19. Geolo!!ic Hazards and Soil Conditions a) Approximate depth (in feet) to groundwater: -L minimum 202 average I Groundwater elevations within the vicinity of the site range from 690 feet to 736 feet above sea level based on records from nearby wells (County Well Index, 2005). Two-foot I topographic mapping indicates that elevations on the site range from 796 to 1,004 feet. Extreme changes in topography on the site contribute to significant ranges in depth to groundwater on the site. Based on groundwater elevations from wells and existing I topography, the maximum depth to groundwater is estimated at about 314 feet. Because surficial groundwater is sometimes encountered in the wetland, the minimum depth to groundwater is estimated at 0 feet. I Approximate depth (in feet) to bedrock: ..11-minimum.l.!.L average I Depth to bedrock was estimated from records of nearby wells (County Well Index, 2005). The minimum distance to bedrock is 77 feet and the maximum is 150 feet. I I 18 I The Bluffs at Marystown EA W April 2006 I b) 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. I Describe measures to avoid or minimize environmental problems due to any of these hazards. I No known geologic hazards in the form of sinkholes, faults, shallow limestone formations, and karst topography are present on the project site. Measures to avoid or minimize I enviromnental problems due to these hazards are not proposed. c) Describe the soils on site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications, if known. Discuss soil I granularity and potential for groundwater contamination from wastes or chemicals spread or spilled onto the soils. Discuss any mitigation measures to prevent such contamination. I The Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) digital database for Scott County (USDA NRCS, 2004) indicates that the following soils occur within the project area (Exhibit 10). I Table 19.1 Soils Classification I Map Classification Hydric 1 Drainage 2 Symbol I DbB Dakota sandy loam, 2-6% slopes No somewhat excessively . DbB2 Dakota sandy loam, 2-6% slopes, moderately No somewhat I eroded excessively DbC2 Dakota sandy loam, 6-12% slopes, moderately No somewhat eroded excessively I EaB Estherville loam and sandy loam, 2-6% slopes No somewhat excessively EaB2 Estherville loam and sandy loam, 2-6% slopes, No somewhat I moderately eroded excessively Estherville loam and sandy loam, 6-12% slopes, somewhat EaC2 moderately eroded No excessively I EbC2 EsthervilIe Gravelly Sandy Loam, 6-12% slopes, No excessively Moderately eroded I HaB Hayden loam, 0-6% slopes No well HaB2 Hayden loam, 2-6% slopes, moderately eroded No well HaC Hayden loam, 6-12% slopes No well I HaC2 Hayden loam, 6-12% slopes, moderately eroded No well HaD Hayden loam, 12-18%slopes No well HaD2 Hayden loam, 12-18% slopes, moderately No well I eroded HaE2 Hayden loam, 18-25% slopes No well HaF2 Hayden loam, 25-30% slopes No well I HbD3 Hayden sandy clay loam, 12-18% slopes, No well severely eroded I 19 I The Bluffs at Marystown EA W April 2006 I Map Classification Hydric 1 Drainage 2 Symbol LaC Lakeville loam, 6-12% slopes No somewhat I excessively LbD Estherville-Burnsville complex, 12-50% slopes No somewhat excessively I LcB Lester loam, 2-6% slopes No well LcB2 Lester loam, 2-6% slopes, moderately eroded No well LcC Lester loam, 6-12% slopes No well I LcC2 Lester loam, 6-12% slopes, moderately eroded No well PaB Palms muck, sloping 2-12% slopes Yes very poorly I TbB Terrilloam, 2-6% slopes No moderately well ThE Terrilloam, 18-25% slopes No moderately I . well WaA Waukegan silt loam, , 0-2% slopes No well WaB Waukegan silt loam, , 2-6% slopes No well I Wb Webster-Glencoe silty loams Yes poorly I Based on the List of Hydric Soils of Minnesota (USDA NRCS, 1995). 2 Based on the SSURGO database for Scott County, Minnesota (USDA NRCS, SSURGO 2004). I According to the Soil Survey of Scott County, Minnesota (USDA NRCS, 1955), the site is located on the Lester-Webster-Glencoe association, which consists of rolling to nearly level I soils, darkly colored, and medium texture. Soils in this association were derived from calcareous, moderately fine textured glacial material. I Potential for Groundwater Contamination The susceptibility of groundwater to pollution relates to depth to the water table and the approximate time it takes water to infiltrate the land surface and percolate down to the I underlying aquifer. The pollution sensitivity map of the Geologic Atlas of Scott County, Minnesota (1989) indicates that the sensitivity of groundwater to pollution is high. The High sensitivity category indicates that the estimated vertical travel time for water-borne I surface contaminants to reach groundwater 50 feet below the land surface is weeks to years. However, a High sensitivity rating does not suggest that water quality has been or will be degraded. If there are no contaminant sources, for example, pollution will not occur. I Preservation of large areas of parkland/open space including natural areas and adequate storm water treatment is expected to minimize the potential for groundwater contamination at the The Bluffs at Marystown development. I Groundwater Protection and Mitigation Measures I The Bluffs at Marystown development will be consistent with the goals, policies, and strategies described in the Scott County Groundwater Protection Plan. The goal ofthe plan is to "assure County residents access to potable water by protecting existing and future I ground water resources." The plan describes goals related to land use to protect groundwater in the county. I The Bluffs at Marystown project will offer a higher level of groundwater protection than exists under current conditions. Chemical applications can be high in agriculturally I 20 I The Bluffs at Marystown EA W April 2006 I dominated landscapes. The conversion of the site to urban uses will ensure greater protection of groundwater by: (1) covering exposed soils with turf and landscape plants to reduce infiltration of nutrients and pesticides; (2) reducing hazardous materials on the I property to include only household quantities; (3) protecting the jurisdictional wetland on- site, (4) abandoning and sealing existing wells; (5) providing between 50 and 67 acres of parkland and open space including natural corridors; and (6) providing stormwater treatment I and infiltration methods. I 20. Solid Wastes. Hazardous Wastes. and Storage Tanks a) Describe types, amounts and compositions of solid or hazardous wastes, including solid I 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 I for recycling. If hazardous waste is generated, indicate if there is a hazardous waste minimization plan and routine hazardous waste reduction assessments. -...- I Construction activities for this residential development will generate waste on-site. However, the amount of waste will be typical of a construction project. The contractor will dispose of wastes generated at the site in an approved method. The contractor will try and I recycle any construction waste that can be recycled. After construction, solid waste generation will be typical of residential and commercial I developments. It is not anticipated that the proposed residential development will generate significant amounts of wastes that would be considered "hazardous." The majority ofthe solid waste generated will include paper, organics (food wastes and wood), yard waste, and I inert solids. The remaining wastes will include plastics, metals, and glass. The Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance (MOEA) reported an estimate of I residential solid waste generation of 0.33 tons per person per year in 1998 for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The residential solid waste generation rates were based on the conservative figures that the average single-family dwelling consists of2.68 persons. The I household occupant number is then multiplied by 0.33 tons per person per year, based on the MOEA figure for the Twin Cities. Using these figures, the proposed development is expected to generate between 657 (Scenario 1) and 822 (Scenario 2) tons of residential I municipal solid waste per year. According to MOEA, Scott County generated 59,330 tons ofmuuicipal solid waste in 2003. I Approximately 89 percent of this waste was delivered to landfills in other counties or delivered to out-of-state landfills. The remaining 11 percent was processed at the Elk River RDF Processing Facility and Hennepin Energy Resource Company. I Dick's Sanitation provides residential garbage, bulk item pickup, yard waste and recycling I services for the City of Shakopee. The city requests that recyclable materials be sorted into two categories: (1) glass, aluminum, and plastic and (2) cardboard, newspaper, mixed mail, and magazines. Residents are billed quarterly for these services. I Scott County has consistently led the region in the percentage of mixed municipal waste being recycled. According to MOEA statistics for 2003, approximately 69,583 tons of I 21 I The Bluffs at Marystown EA W April 2006 I recyclable materials were collected from Scott County residents and organizations in 2003. Participation in the recycling program by future residents of the study area is expected to reduce costs for solid waste trucking and disposal. I 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 I toxic or hazardous materials will lead to a regulated waste, discharge or emission, discuss any alternatives considered to minimize or eliminate the waste, discharge or emission. I As indicated in Item 9, petroleum contamination was present in the shed and adjacent to the I gasoline above ground storage tank (AST) west of the shop. The petroleum contamination includes diesel range organics (DROs), gasoline rang organics (GROs), and various benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene, and xylene (BETX) constituents. Field and laboratory I analyses associated with the septic system and the barn revealed that none of the constituents that were_discernible by the analysis was detected at a level above the laboratory reporting limit. The report recommended that in conjunction with development I of the property, a response action plan (RAP) be developed to properly manage the impacted soils. I Future commercial development may include a retail component or may be used as an automobile convenience station. If the commercial development includes an automobile convenience station with underground storage tanks, annual licensing by the MPCA will be I required. The licensing and inspection requirements of the MPCA are expected to mitigate or minimize the potential impacts from these normal business activities. Consideration will be given to.development of spill and leak detection and prevention technologies, as well as I double-walled tank construction, to reduce the potential for groundwater contamination from storage tanks that may be developed. Any underground storage tanks will be installed according to MPCA regulations. I 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 I response containment plans. As indicated in Item 9, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was conducted by AET, I and indicated that an AST and an on-site septic system were found in association with the Theis property at 12226 Marystown Road. The Phase II Environmental Site Assessment of the Larry Theis Farmstead (August 2004) presents the results of soil borings, field screening, I and laboratory analysis performed for the area. No contamination was encountered in association with either tank. The project proposer will be required to remove and dispose of the fuel storage tank in compliance with applicable regulations prior to development. I It is currently unknown whether above or below ground tanks to store petroleum or other materials will be located on the project site. If above or below ground tanks are proposed on I the site, they will be installed according to MPCA regulations and consideration will be given to spill and leak detection and prevention technologies, as well as double-walled tank construction. I I 22 I The Bluffs at Marystown EA W April 2006 I 21. Traffic Parking spaces added: Unknown I Existing spaces (if project involves expansion): 0 Estimated total average daily traffic generated: 9,933 I Estimated maximum peak hour traffic (if known) and time of occurrence: 583; PM I Provide an estimate of the impact on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic improvements necessary. If the project is within the Twin Cities metropolitan area, discuss its impact on the regional transportation system. I The full traffic study is contained in Appendix D. 22. Vehicle-Related Air Emissions I - Estimate the effect of the project's traffic generation on air quality, including carbon I monoxide levels. Discuss the effect of traffic improvements or other mitigation measures on air quality impacts. Note: If the project involves 500 or more parking spaces, consult EA W Guidelines about whether a detailed air quality analysis is needed. I The increased traffic will generate a corresponding increase in carbon monoxide levels and other vehicle-related air emissions. Baseline air quality monitoring or predictive air quality I modeling has not been scheduled at this time, and no measures to mitigate air quality impacts have been considered. The project is expected to have a negligible impact on air quality. I 23. Stationary Source Air Emissions Describe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of any emissions from stationary I sources of air emissions such as boilers, exhaust stacks or fugitive dust sources. Include any hazardous air pollutants (consult EA W Guidelines for a listing) and any greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide) and ozone-depleting chemicals I (chloro-fluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons or sulfur hexafluoride). Also describe any proposed pollution prevention techniques and proposed air pollution control devices. Describe the impacts on air quality. I No stationary source air emissions are anticipated as a result of this project because development of heavy industrial facilities is not proposed on this site. I 24. Odors. Noise. and Dust I Will the project generate odors, noise or dust during construction or during operation? o Yes 0 No If yes, describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities orintensity and any proposed measures to mitigate adverse impacts. Also identify locations of nearby I sensitive receptors and estimate impacts on them. Discuss potential impacts on human health or quality of life. (Note: fugitive dust generated by operations may be discussed at item 23 instead of here.) I I 23 I The Bluffs at Marystown EA W April 2006 I Project development will not generate odors, noise or dust in excess of levels emitted during construction of typical suburban developments. Any odors, noise, or dust produced during construction will meet the requirements of the MPCA and applicable local regulations. I Odors The project will not generate significant odors during construction or operation. The emission I of odor by any use shall be in compliance with applicable county or municipal regulations. Noise I It is anticipated that noise levels will increase locally during project construction. The noise levels on and adjacent to the site will vary considerably depending on the pieces of equipment I being operated simultaneously, the percent of time in operation, and the distance from the equipment to the receptors. It is anticipated that most construction activities will be confined to the hours between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm and that a number of machines could potentially be I operating simultaneously. Dust I The construction process is expected to generate some dust. It is not anticipated that fugitive dust will be generated in objectionable quantities. Consideration will be given to suppression of airborne dust by application of water if significant fugitive dust generation occurs during site I grading. 25. Nearby Resources I Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site? If yes, describe the resource and identify any project-related impacts on the resource. I Describe any measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. Archaeological, historical or architectural resources? 0 Y es ~ No I The Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) conducted a search of the Minnesota Archaeological Inventory and Historic Structure Inventory for the project area (Appendix B). I Based on their review, no archaeological.sites were identified in a search of the Minnesota Archaeological Inventory for the search area requested. One Historic Structure, Jackson Town Hall, was identified within the search area; however, the building no longer exists. I Prime or unique farmlands or land within an agricultural preserve? ~ Yes 0 No I According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), seven of the 26 soil types found on the site are classified as prime farmland. One additional soil type found on-site is classified as prime farmland when drained. Eight soil types found on-site are considered I farmland of statewide importance. These soils comprised approximately 242 acres or 75 percent of the site (Table 25.1). I I I 24 I The Bluffs at Marystown EA W April 2006 I Table 25.1 Prime Farmland and other Important Farmlands I Map Soil Classification Farmland Acreage Symbol Classification DbB Dakota sandy loam, 2-6% slopes Statewide Importance 2.3 I DbB2 Dakota sandy loam, 2-6% slopes, Statewide Importance 2.2 moderately eroded EaB Estherville loam and sandy loam, 2-6% Statewide Importance 29.2 I slopes Estherville loam and sandy loam, 2-6% EaB2 slopes, moderately eroded Statewide Importance 3.1 I HaB Hayden loam, 0-6% slopes Prime 44.5 HaB2 Hayden loam, 2-6% slopes, moderately Prime 25 I eroded HaC Hayden loa.rn, 6-12% slopes Statewide Importance 9.7 . HaC2 Hayden loam, 6-12% slopes, moderately Statewide Importance 25.5 I eroded LcB Lester loam, 2-6% slopes Prime 95.1 LcB2 Lester loam, 2-6% slopes, moderately Prime 1.8 I eroded LcC Lester loam, 6-12% slopes Statewide Importance 8.3 LcC2 Lester loam, 6-12% slopes, moderately Statewide Importance 4.3 I eroded TbB Terrilloam, 2-6% slopes Prime 4.8 WaA Waukegan silt loam" 0-2% slopes Prime 2.4 I WaB Waukegan silt loam" 2-6% slopes Prime 4.4 Wb Webster-Glencoe silty loams Prime (if drained) 1.7 Total 241.8 I J Based on the USDAlNRCS Prime Farmland and other Important Farmlandsfor Scott County, Minnesota (2005). Prime farmlands consist of land that has the best combination of physical and chemical I characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, and oilseed crops. According to the NRCS, prime fannlands have "an adequate and dependable water supply from precipitation, a favorable I temperature and growing season, acceptable acidity or alkalinity, acceptable salt and sodium content and few or no rocks." This does not mean all soils listed as prime farmland produce exceptionally high crop yields. I Farmland of statewide importance consists of soils that are important to the agricultural resource base but they do not meet the requirements for prime farmland. These soils are more erodible, I droughty, seasonally wet, and difficult to cultivate than prime farm land. They are also usually less productive than prime farmland soils. I No farmland preservation measures have been considered. Because the site is guided for development, no clear alternatives to conversion of prime fannland are readily identifiable. I I 25 I The Bluffs at Marystown EA W April 2006 I Designated parks, recreation areas or trails? 0 Yes 0 No There are currently no designated parks, recreation areas, or trails within the project boundaries. I As indicated in Item 9, the City of Shakopee's Natural Resource Corridor Map (December 2005) identifies recommended preservation areas within the site boundary associated with the ravine and existing woodland areas. The City's Comprehensive Plan identified two park search I areas within the project area. The project proposer has indicated they will work with the City to preserve these natural areas throughout the development and create park areas in conformance with City requirements. I Scenic views and vistas? 0 Yes 0' No I No scenic views or vistas exist within the immediate vicinity of the site. I Other unique resources? 0 Yes ~ No --. .. 26. Visual Impacts I Will the project create adverse visual impacts during construction or operation? Such as glare from intense lights, lights visible in wilderness areas and large visible plumes from I cooling towers or exhaust stacks? 0 Y es ~ No. If yes, explain. 27. Compatibility with Plans and Land Use Re2ulations I Is the project subject to an adopted local comprehensive plan, land use plan or regulation, or other applicable land use, water, or resource management plan of a local, regional, state I or federal agency? 0' Yes 0 No. If yes, describe the plan, discuss its compatibility with the project and' explain how any conflicts will be resolved. If no, explain. I The study area is not currently regulated under the zoning authority of the City of Shakopee. However, the City has completed land use planning as part ofthe City's Comprehensive Plan for this area. The City of Shakopee and Jackson Township have an Orderly Annexation I Agreement. When annexation is complete, the study area will be subject to the City of Shakopee's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The proposed development evaluated in this EA W is consistent with the City of Shako pee Plan Update (2004) and will be compatible I with future adjacent land uses. The City of Shako pee's City-Wide Land Use Plan (2004) shows that the site is guided for low- and medium- density residential and commercial land uses. I I I I I 26 I The Bluffs at Marystown EA W April 2006 I 28. Impact on Infrastructure and Public Services Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure or public services .be required I to serve the project? 0 Yes 0 No. If yes, describe the new or additional infrastructure or services needed. (Note: 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.) I Public and private infrastructure improvements will need to be constructed in association with this development. These include but are not limited to: roadways, trails, thestormwater system, I electrical lines, telephone lines, and continued improvements and upgrades to the sanitary sewer and water supply systems including future development of a water tower and municipal well. Environmental impacts related to the improvements that are directly associated with the project I are discussed throughout this document. -I 29. Cumulative Impacts Minnesota Rule part 4410.1700, subpart 7, item B requires that the RGU consider the I "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 project that may interact with the project described in this EAW in I such a way as to cause cumulative impacts. Describe the nature of the cumulative impacts and summarize any other available information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental effects due to cumulative impacts (or discuss each I cumulative impact under the appropriate item(s) elsewhere on this form). The changes in regional land use in the Shakopee area from open space and agricultural land to I more urbanized uses is expected to have a cumulative impact on the area. Cumulative effects of this and future projects on natural resources and infrastructure are expected to be roughly proportional to the impacts discussed in this EA W, or somewhat greater if future projects are I developed at a higher density. The City of Shakopee has planned for future growth and development as part of its Comprehensive Plan Update. This effort will ensure that the cumulative impacts of future growth and development to the enviromnent and to the City's I service capacity are anticipated and mitigated. The project proposer is not currently planning projects on adjacent lands. Consequently, the I precise timing and nature of future development in the project vicinity is unknown. However, land adjacent to the project site is eventually expected to develop, thereby converting existing open space and agricultural land to residential and commercial uses. The City of Shako pee Plan I Update anticipates and guides the intensity of development within the City and directs necessary infrastructure improvements to support the planned development. I Mitigation of potential cumulative impacts will include providing approximately 50 to 67 acres of open space (15 to 20 percent ofthe site), protecting the jurisdictional wetland and quality woodlands and natural areas to the extent practicable, pretreating stormwater, providing I adequate municipal facilities such as potable water and wastewater treatment, and addressing future traffic issues. These provisions will help minimize potential cumulative effects of past developments and future developments within the region. I I 27 I The Bluffs at Marystown EA W April 2006 I 30. Other Potential Environmental Impacts If the project may cause any adverse environmental impacts not addressed by items 1 to I 28, identify and discuss them here, along with any proposed mitigation. No other adverse environmental impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. I 31. Summary of Issues I Do not complete this section if the EA W is being done for EIS scoping; instead, address relevant issues in the draft Scoping Decision document, which must accompany the EA W. List any impacts and issues identified above that may require further investigation before I the project begins. 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 conditions. I Table 31.1 I Summary of Issues and Mitigation Measures Item. Title Issues / Mitigation Measures I Fish, Wildlife, and Preservation of between 50 and 67 acres of parkland, 11. Ecologically Sensitive storm water ponding, woodland, wetland, and open Resources' space. I The addition of a municipal water well and water 13. Water Use tower on or adjacent to the site; compliance with DNR Water Appropriation Permit requirements; I connection to the municipal water supply system. 16. Erosion and Sedimentation BMP implementation; compliance with NPDES/SDS General Permit requirements. I ' 17. Water Quality: Surface Water Creation of stormwater treatment ponds and Runoff infiltration areas to manage stonnwater runoff. Improvements to Marystown Road/TH 169 north and I 21 Traffic south ramps and to Marystown Road/1 ih Avenue need to be made. 9 Petroleum contamination of Development of a Response Action Plan (RAP) will I and soils near shed on the Theis 20 parcel be developed to properly address the impacted soils I I I I I 28 I The Bluffs at Marystown EA W April 2006 I RGU CERTIFICATION The Environmental Quality Board will only accept SIGNED Environmental Assessment Worksheets for public notice I in the EQB Monitor. I hereby certify that: The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. The EA W describes I the complete project; there are no other projects, stages or components other than those described in this document, which are related to the project as connected actions or phased actions, as defined at Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200, subparts 9b and 60, respectively. Copies of this EAW are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list. I Signature Date I Title: Michael Leek. Community Development Director The Environmental Assessment Worksheet was prepared by the staff of the Environmental Quality Board at I Minnesota Planning. For additional infonnation, worksheets or for EAW Guidelines, contact: Environmental Quality Board, 658 Cedar Street, St. Paul, },.1N 55155, (651) 296-8253, or www.mnplan.state.mn.us. .--- I I I I I I I I I I I I 29 I I I I I I I I I I EXHIBITS 1 - 10 I I I I I I I I I .-------"'---; I ~ 7006 Westwood Prof€lssionol Servicos, Inc. ... \. . --- I 33 , I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -- I I \ I 11 I I ~ I I I I ( ! )''* "'- ~ ... '. 0 . . , ,- ',' .q:';: I I I . -.' r.'. \ 'f .....,,. . . , \ ~.. . . I' , ..00 .J:. ".. ".'. i T \ I . I I .-":' I I . . l50TH . . sr.. . .~. I T . .. i . .; i I .. · 35 i ~ I .- . I -- I i I I I N I I I Legend A I r:::J EAW Boundary I I I 0 1 2 I Miles Map Document; (P:\20041087 .02\gts\EA\VI20041087 _02Ioc01A.mxd) I 12/2112005 -- 7:13:34 AM The Bluffs I!:d Westwood Professional Services. Inc. at Marystown I I 1699 Anagram Drive Site Location Eden Prairie, MN 55344 I PHONE 952.937.5150 I FAX 952-937.5822 Shakopee, Minnesota TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 I wlNW.westwoodps.com EXHIBIT 1 I .~--_.._----_.- ---- .-. I !1;) 2006 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. I < '., '. .""",/ " ./ .,'t..,..,y,....>'+ ~ '. t':""'" "r:..,.~,..t-;. :r . I "#!'7Y"" ,", i' '1' '.~'" " ...... '1""<" p" . .....' "'f'" '. I .) " -~' '/ :" ;;1!':;'0<1"V' ;<:';,>..{,.\:J.:;.....~.:p '.~;! -' ",.J,' ':','\:'<',.:. ;:"(!"'/.:,:::';. ~.:A . f." .\ I... ~/ ,f:.i!f}:'J'. -",,;;;.?,,:~':':1I':-..::.J,,'~!M,t) ~.. 1!f";J:':"::':L.. 1;'[':. ..", ",\~.:@.ki~i I\. t ,. ...) c./~f"B<'/ . Y"..',,i(":" ':r."-:':::1 . .:.:::.:A""'''~Tf;."'-.7'~'""<-,,, ~..~",-. '__" ,_ /. (i1Jt-:~-- _~ -' L :~J :~ ,~.....ft, ~,',!. ~'~'~..'k ,.' .,'., I -.f: "'-, .,:L,':' :.....;..(:: ._.'.~".~..'., -.f..sltr i}. .. ",'"'' % . p . ~.. ~ "', .. . ........ ", . L.,'. . I .. I .... . ".' ", II . ~/'N ,. <~'~."~ 'Jtc .. .:~' .."\ ;.r""I" .~. ,,,,,].,.,It. ,.... L". ~I'd< -I' ,..... ,:-.j,.... t ....~ . t....:1 .(i'.\:"J." /"' I, /?~~ ~ . ... ,$ 'rf.;: : "" ~ '". ".~ :.',.,:,. . l( . ....." I"" J I ;.;.~_., ':::t.::~' ;. . . .:.f - ...... '/' ) ~~'/' . f' //.1 [7" .i.-.,(.". '.', '. r/ 1"" ,".-n I .- ;;: M.1'j!<'!',' .. _.' I ;. ~3:7:> ~(: .r' / . <i:,,:-' '/ "thz':""';"'J~'F.:.:, . 'ilI~7:~',. ,. ': '1:c.:n:-;\;;~~:~ ,. - .. ./ ' .#~ ~:^.; ,,; ,;y' . ,. / \' { . " .t..,..' '< ". '.' ",1' j. ..... J, y',.:;,,;r.""":- I ,.... ..... r-./' : ...4l'>/':="/:'~"A'Y/ ,/;,"~"V ;.... :~:..~f:.1:~.~..:: :::-: :"'....;..~--..i~ .~, .- ':':;':Z'~'-;;:;\';:.,~;, . :>.-" , ',.-' I I / . 41''"'......;....... t"~y(}j $;I////~- ~.' 1; t.'j-",,,>,:-,,,,'}'''_i~''.. ':'1' .,,: JC'. '82' '.....\~...>:;"'.:',. " ......'::..J\fJ~ <:'--?~";:"C< ~-. I, //:.r, X( ..-Y ,.... /'f ., (,,'..': r :t. :',;:';0, .', " ".. ~. . "', '" :''':~''~..,~-:.".~,,::' 10:--" I ." -... 0 1 \ I $ ;.c.,/.' /~'''''7 \. .. - t I... ~.~ T', . ,..:\ .1, '-----'-...~-.~(..- -," .....,;. ~ ~..~~1-;t ......:t: ./!,: J./"/ ;/;/ /.:/,.' ;/-~()", ~a,: ,'1 __~!.~~ :.::~~~~~:--:~'!1'7'. '. _.-~::-:::" - I _~<;:f,,"f~':'/':'-~/{; .:1"J .~.o." ~.' . 'U:'~I':'.:!"''';'"' Minnesota RIver r '" '. I . ,J,",,' "'I.~i/ / .".& ;/!/ ./:/. '. I: i~" "I: i,':' '/. , '. I t ""\<:'lY'(.' ,.Y/'/./ ',;..' .J' ..J"'"",'",,' . :'.;..",'.J;::.; '~(! ;' 0':.... ...s./....--:;.'..'~~~-"'8i5~ _.....:s."t~;.,..::.:'..:.~.l~..,...-'. ',..-- . I '.' . ,"~ ~~fK'.''';:;;; .">>' ....Y' eoQ" .. ," )..", .'.' - -,.- , .,/ ://~~;I.:~li,lf~ ;.~>"/it-:.,;~-:;? /~~':'v ;~;z:::.:J\;~~~,~...~~:----_ _ n_'. : _ _ _._ . ~ _____ .~~-, I ;,-"', ;'.ry.y;~/,,- r"f"e~1>~k ,<" '1---- .-- --- I.'~..:'--~I If ,--",Ob / . 't - /~_.\ !~- I I .,{.~';J,7?",,//:/.r;o'/f/-./'=": .1C--=-;J:7--~.T ,..,_.~ . ~ft (' c../ " -''''C::::--'':: t/.,-=--r' I N.,~.~// ,'/&>;;"''' ,'\:-',/ t_..!".,~J,,"" -'-~...). I Plr, '/Iv: I .",..., '._~-:,:.. I . ."J/ /'. /If'/,' t' ~'''. . ~ '. ". ...././/..-:.f1;;'//;/ ',' c:> ,--". (..--., ,A -' .,1'-.".. I ~~~'.~1/~~:it'//~~;;/ :"--- .-' :' -...--- :\,;,/ L-r--~"'--"'.I ,.. :----,/- ~-.-- : ' -~....::....-.:::~ 0.2...Jd;:!.-// . .,': ..:.~:.~/" J '.~-,' ..~U~'!WJS.1_6~, -::.-1=.;._._~ .~Q)~- - --~-_{~ -'-c' .) t (:: '.I "', I I 'l;;'~:0<'/":;(~" /~,;,~.-:;'j~~,,-:.. ..,.-/...- '-:----1.. ,,~.,/ " -- ---.--'---.- I /<~)..: I,ly .'.. .;EI / ~,/o, . ~. >. '.\":-"" . ., ... ,,,' .' ";--: I ~'-< 7: , I.', ~;.;'" _' . . \ /: .....,. . . ". . "". - , . - "". . '- , <: -...,1/';11, I~l~! I..... ! // -- "- \... .j.-.., --' . ~;:.,,<Y~:1,'~.F.!.t,111C'l\1 .' .:., 'E I i':/~~.J.o..-:;:, m-'. :r' . '" ", - . - - I . ~ 1!~1;:? , - . ..' / ~'- ..t, / / " I ~ . .- ::ii(j:/'/'],' j j : . -'.: . ~ .--;, -- ~ I , . ~ /;.\;"..,..",,~ " ..'-., ri-~' k' . -.., . I '~, :.~;-' :' I;' ,.! .;~"'~ -.J.... ~..~ '. ,,' ~a-o----- ---~.; .~:~/~.~~~' :~,,;~- .,- '-:. \~" "{ 'I ;I.', '.. - /" - '. \," '>, I I ~'" .'. y 1..:.31I.r, p.J,~ ~';;:"~"'Y ."~.; .".,.: ,\. j"' \ "'., :r · ~. , .. , , .' , .~.. >,.. ...t" ~'--1' .;:f~~:/,;:.rr.<~"r~f;'''~( 'r.:: -,. ,;::vS "'. ~\ 'N"'H~:-..." ''., 1 .....0::::. ",' '.', I ,,:' ~ ....~/ .., - / . ,,' i-"'eoo tJ m' /.tl. if..:-:.:',> 'J~ v} . .f'\. '. . .-.._ ~ _ I...., '.., " ""-I I "\. '. , " f ..' ... / ~ ;r--/ 1:.~::"(' 90';" /,....- / <'.' -. " .,.......... '''v---...'. I ~/ /' /~. . .::E!,~~",,"~~ ,,<~.:.' .,i.. :"' .>.. !):>-; _ ' ,~lZi I ~ '...., ": /' ." ,/ " / ~O' I'i /," -', /-.\ J "!746P:.-~'\" I" .. -I }"~">'I... ....-.,...-- I " , , .,/... , 'I " . ., , ..... . I · ,,/ ....}"'.-- ;,. ,,' ~ ..:.-. ", .I.., lo':/~-::"-;' .....-....-J r-, 1"~~J.Q0~." \ " 8'1' ) I .' " ' .... 'j /j-:'~ . I ~: - /';J ~ ,-:,'f ; --:/-~<;tt~ <s:(..~~!~~__ (~ '- -::~" r-1/'<'/~~';,~,~ .' ~/;~> '. : .~/_. _.J... -):'~'~:."'~==--~'_:~= . r--/ /"' ,':._"" - .(?"~,,j(,.'JF(. -.....::. " _', '. . '; I.) , f~: ,...1 ....:.....' .'".....;;; ~~,.~ I ',) ~./' .___ ....~.::.--....;...i-~~,4~':.i_'{I,!;~-. (- )'1-'/'/ ... '. I ~('r""~'-"'/l " ,'::' ~'...:' ~ ~~~/~~t".:~~:~~-:-':'~;;~.t..-:;:t ..,: I .''/ . '. . ',7' - '~':d~:;;"'l;';!;.l'r.?'1 ' ',. '. '1 r I .-- 'I': /.~,' '----,;; . .' ~:" I ' ""J '" . r, . ."-~ '= ~ .-..-. . > "'~/J' . -...... .-... ---'''''\'f.''<'.'/ll~r (. I. 11(./ ,-,,'. - ," '1 _..-:.'........,..,-..:l,.:: I -04/" :,//",'.:-~~~~r/h/.'!I'j\ -''':0.,,":"::_. ( ,'I \, .:'" I '.:",,~. ..'i,' - ...~''''''.....'-~ J .::......-, ':.'JoI..".~~).'.."l I :'~-' ',';"-~;"~~~~'.~':''''~~f~~:~\ ._~'i;~~: ~~'.- .~ ,_ ,,'~~ .,1,,__ -.;.. .- ~~. ~.~:ifj-__ ~(~1-:~' -. '.::\'...~.,~ I . '~/ /:-;.JiJ!!...~-;, '-- f ,..~[~- ~.'..'-', ~'t,.~':1 :' ..' ,: .~,;},. ", .:@Y;',-,"\/ 1 "/'.'/ Minnesota RIver 0A; I :" ,/ .'~":. ~ ../?,,' 'ti~~"""'~~"~ _/\ .~ c. ,-_.....t{ , ,rl- ',' . ('v''''';;/: , . 1'11). I - ~,. U' ,.-" I ' "/ ':~t'" ....'::~.::/:.,,~....;:,"_1'~ 1: ,.~. " ~,,;,c ), I . }. ."/:". ,._~:I ",', II.., / CI..:1 i'~'" '"I .) .,....,. .~:,.I.l.r.-.~f. '.' ~-, : ~_!: ;" r'>.. '.. ( -,.f -\ ' .. I / '):J I'J ,----~,',', .......~,,'{ .. _ '."} __'~'\, l....-'"" .~: I. I I ,,~. '/ '-;) I ..,.1, I.)~ J f~. , ..~" \ \; I' ( , \., , ./. f ' ~ - . I . : \ "- I --...., I (r," ':'I '- '.:b.:.;;,;~.~" /-'~~:0~"":' ~~ ;:~ = "r.', '." . ,~ . .'(;, .~, /:,~._.~.':f~?:r~a:'. ~>:':_:>-\~~''::~:~~;'~;;'~:~''---; '.:- ',>~ I ,. .", "~"'\;~:.'r'C"" . '. '::', ,,,() ~ '" '., "J" 130th S'fw. .;." .... .'.- <Ir~' : ,- " ~'( -.- '."'; ,.- \ - ;~-;~--:..-;.=-- I :) ~-=-,_...::.. 1~'i~,''':~I.~. ,,//.-= / J ,J ~,.. J~oI'<\ .1(" I'.',r:':-:: ,~l::-~:,;~~.~~ 0::/:( 1_., (,-:,'.\ '\>-.:...,~~t,,:':-:,~..::.' -:: ":-'......',... J.._ '_-.,/!:(.~,,(./... /, 'c,; ",Q 0,. ""," ....~ lr'~' ...... -, ~--,\(,._".., "'/' :(\-_-- --l'~: "_\~ '-'JII(. _J,'.';=$'.. ,'., _, ~ ,'l ',': ,_~./....:'~; \" ",,.r" ,e-. .:, IV '.oi" ....~\'.r" l... ..... , I ~....- ':. . ...~;-.. ,.lr'I"~" ':0" ....'0. - ..r',(", ''';'"" ..,.\.:;:..',..-.(\,/.' 'A,,:~:f f.' . I I --.:.. - ::, ,I. ".J:' ~ri;'-_';"-l~' ,~'\ I"". _ ,;" 1;/; 1\ .-' ','. ","2. ~;' ."/".' "..>"" > 'J:.,. (<'-, :-- \ .- I "-- ,~' '0. '1..r.1~_."-";':J ,....,:, I()"""\ '.( --, I ", -.... ! """'l:" "~";'(-;J))I' .;\.:~;..~~:;;:.,~--(~I -~~~1:'2~~)--~'~\~>:'~/--'~'() 0') ,,\~:,~/: I'~.") ,~"_~ -:!.~/~ ::?, :~':," :'~-.i.~;~~~:.;~~(~ '~~(/A;:,~j~,'_ ", f....,.,. .;" "'_._~o",".-":<' < ) 0 'f')' II"~J:" ", '. ..B' .-, ..;,,:,.:~,~-,::t 0,(, ".-...~'~, I . /.... '~7. ~ r.';' 5;;)\"....~- '.; :.:~. ~./~{~.'/~? _-',<-:1).'. '.:) ~) c ~ ,.';":: ~- :,,' .... n.:'~, ~\)' ';2~;~~::'9~ . :;:'-- '-~-_: ~~':~.~:: '=~~~:~Tt n", :..1_: . _ _ ,-~):: ~ I I ":'~ c" . ./;"0)\:'/ "d~:;~m\t'v,~ .' i '.'. -I'. ~.IO 1 J ,,:! ,.' ,;{;:::fu' V', .." J-~:V._" . ~~"''''''::1;~t-).r .'/.,'" I ',';"':'_,/~:,,,-':j-'J~i?,f..'i~~:.,l :, .-' :,~'/,_'''',/~'" (It..J0.''~~~~ .../,,,;;'..' 'i"~ ,:~ ./~,-~:-j"::'i,lir\ '~'l (~r;:\,~.___/.'. t .,--- "--00._1 '{:;::::::-- ) .or:. ;-,.., it '0 , ..1 ". ,.1_ .-t'-"" .,._.....1; I'"~ ...'~, .-.~..' '~tlttt~\' " ~.'I" "'. '. I -/::.~~~.' ./ '?.g~, ":;-:'-"~ ;J'-::'": '~9~-;-,~ > -: -~.~- ).:T: '. ~.., '. ,;~ ,,' , ':.: ::-:. J:'" . '~",:'''" .::"-.:-:/:.r~'f.~\ ", .,~.~.. /1:, ~ ~ .- I ,/'.-';' "(~'91)()~';:':-:' "~>"J'" I':') It", _.,0' "'\ "--. .~ ....- "1' "La,.. ",J...,.:'. I ~/,.,:",-,,~-./,~:t( '( :,;:\1.::..,," .:..- _,.:_.:_1 .-"'t'J/~1 ~ -~_/,'-:.....J ''.'';.,.,,1 j.--, '. /-/ _'~i~\~, _I) ':::-;'" I . ... "'.. r- ~ \ (..~ ...-..r.-", . -., -- . /" /- I ( ... '- ~\ ' . - ... .,~ l~... , ~~?;f}Jt..;:.; '):,;~~-~~: I, )~-?.;': ~,~-':"\,;...'~,; "~'~.":- -':':,~'~>:~.,~;< '..)ci<, ir;~ .,~~"" ~<~~~.~~;~~;:-~~L:~' I I Do," S,,,,,,(,), USGSIM,DNR DRG (Shok""", Q~d, "', 1993), MoON" W",""". (( 999), : Legend N I I D EAW Boundary A: CJ Minor Watershed Boundary 0 2,000 4,000 I Note: The site is located within the I Feet I I Minnesota River - Shakopee Major Watershed I Map Document: (P:\20041087.02\gis\EAIN\20041087 _02drg01A.mxd) I 12/2112005-73123AM The Bluffs ! I I ,~., WestwoodProfe,,;onaIServ;tes.lnc. t M t USGS Topography I 7699 Anag,am Dnve a arys own Eden P,ai,;e, MN 55344 d W t h d an a ers e s I PHONE 952,937,5150 FAX 952.937,5822 . TOLL FREE 1,888.937.5150 Shakopee, M mnesota I Westwood wwwwestwoodpscom EXHIBIT 2 : I I I ._ _____ _________ I I ]1 @ 2006 Wostwood Profe5~iOlldr St::r vices, Inc. 1 :1 I I :1 I I I I I I II I I I I I I \ il I I I I I I :1 I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I :1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 II I 'I p I Data Source(s): USDA FSA APFO DOQ (2003), WPS (2006). Legend N I CJ EAW Boundary A - Bluff Line I 0 1,000 2,000 I Feet Map Document (P:\20041087 .02\gis\EAW\20041087 _02conc01A.mxd) The Bluffs 'I 1/11/2006 -. 8:25:40 AM I!:d Westwood Professional ServICes. Inc. at Marystown Scenario I I 7699 Anagram DnvE! Eden PraIrie, MN 55344 Preliminary Site Plan 'I PHONE 952.937.5150 FAX 952.937.5822 Shakopee, Minnesota TOLL FREE ,-888-937-5150 wwvv westwoodps com EXHIB IT 3 I I I I I I - - . __~______._____._____ _____1 :1 I I I I I :1 I I il I I I I i I I I , \ I II ! I I i II I il I , \ I " I I I 'I ! I I I 1 I 1 I [ I I I .,... I Data Source(s): USDA FSA APFO DOQ (2003), WPS (2006). Legend N I c:J EAW Boundary A :1 - Bluff Line :1 0 1,000 2,000 I Feet I I Map Document (P:\20041087.02\gisIEA'M20041087 _02cooc02A.mxd) The Bluffs :1 2/1312006.. 9,54,28 AM I!:d Westwood Profe'5siona\ Services, Inc. at Marystown Scenario 2 I I 7699 Anagram Drive I Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Preliminmy Site Plan :1 PHONE 952.937.5150 FAX 952.937.5822 Shakopee, Minnesota TOLL FREE ,-888-937-5150 I www.westwoodps.(om EXHIBIT 4 I ! I I I ~ - --- _._-~,-_._.__._~.._---~ ---------- -.._--~._._-----_._-_._-- --- -- - - --- I @2006Westwood Professional Services, Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I, I I I I I I I I I I I I Data Source(s): USDA FSA APFO DOQ (2003). I Legend I N I I c:::J EAW Boundary A I I I 0 2,000 4,000 I I Feet \ I Map Document: (P:\20041087 .02\gis\EAVfl20041087 _02doq01A.mxd) I 12/21/2005 - 8:14:50 AM The Bluffs I I!:d Westwood Professional Services, Inc. at Marystown 2003 Aerial Photography I I 7699 Anagram Drive I Eden Prairie, MN 55344 and Land Use Types I PHONE 952.937.5150 I FAX 952.937.5822 Shakopee, Minnesota TOLL FREE 1.888.937.5'50 I '-NW#.westwoodps.c.om EXHIBIT 5 I I I ____,____________ __ _ ________ ____________~_______________ _______ ___~J . I II @ 2006 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. J il I I : I ,-= I f II . I :1 I :1 I :1 I :1 , :. - I :1 : I Data Source(s}: USDA FSA APFO DOQ (2003). I Legend II c::J EAW Boundary I Agricultural I. .. Wetland N A .. Woodland I Impervious II .. Lawn/Landscaping 0 1,000 2,000 ,Feet \ - Pipeline Easement il Map Document: (P:\20041087.02\gis\EAW\20041087 _02cvr{)1A.mxd) The Bluffs 12/21/2005 -11:51:21 p.J.J. I!:d Pre-Development Westwood Professional ServICes, Inc at Marystown I I. 7699 Anagram Dnve Cover Types and Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952.937.5150 Pipeline Easements FAX 952.937.5822 Shakopee, Minnesota TOLL FREE 1.888.937.5150 I wwwwestwoodps com EXHIBIT 6 :1 .~ _..- -----...- _.- -- I I I I @ 2000 WesLwouu Plof~sional Services, Inc. I I :1 I I ! I I ! I 'I I I 1 II I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Data Source(s): USDA FSA APFO DOQ (2003), WPS (2005). I I N I Legend A I CJ EAW Boundary I - Wetland Boundary I I 0 800 1,600 I Feet I Map Document: (P:\20041087.02\gisIEAVV\20041087 _02wtJd01A.mxd) I II 2/2/2006.. 8:2823 AM The Bluffs I I!:d Westwood Professional Services, Inc I 7699 Anagram Dnve at Marystown Wetland Boundary I Eden PHune. MN 55344 I PHONE 952.937-5150 FAX 952.937.5822 Shakopee, Minnesota TOLL FREE 1888.937.5150 wwwwertwoodps com EXHIBIT 7 II - - --~.,.-- -- ---- .-------; I (Q ~OOO Westwood Professional Services, Inc. !I I I II I II I I I I I II \ I I I I I 'I I I I I I I , I I i I I I Data Source(s): USDA FSA APFO DOQ (2003), Minnesota Geologic Survey County Well Index (2004). 1 I Legend N I CJ EAW Boundary A 0 Registered Well Locations I I 0 1,000 2,000 I I Feet Map Document: (P:\20041087.02\gis\EA'M20041087 _02weIl01kmxd) \ I 1/1212006 -- 7:15:19 AM The Bluffs I I~:d Westwood Professional Services, Inc. at Marystown Domestic Wells I 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 I PHONE 952.937.5150 I FAX 952.937.5822 Shakopee, Minnesota TOLL FREE 1.888.937.5150 Wl/INJ. westwoodps.com EXHIBIT 8 I I ~ ~- -~-.'--' I I I I I 1 I @ 2006 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. I I Soil Description I I I DbB Dakota Sandy Loam, 2-6% Slopes I DbB2 Dakota Sandy Loam, 2-6% Slopes, Moderately Eroded DbC2 Dakota Sandy Loam, 6-12% Slopes, Moderately Eroded I EaB Estherville Loam and Sandy Loam, 2-6% Slopes I I EaB2 Estherville Loam and Sandy Loam, 2-6% Slopes, Moderately Eroded I EaC2 Estherville Loam and Sandy Loam, 6-12% Slopes, Moderately Eroded I EbC2 Estherville Gravelly Sandy Loam, 6-12% slopes, Moderately eroded I I HaB Hayden Loam, 0-6% Slopes 1 I HaC Hayden Loam, 6-12% Slopes I I HaD Hayden Loam, 12-18% Slopes I I I HaB2 Hayden Loam, 2-6% Slopes, Moderately Eroded 1 I HaC2 Hayden Loam, 6-12% Slopes, Moderately Eroded I 1 HaD2 Hayden Loam, 12-18% Slopes, Moderately Eroded I I HaE2 Hayden Loam, 18-25% Slopes I I HaF2 Hayden Loam, 25-35% Slopes I I I HbD3 Hayden Sandy Clay Loam, '2-18% Slopes, Severely Eroded I I LaC Lakeville Loam, 6.12% slopes I I LbD Estherville-Burnsville Complex, 12-50% Slopes I LeB Lester Loam, 2-6% Slopes I LeB2 Lester Loam, 2-6% Slopes, Moderately Eroded 1 LeC Lester Loam, 6-12% Slopes I I LcC2 Lester Loam, 6-12% Slopes, Moderately Eroded I PaB Palms Muck, Sloping, 2-12% Slopes I TbS Terril Loam, 2-6% Slopes I I TbE Terril Loam, 18-25% Slopes I WaA Waukegan Silt Loam, 0-2% Slopes I I WaB Waukegan Silt Loam, 2-6% Slopes I Wb Webster-Glencoe Silty Clay Loams I I I I, I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I \ I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I \ I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I \ I Legend I I c:::J EAW Boundary I N I A I I Highly Erodible land Potentially Highly Erodible land I _ Prime Farmland I 0 800 1,600 I I Prime Farmland, If Drained I ,Feet I _ Farmland of Statewide Importance 1 Map Document: (P:\20041 087 ,OZ\gisIEA'M20041 087_ 02soH01A _prfl.mxd) The Bluffs 21212006.. 9,39,52 AM I I '" Westwood PfOfessional Services, loe. at Marystown Prime Farmland, I 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Important Farmland, I PHONE 952-937.5'50 Shako pee, Minnesota and Erodible Soils , FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1.888.937-5150 Westwood WWIN.we.stwoodps.com EXHIBIT 9 I .~~ I @2006 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. I Soil Description DbB Dakota Sandy Loam, 2-6% Slopes DbB2 Dakota Sandy Loam. 2-6% Slopes. Moderately Eroded DbC2 Dakota Sandy Loam. 6-12% Slopes. Moderately Eroded EaB Estherville Loam And Sandy Loam. 2-6% Slopes I EaB2 Estherville Loam And Sandy Loam. 2-6% Slopes. Moderately Eroded EaC2 Esthervllle Loam And Sandy Loam, 6-12% Slopes, Moderately Eroded HaB Hayden Loam, 0-6% Slopes HaC Hayden Loam, 6-12% Slopes HaD Hayden Loam, 12-18% Slopes I HaB2 Hayden Loam, 2-6% Slopes, Moderately Eroded HaC2 Hayden Loam, 6-12% Slopes, Moderately Eroded HaD2 Hayden Loam, 12-18% Slopes, Moderately Eroded HaE2 Hayden Loam, 18-25% Slopes HaF2 Hayden Loam, 25-35% Slopes I HbD3 Hayden Sandy Clay Loam, 12-18% Slopes, Severely Eroded LaC Lakeville Loam, 6-12% slopes LbO Estherville-Burnsville Complex, 12-50% Slopes LcB Lester Loam. 2-6% Slopes LcB2 Lester Loam, 2-6% Slopes, Moderately Eroded LcC Lester Loam, 6-12% Slopes I LcC2 Lester Loam, 6-12% Slopes, Moderately Eroded PaB Palms Muck, Sloping, 2-12% Slopes (HYDRIC) TbB Terril Loam, 2-6% Slopes TbE Terril Loam, 18-25% Slopes WaA Waukegan Silt Loam, 0-2% Slopes I WaB Waukegan Silt Loam, 2-6% Slopes Wb Websler-Glencoe Silty Clay Loams (HYDRIC) I I \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I N I Legend A I CJ EAW Boundary I _ Hydric Soils 0 800 1,600 \ I I Feet I Map D:lcument: (P:\20041 087 .02\gts\EAIN\20041 087_ 02soi\01A.mxd} The Bluffs I 12!2CV2005 u 11:44:28 AM I I '" Westwood ProfesSional Services. Inc. at Marystown EXHIBIT 10 I I 7699 Anagram Drive Soils Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 Shako pee, Minnesota I I FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL fREE '-888-931-5150 Westwood wWI/II.westwoodps.com I ---- I I I I I I I . ..,.. . 0,- I I APPENDIX A I Minnesota DNR Natural Heritage I Database Search I I I I I I I I 1\ ! ~ t:= (" r= j' I!::.' '"' ! l~_ __; ~"...... "~'t (J I: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources JAN 0 3 Z~;6 I Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, Box 25 ! 500 Lafayette Road . Wi;:~Twoon Ii . St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-40_ ~rtOFE~:jlo-NhL SEj\1VICf:~ i Phone: (651) 259-5107 Fax: (651) 296.1811 E-mail: sarah.hoffmann@dnt.state.nm.us . .; i ! II DeCember 29, 2005 i i Ms. Jennifer McLoughlin Ii . Westwood Professional Services, Inc. I 7699 Anagram Drive i Eden Prairie,'MN 55344 II Re: Request for Natural Heritage information for vicinity of proposed The Bluffs at Marystown, i Tl15N R23W Section 14, Scott County _ NHNRP. Contact#: ERDB 20060471 ~ Dear Ms. McLoughlin, . The Minnesota Natural Heritage database bas been reviewed to determine if any rare plant or animal , species or other significant natural features are lmown to occur within an approximate one-mile radius of the.. I area indicated on the map enclosed with your information request Based on this review, there are no knoWn I occurrences ofiarespecies'ornative plant communities in the area searched.' . .'. . .. . The Natur3.l Heritage datab~e is maintained by 1;he NaturalH~ntage and Nongame Research Program, . . ~ a unit within tb~ Division of Ecological Services, Department'ofNatural Resources. It is continually updated as . new information becomes available, andis the most complete source of data on Minnesota's rare or otherwise " significant .species, .nativ~ plant communities, 3l}9,.~~.yt-m~'~.,x~~,~~!~~,.:;.J.t~;~)l!p~~~)f.}~l8~mf:,~~~~~r ,.' understandmgandprotectlonofthesefeatures. .~....". ...,..'.....,.". . . '. ~ . ~ecause' our information is not based on ~l"~~m:piellJnsive'illventory, there may be rare or o~erwise . SI.' gnificant n~tural f~tuies in the state that are not represented in. t~le database. . A cou~t)':'by-c?ui1ty s-qrve~ of rare natural features IS now underway, and has been comple~ for Scott County. Our infonnatJonaboutnattve. . pl~t communities is, therefore, quite thorough for that COUl?-ty. However, beca rise survey worktcir rare plants. . and animals is less exhaustive, and because there has not been an on-site survey of all areas of the county, ecologically significant features for which .we have no records may ~x.ist on the pJ;oject.3!e<t. ...... ' . . i Please be aware that review by the Natural Heritag~ and N~ngame Research Program focuseso?-ly .on I. rare narural features. It does not constitute review .orapproval by theT)epartnient 'of Natural Rescitircesas a . . . . . . . . . ".~' , . . . . .. .. . . whole. .If you require furth~r infonnationon. the:envjr6nmeI1-Ul~tev.iew proc.ess :for other' natural reSo.urce,.... . 1 '. ': rel~~e4~$sRes~ you ttiay:oo.n~ctyq)Jr:Regipl1~ 'EJivrr~n~entillAs$e~sriJ.ell,tECo.lo~~i~Way~e~ats~4, ~t'(~SlL... . . '772-7940. '.. ". .,: :. ,.: '.'.'. .:' '.' .... . .... :....:..::(::'.-. ') ,",' .-;,...~:...>... .::;.,'.... :.... ....: ... 'An invoice in the amount of $66.07 will be mailed to YOQ.'undei separate cover within tWo weeks of the date of this letter.' You are being billed for map and 'database 'sei!,rch aDd staff scientist review;' Thacl.c you for consulting us on this matter, and for your interest in preserving Minnesot~'~ rare natural. resources." . :" , .. :,.. ;...:..: ....:.. ~ill,fe~~ly',.. ',' ...r....:. .' '." ":>:.:'; ...:.'.; ";. :~,~ '." ::.;. .'.:..' ..;' '. ...;' . :::". :.... ,,'. "dJ>iA:~~; YMjjj:.:ff.;"'::~:'" ".,>: ::"::'::':.;';.:".:<J:,.,.:!: ;';':.i',/,f{ .;::;,",~:'~,GC'";!'<:::'~/}:'~~:,f,'~~!:~~~1~;~~~~~;~i~;;~' . . ... . ";, ~ ~." :. ~: .:..: ".: :" ." . . . :~.:' . '.: :~:" '.:':': '.; -:': ~. j:. ': 0; :.;.<.. .:<~: '.':~-:' .:......~;:~:.;: .'~ !: ....~}:: ;.i~ . :>. :.~ ~;; f1.:": ~ .~-;;'.::. ~:' ~:_:r::":." ~'. :: ;.:....:.: ..;-;~;;. i~k; .:;:~{.:;.~t 'i..r..~ ~~l(furormadl.m.: 65i~2Q6~9157,.: .~,: :b~8?;-.6i6"6.~();7 .:'~.~ .m~ ?$1;i96~5484 ..'i~80Q-657 -i9~9 i ,,'.::',}..: j: . . .. ...". ,- . . .:' .....;.:: . 'An ,Equal OpPPrtuni~y' gm~l~yir' .. .';::-.;-.' '\ "p~~~ed'on'ReCY.c1e(fPapercontajiJing a. .. . .' .'" . '. . . . . '. '. . ..... . MinImum of 10% Post-90nsumerWaste . .... ". . '. __ ...... ._._.~ ..........._._._....__ -........~_.____.._....~M_.n__._.. ...._....: ....h:.........n~.M..........M......~..._~.-......____,.___ I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX B I State Historic Preservation Office I Correspondence I I I I I I I I I I I From: Cinadr, Thomas [thomas.cinadr@mnhs.org] Sent: Thursday, December 22,20058:43 AM To: Jennifer McLoughlin I Subject: RE: Cultural Resources Review for The Bluffs at Marystown, Shakopee Attachments: Historic.doc I No archaeological sites were identified in a search of the Minnesota Archaeological Inventory and Historic Structures Inventory for the search area requested. A report containing the historic I properties identified is attached. The result of this database search provides a listing of recorded archaeological sites and historic I architectural properties that are included in the current SHP.o databases. Because the majority of archaeological sites in the state and many historic architectural properties have not been I recorded, important sites or structures may exist within the search area and may be affected by development projects within that area. Additional research, including field survey, may be I necessary to adequately assess the area's potential to contain historic properties. With regard to Environmental Assessment Worksheets (EAW), a negative known site/structure I response from the SHPO databases is not necessarily appropriate information on which to base a "No" response to EAW Question 25a. It is the Responsible Governmental Unit's (RGU) obligation to verify the accuracy of the information contained within the EAW. A "No" response to Question I 25a without written justification should be carefully considered. I If you require a comprehensive assessment of a project's potential to impact archaeological sites or historic architectural properties, you may need to hire a qualified archaeologist and/or historian. Please contact the SHPO by phone at 651-296-5462 or by email at mnshpo@mnhs.org for I current lists of professional consultants in these fields. I The Minnesota SHPO Survey Manuals and Database Metadata can be found at htlp:/lwww.mnhs.org/shpo/surveylinventories.htm I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX C I Minnesota County Well Index Well and I Boring Records I I I I I I I I I ............ .... ..._.......m .... .... Unique No. 00172736 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ' U date Date 1991/08/18 I WELL AND BORING RECORD P . County Name Scott ._ Minnesot~~tatutes Chapter 1031 Entry Date ~~~~~~2/11 . Township Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed I .. 115 23 W 14 ACD 340 ft. 340 ft. 1980/09/22 Well Name THEIS, NORBERT Drilling Method. I -- Drilling Fluid I w.. "",'-";red? [J ;;;.-- 0 No From ft. to ft. _..._0_'" _ --_.~-.. Use Domestic I Casing Drive Shoe? .'0 Yes D N I Hole Diameter .. "-l I. I' I . I !; I : I 1 . .: ! I i i-. ..~...- ! I ! Screen I Open Hole From ~:_~.___ ft. I I ~ !~ ~ ~ I ! i I I ! I .! ------ I LStatic Water Leve~. 225 ft. from Land surface ... Date 1980/09/17 I Ii PUMPING LEVEL (below land surface) I 1__ ft. after .....__" hrs. pumping g.p.m. I Well Head Completion I !~~. ~ . 1 Casing Protection C 12 in. above grade i 0 At-grade{Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) I I. I Grouting Information .. Well grout:~? ~ Yes ""'-u'N;- . I i . I i . I I j Nearest Known Source of Contamination .... ... -.. I ! 100 ft. direction type I I Well disinfected up~~ completion? 0 Yes [J ~~. I 1 I Pump 0 Not InstallEld Date Installed . I Mfr name 1 Model HP Volts I' ..'-' ..__...-- Drop Pipe Len~,. ft. Capacity g.p.m Type I I - ',~ "'" '0 "',,"" not "','''' ",.lI(s) on pro"""" D~ y", 0 No ! Was a variance granted from the MDH for this Well? 0 Yes n No I USGS Quad: Shakopee Elevation' ! I AqUifer: Alt Id: Well CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION Lie. Or Reg. No. ' I License Business Name . Report Co Name of Driller .', ' """'205". (ReY, 919.) I ..... , MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Unique No. 00206806 Update Date 1996/02/12 I WEll AND BORING RECORD --" County Name Scott Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031 . Entry Date 1988/02/11 , Township NamE! Township Range' Dir Section Subsection I Well Depth . Depth Completed Date Well Completed I 115 23 W 15 DDDDDD \ 400 ft. 400 ft. 1974/05/28 ..--- Well Name CARPENTER, PERRY I Drilling Method -- I ! Drilling Fluid Well Hydrofractured? 0 Yes 0 No From ft. to ft. I. Use Domestic .~_. I Hole Diameter Casing Drive Shoe? DYes []N " I , , I GEOLOGICAL MATERIAL COLOR HARDNESS .FROM TO Casing Diameter Weight(lbsfft) , I ..' 5 in. to ,ft I CLAY YELLO 0 25 .--- 4 in. to 280 ft I GRAVEL BROW 25 38. , I I _0- i 'CLAY BLUE 38 110 i I ---. i GRAVEL BROW 110 115. .1 : I i_~_____._ --..... I Screen J Open Hole From. I LIME ROCK BROW 115 258 N 280 ft. to 400 ft. I SOFT SANDROCK WHITE SOFT 258 370 ! Make Type -" i SHALE + SANDROCK WHITE 370 . I 390 I I ___H'-_ I SHALE + SANDROCK GREE 390 400 I I Static Water Level 190 ft. from Land surface 'Date 1974105/28 I. ~ PUMPING LEVEL. (below land surface) - lOft. after hrs. pumpIng . 60 g.p.m. . I. Well Head Completion I PiUess adapter mfr Model I Casing Protection 0 12 in. above grade I D At-grade(Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) I I Grouting Information Well grouted? nyes o No' I \ I 1 .. i I I ..----- I I Nearest Known Source of Contamination type ! ft. direction j Well disinfected upon completion? DYes D No I ; .. i Pump o Not Installed Date Installed Y ! ! Mfr name MCDONALD . I I ! Model HP 1 Volts _. REMARKS, ELEVATION, SOURCE OF DATA, etc. I Drop Pipe length ft. Capacity g.p.m i --- ---..! . Type -I 217-8-7 S i i I Any not in use and not sealed well(s) on property? Dyes DNo 1 Was a variance granted from the MDH for this Well? 0 Yes ONo 1 USGS Quad: Shakopee Elevation 930 , - Aquifer: MTPL I w,n CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION U. 0, .... No. 70241 i I A1t Id: I i ----.-.-.. i Report Copy License Business Name 1 I Name of Driller JACOBSEN. K. I I HE.0120S-06 (Rev. 9196) 1-,-- . - ... .... .-.. ....~._~... .... ,- .. ......... ..........__............... .. n' .... ... .....__..~ .... ...... ....... . . ............."....--..............-...... U"que Ne. 0020"~ MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Update Date 1996/02/12 I WELL AND BORING RECORD .. County Name Scott . Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031 Entry Date 1989/02/23 '. --.. ... Township Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed ,. I 115 23 W . 11 CCDCA 170 ft 170 ft. 1972/09/12 ----....-- Well Name VAN HEEL, VIRGIL Drilling Method .. I Contact's Name VAN HEEL, VIRGil Drilling Fluid \ Well Hydrofractured? 0 Yes 0 No 1780 SAND ST From ft to ft. SHAKOPEE MN 55379 1-----..-..---..-.. _....- .... I Use Domestic Cas;';';-~_. DO.. Shoo? 0 YOO- 0 --1 Hole D';;"'" I". GEOLOGICAL MATERIAL COLOR HARDNESS FROM TO Casing Diameter Weight(lbs/ft) ---..-.--.,...----..- 4 in. to 132 ft I' . ; DRIFT 0 27 J i I SHAKOPEE 27 127 ~ SANDSTONE 127 170 i i -- I i I Screen N I Open Hole From 132 ft to 170 ft. ! : ......-------- . i Make Type I I I I I I ----..-- I Static Water level 100 ft. from Land surface Date 1972/09/12 I I PUMPING LEVEL (below land surface) I o ft after hrs. pumping 20 g.p,m. I " I-~~;;'Head Completion I Pitless adapter mfr Model , I Casing Protection 0 12 in. above grade 1 0 At-grade{Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) , . I ; DYes --.---- ! . Grouting Information Well grouted? o No I i I I i I i ~ I i - -- r--.. n.._ I Nearest Known Source of Contamination I I ft. direction type I Well disinfected upon completion? r;::.J Yes 0 No I Pump 0 Not Installed Date Installed ._--~. Mfr name I Model HP 0 V9lts -.....--.. REMARKS,ELEVATlON, SOURCE OF DATA, etc. Drop Pipe length ft Capacity g.p.m 172-B-7 Type .-,. .~..- I DAVIES 2ND BlK 2, LOT 7. Any not in use and not sealed well(s) on property? DYes DNo Was a variance granted from the MDH for this Well? [J Yes DNo USGS Quad: Shakopee Elevation 805 -- I Aquifer: CJDN AIt Id: Well CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION lie. Or Reg. No. ............---. license Business Name Report Copy . Name of Driller LOHSE. H. I HE-0120S-06 (Rev. 9/96) ,. I .... ... ...1.. . ......-. I MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH . Unique No. 00211853 Update Date 1996/02/12 I.. I WELL AND BORING RECORD ------- -- County Name Scott I Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031 Entry Date 1989/02/23 ------...-- Township Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed I 115 23 W 14 AACDAD 67 fl. 60 ft. 1972/01/21 .-' ~-_.._.-.....,..- Well Name THEIS, NORBERT Drilling Method I . - I Well Hydrofractured? I Contact's Name THEIS. NORBERT I Drilling Fluid DYes ONo 12466 MARYSTOWN RD I . I From I fl. to ft. SHAKOPEE MN 55379 I . I Use Domesti~.... -- ..__.-_.-.~_._--_. I I HOI~ Diameter -.-..-- ! Casing prlve Shoe? DYes ON i i i Welght(lbs/ft) I GEOLOGICAL MATERIAL COLOR HARDNESS FROM TO i Casing Diameter SOIL 0 3 4 In. to 19 ft 1 .__U" .. .-----.---. ~ SAND 3 24 i I h......_....________....... I . CLAY 24 38 -~.._.._-_..._.._-- -~...__...._.............- i SAND 38 67 J -~._.__. -...-- I i I Screen Y Open Hole From ft. to ft. i ! I Type I I Make i i ~iameter Slot Length Set Fitting I I .-- 1 I 5 12 5 0 ft. to ft I [~~~c Water Le;~~ 20 fl. fr~~ Land surface -_..- j Date 1978/08/14 i i I I .1 PUMPING LEVEL (below land surface) I I I__...._.....ft. after __~.rs. pumping g.p.m. I I I WellHead Completion .- j I I Pitless adapter mfr Model I I I Casing Protection o 121n. above grade ! o At-grade(Environmental Wells and BorIngs ONLY) I ... C No ! Grouting Information Well grouted? Dyes I I I ., I I I I I ; ! I ! ---~.~ - .-" . Nearest Known Source of Contamination ft. direction type \ DYes o No Well disinfected upon completion? ! I - Pump ; I Not Installed Date Installed Y Mfr name .. I . -- .____..__.__~ Model HP 0.5 Volts i Drop Pipe Length ft. Capacity g.p.m I Type . _ -_._~-_...- I I Any not in use and not sealed well(s) on property? 0 Yes nNo 1 ! r~a~ a variance granted from the MDH f~; this Well? 0 Yes .-.--.-.- DNo USGS Quad: Shakopee Elevation 875 , ..- I I Aquifer: aBAA Alt Id: I Well CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION Uc. Or Reg. No. 40174 --- '--1. License Business Name Report Copy Name of Driller ! I HE-01205-06 (Rev. 9/96) I I......... Unique No. 00451975/ I MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEAlTH U date Date 1994/01/09 WELL AND BORING RECORD P ..- 1 County Name Scott _ ....__ Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031 _.__..._~~~ Date 1994/01/09 ____ Township Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection' Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed 1 . 115 23 W 14 AA 300. ft. 300 ft. 1989/09/18 .. Well Name HUIS, LARRY Drilling Method 1 Contact's Name HUIS. LARRY Drilling Fluid I Well Hydrofractured? 0 Yes 0 No 12226 MARYSTOWN RD I I From ft. to ft. _~HAKOPEE MN 55379 . j ..... ' I Use Domestic 1 I Casing Drive Shoe? [] Yes 0 N Hole Diameter l ..._ I. I ! 1 l I I, I -. L....__ .__..._....._.~ I I. 1 Screen I Open Hole From ft. to ft. I ., I I Make Type I I ' I' I I i Static Water Level 190 ft.Jrom Land surface Date 1989/04/18 i 1 ! PUMPING LEVEL (beio; land ~~rface) . ' I 1 ft. after hrs. pumping g.p.m. . Well Head Completion 1 ~~~ ~ Casing Protection 0 12 in. above grade o At-grade(Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) 1 Grouting Information Well grouted? -' ~ Yes 0 No I I 1 .' i . I I , I. I Near;;t Known Source of ~~~tamination .-...----...-.. . . I ft d" typ I I 75 . . Irection W e BYD I I Well disinfected upon completion? 0 Yes 0 No I' I~;;"'- 0 Not Installed --- Date Installed I Mfr name i 1 Model HP Volts I 1 -. ..--. ... 1 Drop Pipe Length ft. Capacity g,p.m ! Type. I . i ~- ! I.' . Any n~.~in use ~nd not seal.:.d wel~(~).~n property? 0 Yes [J No I Was a variance grant~ from the MDH for this Well? 0 Yes 0 No i USGS Quad: Shakopee Elevation -.-.---......-.. .. i I "",,',r. Allld: W," CONlRAC'ioR CERTIFICATION '" 0, Rog. No. ZO'50 I License Business Name ' Report COpy Name of Driller I ~--- I ....-.... ...... ...... . .... Unique No. 00518198 I MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Update Date 1993106109 I WELL AND BORING RECORD ---' County Name Scott ,..1._._.. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031 Entry Date 1993/06109 n._,- Township Name Township Range Dlr Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed I 115 23 W 14 ADD 260 ft. 260 ft. 1992110/26 - Well Name KROHN,GERHARDfELEANOR Drilling Method --- I" Contact's Name KROHN,GERHARD/ELEANOR I Drilling Fluid \ Well Hydrofractured? Dyes ONo 12440 MARYSTOWN RD From ft. to fl SHAKOPEE MN I ..-j Domestic I' I Use ... n .."..-.-.-. I C . Drive Shoe? DYes [J N Hole Diameter lasing I I 'n' , 1 , l_- , ! I i ! .. I ! ! ~-_... i 1 Screen I Open Hole From ft. to ft. i .. / ; Make Type f , i \. I. .. I. Date 1992110126 I Static Water Le'.'el 153 ft. from Land surface I I ..-_ PUMPING LEVEL (below land surface) ! ft. after hrs. '.pumplng g.p.m. I _. I I Well Head Completion PiUess adapter mfr Model Casing Protection o 12 in. above grade o At-grade(Environmental Wells and BoringS ONLY) I, Grouting Information Well grouted? IilJ Yes o No I I .... u_ .....--.------. Nearest Known Source of Contaminat.lon 85 ft. directiqn NE type SDF Well disinfected upon completion? DYes o No I,' .. . . I Pump o Not Installed Date Installed Mfr name I Model HP Volts '---.- Drop Pipe Length ft. Capacity g.p.m Type i -......- i I Any not in use and not sealed well(s) on property? DYes DNo i - , I Was a variance granted from the MDH for thIs Well? 0 Yes UNo , I USGS Quad: Shakopee Elevation .._~--,---_.~ j \ I Aquifer. Altld: Well CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION Lie. Or Reg. No. 40174 I License Business Name I Report Copy Name of Driller ! I I HE-0120S-06 (Rev. 9/96) i I 'P"p._'PP ..... . . p .... . Unique No. 00570136 I MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH I Update Da~ 1998/07/29 I WELL AND BORING RECORD County Name Scott I M;n,,-*!!.~ta ~atutes C!,apter 1031 __'_'''''' ' Entry Date 1998/07/29 __r.'~"# I , Township Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection I Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed I I 115 23 W 14 f 340 fl. 340 ft. '996/12/02 I _._....~.. Well Name LATOUR. DON I Drilling Method - ...-........--. I Contact's Name LATOUR, DON Drilling Fluid \ Well Hydrofractured? DYes DNo 1910 130TH ST , From ft. to ft. SHAKOPEE MN 55379 1 .-....... -" _ .......~...___4 Domestic Use I. ... ~... ..._---~--.. ......- Casing Drive Shoe? DYes [J N Hole Diameter ..... I I t I I ! .' I i ~ '- i .... I-~~en Hole "From 1 I Screen ft. to ft. Make Type ! ! 1 I I I I I , I . .......... Date 1996/11/22 i Static Water Level 232 ft. from Land surface I i PUMPING LEVEL (below land surface) ---.-.. .. ! I I I ft. atier hrs. pumping g.p.m. I ~_"_.~_4 -,~,,--,,"~"'-'--' I .' , . I I Well Head Completion Pitless adapter mfr Model Casing Protection D 12 in. above grade '. D At-grade(Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) I .-' Grouting Information Well grouted? ~Yes o No I r I I -. ......._-_.~... Nearest Known Source of Contamination 150 ft. direction N type SDF Well disinfected upon co.mpletion? [] Yes U No I -- ..- Pump o Not Installed Date Installed Mfr name I I Model HP Volts _._.~.. -.-- Drop Pipe Length ft. Capacity g.p.m Type .' -_.~.-.- --"- I 1 .' Any not in use and not sealed well(s) on property? o Yes DNo -'--- .---- I Was a variance granted from the MDH for this Well? n Yes DNa ! i USGS Quad: Shakopee Elevation . _..- . ! I. AqUifer: Altld: Well CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION Uc. Or Reg. No. 27259 I _.- - Ucense. Business Name I i Report Copy ." . , Name of Driller I , I i I HE-01205-06 (Rev. 9/96) , I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIXD Traffic Study I I I I I I I I I I I ~CONSULTING I GROUP, I N e.. lranspwwtloo . Civil. Structural. EtwirnnIl1x.'tlta\ . Pl.nth'1ing . Traffic. landscape Ardcitectttre · Parking · Right of \Va.}' I SRF No. 0065653 I DRAFT MEMORANDUM I TO: Michael Leek, Community Development Director City of Shakopee I FROM: Dave Montebello, P .E., Principal Renae Cornelius, P.E., SeniorTraffic Engineer I DATE: March 27, 2006 I SUBJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED BLUFFS AT MARYSTOWN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT I INTRODUCTION I We have. completed a traffic study for the proposed Bluffs at Marystown Residential development, located west of Marystown Road and north BOth Street in the City of Shakopee (see Figure 1: Project Location). The purpose of this study is to determine the traffic impacts on I the adjacent roadway system related to the development of this site. This traffic study includes a.m. and p.m. peak hour operations analysis for existing and year 2015 no build and build conditions. I EXISTING CONDITIONS I To determine how traffic is currently operating in the study area, traffic operations for existing a.m. and p.m. peak hour conditions were analyzed at the following key intersections: I . Matystown Road (Cowty Road 15) and Vierling Drive . Marystown Road (County Road 15) and TH 169 North Ramps . Matystown Road (County Road 15) and TH 169 South Ramps I . Marystown Road (County Road 15) and 17th Avenue . Matystown Road (County Road 15) and 128th Street West . Marystown Road (County Road 15) and BOth Street West (County Road 78) I . Zumbro Avenue (County Road 73) and BOth Street West (County Road 78) . Old Brick Yard Road (County Road 69) and BOth Street West (County Road 78) . Old Brick Yard Road (County Road 69) and TH 169 I One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150, Minneapolis, MN 55447-4443 Telephone (763) 475-0010 + Fax (763) 475-2429 + http:/ /www.srfconsulting.com I .A _ "C....",,.1 (')__,...""1.,,.....';1-<.. 1:'-........1,.,;..,........ ------------------- '11..1' 4"lf.l....~~ c","i ~.,. -'J.:./~~' 'd. ~~l tJ~. r-,,3."4f .:~~:tL,~ ~ l'lt.>"~" ~1'$""_~ I 1)':' ..~ ~.l-tU'~, i\f~ j .i", ,,,,,,, .liT: 'I ~[ P;l. w~. ,~"'" 1 "\;;......0": 'i'W':("'-'Y,> J !.; ~~~ "" ~ . ~S ::>,' ;{~t*~". 2:~fjl ,2 r ~', ~J- r't:~,- h \~ ~:t~ ~. ~ i' ,:-1N!'v ( ;;:"l;l'~ . N.t. ~ ~~ ..,~:.gml., e..1!:, sC . ~'" .~; '''. ~ . b~ >-?i ::"'::i'~.. 'f.%~""'.Jwiohan ~~r . <"'r' '7' ~ _ ~ Edelll~1 p '~ilflIl~~~, t tp. "\i3 "':::4(S0ii-{I.!:~ ,.,Chanha~$~n~. .'" ..r . {m . . ." ~ .~~~\ ~ ~~.,~ , ."''-'",0 ~ - "- .... ~;, -".",," f~~ ~ <~ ~~1l\~~~ ~\ ~ l~- ~ L '~JY ~,{f ~' i1/" -. <<ct:2.~ ,?t:"-..c~.- ~~~q '~L) ,l ~~ if. gyr ~, -I 'w"011fJ I:[q~,-bt- ,Rf 1? . li-~' -'~~"'" ", ~~Wl, ~,~ ~i ~'-~4 ~<, ~~~,},4"~\"", '4.~ 69 h A e E .' '\t ~1 " JJ1~;Y ,F '~, ';~~~:U....)C\:~ f:Lv.'<1 '.' '." ~ "",.J ~ l'~'''''~'' ./~Yfi> ~ 16 ' tlL 'tt '>;'j _~4 ~w~~"'-:'~~ 'd!~ 'OJ t~t~:!t~,_.~~.. '.,,, ~~1rk~'e ,!; c ~~~~ ' ...... I' J;L:: ~" .'''4;;~ lOas.. "'~'1;1 . .' .'. . /.....' '.' \m:mH.J..K11il.w~..:4....~ '...."~. PF' ".i";li' ~ i~ l\! . /' vA'. tl[i: "*'1 I.) Jj Li.n l"'~ '\;12t1~A\le E ~ :__w~ . .. ~ "0. . [.... /. ".. VI ]! ,....~c; 'f _ 1 r:;',,< H" ..:-:'~ " . . .....J r 'L..~..:....r- ,.,,!..... ,;;~ );i.~....4..~;';.... ~"''''~''I' w.~yr~.t ~[..~...............'............,...~..';\..."fh,..,,'l~. .'. .,.: '. ,.... ~ ..1 .~. li~'S Sll::rS ,. 1 f... ~Vt:, ~ ~ /fJ~ !'I61ft\!;:.1?J 1"'--.:'i"~ Jt\', '. tl"'%;1?' 'V ',.,~~ili'Ji . ",1, , .'. ':;;;;;;'1tC' 10i:0m:.. ...,!-.....-'\;;;' '_ w n "",_.....5" ... W L lr"f4J:F . .w,,;;.........:~v 'W'- <l( ...1.., ::3-ffi." 4 16 L.. w"~ri,Y "~ t",,---.w L ::....iJ~'~: ;) \ '.I).... rr ~% ~ \. I . ~~~~~r .... .' '" "'" * I' 7t] riL.. ~~:;;. 83 ..ti.... ,/ ",-,,,,,,.. \"'-'.. ~--. OJ '1 1* ""'!...... WI ""-."'; 9>, I i ~- . 1/'\ ~ \I1eW Rd . .' ~.. -I_.-=r." ,.. 1- ;(1 Mi., ..j 'if 133rd g N . ,'. t'e'L." 0- -0 u -,,' ~ { ;J~, .~ I -n ri9--mfu 0 0:: I..~'. ..::a: ",C /'4 J. '~i?i ' ", ,! . '! ~t. .. . ; . t/,:"'1\i&" .... r. n ,~ ..... .i ";~~ (. U ':J '", i CJ'; .... __'11' ., :r """,'.. . \.. I , I' H. .. t,~,;1: ,.' '. I1n ti . ,) .~ ~ .-.. st NWd'.., ...- ~ c= _. - NE' " ". . ~ . ~.. ~~~J dj"l'; !~ O'I('~"'\" / :w,~,." if i w-"" d.. ~ \.L:; } Pi:.e;:;: j ,,$ If; .. "-T .to) , '\ -~ .~ ,M".!; j' T ~ ..., .'. ...., :; ~ PROJECT LOCATION Figure 1 I!!JA!I BLUFFS AT MARYSTOWN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC STUDY , CoNSULtiNG G"l)Uf,I,,~. City of Shakopee ". __ __ ___'___._____n'..________ ___..____._________ ____"_____________ __._______________ __ ____ ----- - -- --- -.------ --.---.------ 0065653 - ... " _n_ March 2006 I I Mr. Michael Leek March 27, 2006 City of Shakopee Page 3 I Current traffic controls include signalization at the intersection of Old Brick Yard Road/fH 169. The intersection of Marystown Road/BOth Street is currently mntrolled with all-way stop I control. All other intersections have sue-street stop control. The existing signal timing for the signalized intersection was used in the analysis. Intersection turning movement counts for the a.m. and p.m. peak hour were collected by iSM in F~brullry 2006. Current geometries and peak I hour traffic volumes for the key intersections are shown in Figure 2. An operations analysis was conducted for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours at the key intersections to I determine how traffic currently operates in the study area. All intersections were analyzed ming the Synchro/SimTraffic and Highway Capacity Software. Capacity analysis results identify a Level of Service (LOS) which indicates how well an intersection is operating. Intersections are given a ranking from LOS A through LOS F. LOS A indicates the best traffic operation and I LOS F indicates an intersection that is operating over capacity. LOS A through D are generally considered acceptable by drivers. I For sid{}-street stop controlled intersections, special emphasis is given to providing an estimate for the level of service of the minor approach. The traffic operations at an unsignalized intersection with sid{}-street stop control can be described in two ways. First, consideration is I given to the overall intersection level of service. This takes into account the total number of vehicles entering the intersection and the capability of the intersection to support those volumes. Second, it is important to consider the delay on the minor approach. Since the mainline does not I have to stop, the majority of delay is attributed to the side-street approaches. Results of the analysis shown in Table 1 indicate that all of the key intersections are currently I operating at an overall LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods, with existing traffic control and geometric layout. I Table 1 Existing Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Level of Service Results I INTERSECTION Level of Service A.M. Peak P.M. Peak I Marystown Road and Vierling Drive* AlB AlC Marystown Road and TH 169 North Ramps* AlA A/B Marystown Road and TH 169 South Ramps* AlA AlA I Marystown Road and 17th Avenue* AlA A/A Marystown Road and 128th Street* AlA A/B I Marystown Road and BOth Street* AIB A/B Zumbro Avenue and BOth Street* AlA A/A I Old Brick Yard Road and BOth Street* AlB A/B Old Brick Yard Road and TH 169 C C * Indicates an un signalized intersection. The overall LOS is shown followed by the worst approach LOS I I - - .. - - !!!!!I - - - - - - - - - - - - - ./ \ ~5 ~\~ ~ (,)~~ ~ 0 O)(,)(l) ...>(110 L ::;: --- --- 27 (79) I\) U jU O......(,)~ t~t L 19(28) _ j 00 J~1C ~716 (1490 . ...._..-::.~>- ~ t 9 (22) t 0 (0) <~~::::'::.:~~~! (146) 405!f ~ ttr+ ttr+ (804) 1403=t I\) I\) ~~ (3) 7-.':: ~ .: ..=~S ...~~:.; ''', Bluffs at III ~ Marystown 0)...... L .", ......1\) 18(51) Site 17lll.~;'11. .......,... ...,,,..' ~l. t 11 (11) I tr+ ...... 01 01<0 -+- '''--.. ...... _.... .... ....- 4+ l!i ~I &! .-. ""'_.. i .."J!.......... ~ t;)WN ....Wl\) O>(,)w + 5(7) O)~~ :;: --- 'j;; 22 (23) 1lIl00000000VEN on. (ill 195 (179) 0) ~ (l) L147 (148) 0(1) -.............. r 1 (0) -+- r 7 (21) 5 (3) (172) 150 -r ~ (14) 224 4+ (4)0 + 4+ LEGEND ......w (141)126. ~~~ (0) 0 ..... xx (XX) = AM PEAK (PM PEAK) (1) 0 s~ (28) 4 (1)0 0 g: 01 ~~~ S = SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION 0)0:>(,) ~~--- 0 = SIDE-STREET STOP CONTROLLED INTERSECTION rm!i EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Figure 2 BLUFFS AT MARYSTOWN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC STUDY CoNSULTING CROU', INC. City of Shakopee 0065653 March 2006 , I Mr. Michael Leek March 27, 2006 City of Shakopee Page 5 I FUTURE 2015 NO-BUILD CONDITIONS I Traffic forecasts for no-build conditions were developed fur year 2015. This scenario was analyzed to determine future traffic operations without the proposed Bluffs at Marystown residential development. In order to account for background growth for year 2015 traffic I forecasts, a two-percent yearly growth rate was applied to all roadways. This growth rate was determined by reviewing historic traffic volumes on the adjacent roadways and discussing surrounding development potential with the City of Shakopee. The no-build forecast volumes I include trips generated by the proposed Countryside esidential. development located east of Marystown Road and north and south of 17th Avenue, as well as the new Shakopee High School which is currently being built east of Marys town Road and south of 17th Avenue. I Daily and a.m/p.m. peak hour trips for the Countryside residential development were estimated based on land use type and size using the 2003 ITE Trip Generation Reports. Trips generated for the new Shakopee High School are based on data provided by the City of Shakopee and the I Shakopee School District. Based on data from the existing Shakopee High School, it was assumed that 75 to 80-percent of the students will drive to school (carpooling was assumed with a 15 average occupancy rate) and 25-percent taking the bus or being dropped off. It is important I to note that the peak hour for students arriving to school is the same as the a.m. peak hour for the adjacent roadways; however, the p.m. peak hour for the high school is earlier then the adjacent roadway p.m. peak ho ur, which is why the p.m. peak hour trips generated for the high school are I lower then the a.m. peak hour. Trip generation estimates for the adjacent developments are shown in Table 2. I Table 2 Trip Generation Estimates Land Use Size Daily A.M. Pe~ P.M. Peak , Trips In Out In Out Counnyside Residential Development I Single Family Homes 427 homes 3,953 77 231 249 146 New Shako pee High School (J) High School 1,600 students 2,736 800 203 210 240 I Total 6,689 877 434 459 386 (1) Trips generated for the high school are based on data from the existing Shakopee High School, which assumes I that 75 to 80-percent of the students will drive to school (carpooling was assumed with a 1.5 average occupancy rate) and 25-percent taking the bus or being dropped off. Trips for the high school were distributed based on the location of residential areas within the Shakopee school district limits The trips for the adjacent developments were distributed to the adjacent roadways based on existing travel patterns in the area. The directional distribution for the Countryside residential development is shown in Figure 3. Trips for the high school were distributed based on the location of residential areas within the Shakopee school district limits. The combination of background traffic and trips generated by anticipated adjacent developments resulted in the year 2015 no-build traffic volumes shown in Figure 4. - - -- \..i,e;WtA ,>"~\"" ~~'ti'(~:f"'<-o\\ ~~,*\~.y.f0.../ j"/ /~. ""'...,:~ Cree .// I /,1, , .'\ ',$&i""~, x /'~' \ ffl9i'" It.L...", "\ ~:~ll\ :A:.jY I ,/ /' ".~.. - ..-' -.. ...,....,. ,(frY/ II J/Q F..DEN PI~Aml.E /"- , \-",:-'j'-""J~~\ff-, ,';"'" ",.:::.t:\ 1 (' V;;' 1//.- / "'6; "~:!.., ". /!,f.' mOOl'OOlX,OO' ,-,/;::.:."" ~ '~!""/~ ~""il' Ifff$~(',....\ <l'X~.../\'l!) ~ cl1}...,' CI'I.1N"nASS)<'N' 5% ,..... ....':lz:...~",/ . //Ji. '.' 11 -1'"......,,,-.. ,11" 1.'/$;' ~ ,~ , J ,\ '.... ...... <<l. U. ... ~ -.' '1Ji> " """".... /"" t'l i' J'j...,rhl ! \ i!~ I t:"\', 'S''''\. -)" \\ ,.., ..,............. mooMP. 2O,J;:1 0"",:':, j~ !!f~ " ~~ {\, ~%7'.')>'<t:~t~~~' _.,.~/! !.b ] . )." f1 \~ (!!~ / ...."... .~......" " <1* W rz f/!t' _'-="'," . " \-.. . !\)!'___]\ '" i ~ '""-"', / ..1..... /)/v n~" ....."~! ""7"/ C', CO''" '- J,... 1;/ '" '__'~" "--"-t~ ' W& ~.... <;jo. \%, .... ~ ,f' .. ~tr.~ . ,I ~.lft~""',\;,.<"';; \.p'" \ ~111{~-;J.<1).... "~,);\ .~! \(~' /. I J &// A :0,'" stO'f~ ""'''''eO' '" ~ /::;:~;:;;';'Mif1il~S'0.tii. :':' <<~i{t\t ',riB. ~ ~ m~;,'~' ~ \~. Vjl </~~'~ J>> f' ~J I \{ ./-::' ) ....J/ /1 ~~ .<11 ". ~~.....:::;:;.... . ill!....\. ',/l,-i)! t]g ~ ,~,-.. .~k;{ [ill ~/\ ,..., \/ "l/ /< / I "I'!. f r,;;. 'i-;:~/ T_eoort 1<';, ,"...... '", F ~ Q:'%1 I""", . Il( fir i{tj '!'>;, '1!n.....; ...../~....::,r / / ~lt ~.' ,....}-.... '-:;y ..,~~~~~~..".11'~it'- ~~:\ \ >iic"!}t., lJt l';~:;f?~d?<,:~~~;.;~s<t/ , "''''- ~r< /,.-:'::-" ,:\;......:::::::>.::...."'?"-,~r L:~":.\ . ~\i{..:~~,~(;' ~\ ~ "" '''I I!}~"L,. "lFA>wcr. (j/'1V,~~v-< i'>/ '/ I _..... j// "":--,,. ......... ....J.,.'0., . \,1 \',\'\-i;' f' ....., .1 \! .flr-...,\. li1!.IlC__L.., /;t/~ ~~J/'/\ r"",-..,.eoort /;;:;;;.;;;:.:,~, '/ ""......:~F;.:....'ii"r'f;,;)f,"\ l;n1;~.!l\.~,.V.:....\(tt),. j@ ~ Q~~~... ~~ 't~!<tY"4:>~ "//f/ .,;..P/..... I ,.;/;:;::::..... ~!/~~ ~ ~:~\ ~ 1 ~t.M~\~ ~'M\_:. \~.::v.~~\:'\;;~\. \, y----- "\ ~\r. Il ,~I) \ Gi) jp'\-:,},,,,>fj/,,~?/ I ,,';;"',~' <SIX\', ,'/;/' ,_L,,"'\"\"'F,",;u.:\ ~ ''''-I. '\"'~l' ,.~...)...I,__.", 2:L...._.... !~ \ 1>-.~X \.~?//i~ ....'/ _ ...~.._.;.;.::/~ p..,,,, /,,// ./.~'_.... ~ ~~':r"1~~.\ t\6...:.....t- t @ . .V"i.<::r' '- I ~'I...1 \\~ '% \j~~~ o/"~::::?~~~(i/ .....C./;:.::::=:-.:::....c-Wl(;'niSota '1""~~>.;;f/r/.;~/..:':"'2.A"....'r"'(~~:":r\:i.i~~\\\i\ \~\'~i;Y~\ ~H\\\ I ~'.("''!i~_v"" \'\: '1;. f'...;:....fi. / .r~...,,\. \wi ,...~,~.:~.- . .,.', ----. \ \ '1>'=;._+=": '~" \ \- I ~J \~ I 'I!:l' \ -\.. ") ...{~ f<-j /I/Ii/ [ 4;t;/ [m....../;;.:....,>-;" ....;::*'. ...;}.:~,." ~n. I...-^ wj ~"......,,~., :.-,...~-- J.~..r~'~~~ ..~~ ~ ~:~:'~-~1'1 .~\ ~ 1""1' 'J -.......~t I ti J "', J ... ~ ...~ ~';' [\" I ....~ /....",.. v. /"I'~',"..."->''''Mn~ ... /: ..,. ~. ~ ~'<I<'_"""'\ t '~\!l.\;... > ...."..,.. f < '"," , ..f!!Ll( (~,"o~,j\l\ " /}';>fP'- pC -7/ i':<... Lake //~" ,//.....,~ m ~\.\. 1.':', ~ '"" \. ~'Yy,\ \" ~ I .,li.i.2.l..~!!!,J ..,..~..~ r',:~ii #J ii, ;Jr,,, ....~".\ Flro'ma (~;"it: //f:4 \ If! !j~< )\\) y/ g:/;/ \ tr~'d\ l?~~~.-t~\ '\-~t.\,_ta~.~~~ '<t'>;"~r.-t '......l~j/~>-:: ,... ft:t,Clr;iYhl<'~,..), Il~;~q r:~ 1- ,...11 '-\"i:.~i:!:/ /~:'. '/11" :~rr;"^~ ~. ~\ .\..~;..\ ~;,':\!''''~,y''r\ I ! II ~I t\J" \ ~.;:'/,,~ : ,''', \ /V I \f '1'.~\..\~.,!.. :.:'>..... " ' 'il!' /'~~" / -'7'-1" ::; 1!,.~.;;,j,.dg;;: 1<0Fo_11 r..\ iH~"",;*'; ~,. :"''i''''t-r ..1. J..~I l:~.r ..:".......,...,..~~ ',."t",,, "'-.. I 1\('t~(~>C;\,/\ \\\!.!'\';: ::\.j (i~tP: '~,\\ \\~.:)>> /1 fi ~\~'~1~: ul"J! ! ~~~II~ ; ii II ii II t.:\,,~i~! \~: LL\",,~ l~... \ ~ \\1 {~Pl~~"'~ ", J <.)(/};~i~\~\.~\:~~'~\:~} .?l'() ~ \\i ~ '~~>\' >,/ I\~ ,,6$'~['~r~I:"1 ? (I):t .. l'~i~i)~J50/0 '~'Yr) ~ i:~llli;! ~i.. ~~l .'.t~ I: II~ ~ -.......,,-./I<G>,~'*"......, '~w\;:\.s\"%\'t\~i\--\\. ~11!\O ;~..-..~.--;'J /.../ ($'~l --f!!:~ ~t:~~! ~j-~!, '~_~~N{~ ....4~/ f( ~ e I J 1<"'~~I~rlf'~~' ~b""~~% : ,J~..'-\ \ \,,"'. 't\:1- < P ..{/-::;~,-,( ,;''i..f.!!;j.,l ~: I . lUll.... ti -X "/ l ",..- ,(~, ,~~,~l *~.."1': I :' .,.\''''\..l'i.\...1',\}~"A...'\. Vi!/~ r.<;;</ ( ;~: 11~lllllllii\il'i' g.";",, '/(Shakopee)~\(, ~r-<,'" kG:? II€!,,~ ! 1/,J'~:~rW:\..\,,~-...~;\ ~_...-.-_--.:,-~:.::.~..~~'... If, . ~ \t.~~_.. 4/ ~ J~l~l~l tmit1ilm ~~; .l/;g~~ ~~#4'if"'<~ i~ /l/~..t\\ ~ l'~ /y;:.':'/""'- ."~~';:'.:~........),J .R; / 7;(y):t~/.~ ,~~,. ~I-Jiilii,.;r~lt:.ll~r;m '-Lj'.. ~.. /~;~:;: ~;J;" ?I''i!ijf~I.;~~;'~~' ~"",,:i"~! r -\--- . 'j.1"\2.....'lI'i 11, ",,:d_, '/ '" -'" <"'/ 1( m:fuff<"1 "'~ " ,,/y.' .,'",,, ,,,-'-:': .",..~,..I~Jll;' h," $'/ ';". " , . _" _ ",i' , , / / Jff 'I' </ } 1:1' . .... . '! · I fr' ,.( ~":~'''' 1#' Jh., ''''''~}k "."'" " .. J;i.'..., i" ,#;" "150* V// '/;, ~<'" n. l\(....I!(...;"'...>'B~~"""""iTl ><, . "-..-.. ~/'/>/~Il \ \~" 0 IJ~ .... (~t "'~~;r:.:..l.;~ ..:-i~t'M fu'\ ""'~,~r:be:.~~~~:~l.~~(':~~~;. }i .. ~ ~ \~):."..'" I ,,, ;m( l"f f) r...~l ......l~.r-....J.'r I ~" ,..-....~it ">f~i' v_ ~t.} li#. /Cl~ ~..' .<",..">.:"" ,.. V />( -: :.:.... ,(,J}1'~ColJrt. 1".... Jt,r";",,..M=:J,J,l~"ftttU' (....,.::.Y# ~ 1;; V ",__r~m~$:."'\~ ~ ,t;?; l~"~ ....,....... , .~." l~ ,~t;;;p~t'" ..... Z~) / ....;.:.... .~-. ';~".. R ..~t!~~. ".' 1 \ ><;~ittlj'~~, T'<:.... n ~'r-... *.~., ..-} ,~~ Wi: I'!!: .. I ~ '~I"'1.':~< p"""'<" ':; "....,.. "..,~,. / ';://' Chaska ~) ~\, LP'~ .t~~ ~, ..~'\.. ~~;,;- ,...,'......", "".' {~.ft$_.:: \\\,<:;;. ,,< ~ -- -, 'f' " rAT...~i{-7;;~."~../f-..--_.. ~rr -'T...f''# /' rmH). .~'''','~~,~,~>..:"'}, ,~~ --It' ~ t....; /11 W'/Y ""YJl {/,?f~ L~~; -/ ~ V ~ f-)"/ J.\ ,1!.? ~ll ~t~~~~:::Jt;11::l /-*". /..//( ~ "\.\.0 . /1/- f" ~l 650* .."",~,., ~f \..."."........,........; <ff /' //d /, I A< * l' ,.,....,. ~. I~ // "II/',t' , / ,1 0 mS 11 ~, . ..-'.:7' , / ' '! jf I I ,. I! ~i ,,&, . ! ,...1;1/ ,,~:,' , " / lrnJI.,eoort Ii' I .,.,.,."" !it. .... "" ~" //(;/ ,//~)) ;/ "\.k? . .,,< ! j ~ f . ~ ... .., -~-;;;,r;1~\...- /// PfF . I ,~l 5, ,'m' SHAKOI)EE T * ........,..", __.,;?;.../ //-;/ .,.,~ "'~.......'.. ~...- . t .....-- . Z!Ji !, i '{.. .., . J ! ~~:.. ..", ".:::::.~:;:::::;..-' c;;mrorq;f/;;'I /.,..... ~. r....k{/~CKSONTOWNSHI? I, I ~ "'~......: :/00(1_. M,oo.~ , ~ ......." "_..""..".--" < -k InF' // "f~, ~.,~ <~. 'I '1' ! ~i"'t, ,,<...'"::0"::0.....,.......... '"'" 0//0'/ / Trml1i\\' '''~A'''''' .~'''CW. "~' I ' "..' "''''''''''..f''. i fl 0, /l:;:;'" j//~;";:fJr ,,f ~ Ii ~. j"r;,) I I......". ~.. ....'!..~,.... .L ...... ..r~,lr"'" . : =;: If......~.;~~~I-'!I" -// ",y '" . /it' . I .h'/;"/~'" 'SITE i .,..! ~~ I '....... ':;'''' J ,;?' Ifl:; jf I I ! I 11 ,~' "'", I!!. '. .; il "l /d f ~. jt{ , <1;.-1 ~ I "t ....... ~"'~ \,.:cil lr~~'Yl....._"..-. :...,....~~"'.,"""'~,~_....+...._\~_.,0~..)r ..~L)! ....;;.~..,!o.........._.......\I...~~).!~.~"-~.... ~,,~~~.~r=-"!..~!:4..1:0... ~><"'''.'' If I 50/0 ~ ~, lil ~, \'f7. )/0 i '\. I ....."..1 ,...~,:.::.'::::.:'..~...y [( ;. IC 1m ~!! 1 ..\) I( . . j fI 1 ~l:\ "'<,,',', Il t .........._..._...................I...'i...."..."....._..._"........~'" ja-.. I GS'th N t TH 169) ,,~. ,i.. I "",,;;i"'/ ""',,,,,, ....'~2.::~':.>'" 1\ f:. ~L\rt ~WM:l ';'~',~.... , 'j .OU 0 r1?~:*..~~...~ i.m.,.......,.,. . ....T... 1~:' '<',',', 1\ %! W '" I . ~.."....................j , 1 I 1 "I ' ~ ;f!/ . "', "~:---"', \. "" '~'I ..' , I " ! ~'V'd'...'" ~\ l' f! ~. ~ f I .';0;> @)}. ~,Ji. # ,I"~ .,1 r.'t I I I !il L . \]j\ ./'\\~if I I i I r 1'" ~ RESIDENTIAL DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION ~ BLUFFS AT MARYSTOWN RESIDENTIAL DEvELOPMENT TRAFFIC STLDY Figure 3 CONStlLTlNG G<<our, INC City of Shakopee 0065653 March 2006 --~- - - - - - - - - - -- I\) -l'>- ~ ~ ~ 23(34) <0 <:) Ul 00 ..... 5 (5) ~}.. 4i~ r13(42) ir- 1i 1ic+ '"''"' Ul I\) I\) ",",I\)I\) '"'0 0>..... 0>....0> ~ ~ ..... . '" + 5 (5) r-'~6un~rySide ~ UlOUl w~ + 5 (3) 5 (5) Bluffs at 5 ~ I Marystown Wi SIte m1~,~J.. 24 Ul g: C11 I Site ..' 5 Ui':i>:Ui -.j .... -.!E.- ",",00 I i C L 186(183) r 34 (26) I tc+ I ..... 00..... <0 00 ~ /' I I\) "'"'V> lit . \~::.;;11 ~ i iJ.;? &j \ ,,,..'1'1 o U1 ...... ;...., ~.....~ C11O>W I {cr..... ...................Jl._'I',.....J ..' OUlN o 6(9) ;; -;: -c;; 29 (35) '~;;;'18 _1-li'\..'F.M 011, ! ,W/ i <0 0> (0 ~179 (180) I\) "'"' 0 + 0 (1) ~ '~ @......m'''.'.._...J .J +r 4+ 6 (4) I LEGEND !ii I (27) 30 -t (5) 0 + xx $XX) = AM PEAK (PM PEAK) i ~ i = SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION I 1 (172) 154-' (0)0+ ..... 0.. = SIDE-STREET STOP CONTROLLED U1Ul I (34) 5 (1)0 0 ~ 0> INTERSECTION ~~ . ' "."",..r * = NEW INTERSECTION i - = PROPOSED ROADWAY I iii I ~ 2015 NO BUILD PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Figure 4 BLUFFS AT MARYSTOWN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC STUDY CONSULtlNC ()""ll...INC. City of Shakopee 0065653 March 2006 Mr. Michael Leek March 27, 2006 City of Shakopee Page 8 For purposes of this analysis, access improvements are consistent with the development of a future TH 41 river crossing. Aspart of the TH 41 river crossing project, an interchange will be built at TH 169/0Id Brick Yard Road as well as a south frontage road that starts at thewest leg of the Marystown Road/TH 169 South Ramp intersection and parallels TH 169 to the west and south, creating a new full intersection at Old Brick Yard Road. Currently, a river crossing alternative has not been chosen, however, the configuration of the new interchange at TH 169/01d Brick Yard Road and the frontage road is essentially the same for all alternatives. Geometric design of these intersections is in the early stages and lane configurations have not yet been determined. For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that all three new intersections are side-street stop controlled. The interchange is assumed to be similar to the Marystown RoadffH 169 interchange, with a four-lane bridge but with no turn lanes on Old Brick Yard Road and short right-turn lanes on the ramps. All approaches at the intersection of Old Brick Yard RoadINew Frontage Road are assumed to be one-lane approaches. The hne geometry for the new frontage road connection at Marystown Road is assumed to be a one-lane approach. Assumed lane configurations for the new intersections are shown in Figure 4. To determine how well the existing and future roadway system will accommodate the year 2015 no-build traffic forecasts, a traffic operations analysis was conducted for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. As shown in Table 3, all key intersections are expected to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the peak hours with the existing and future geometric layout and traffic control. Table 3 2015 No-Build Peak Hour Capacity Analysis level of Service Results INTERSECTION Level of Service A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Marystown Road and Vierling Drive* AlC AlC Marystown Road and TH 169 North Ramps* AIB AlC Marystown Road and TH 169 South Ramps and New AlC AlC Frontage Road* Marystown Road and 17th A venue * AIB AIB Marystown Road and 128th Street* AIB AIB Marystown Road and BOth Street* BIB BIB Zumbro A venue and BOth Street* AlA AlA Old Brick Yard Road and l30th Street* AlB A/B Old Brick Yard Road. and New Frontage Road* AlA AlA Old Brick Yard Road and TH 169 South Ramps* AlB A/B Old Brick Yard Road and TH 169 North Ramps* B/C AIB * Indicates an unsignalized intersection. The overall LOS is shown followed by the worst approach LOS Mr. Michael Leek March 27,2006 City of Shakopee Page 9 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed development is to be constructed in the northwest quadrant of Marystown Road and 130th Street The site is currently vacant, with the exception of a few single family homes. There are currently two different development scenarios proposed for this site. Scenario One was chosen for this analysis, as it generates more trips (approximately five-percent more) than Scenario Two and represents the worst case scenario. The proposed development will consist predominantly of residential homes, with some neighborhood retail, office and an elementary school. The proposed development is planned to be constructed in phases by the year 2015. Figure 5 displays the proposed site plan. In addition, it was assumed that the Countryside residential development and New Shakopee High School assumed for the 2015 no-build analysis will be built, as well as anew adjacent residential development by Bruggeman Homes, that will be built in the undeveloped triangular area that is northwest of the Bluffs at Marystown site, east of Old Brick Yard Road and south of the bluff/tree line (see aerial map in Figure 5). This development will only be built if the Bluffs at Marystown development is built, which is why it was not assumed for 2015 no-build conditions. As part of the Bluffs at Marystown and Bruggeman residential developments, 17th Avenue will be extended from Marystown Road to Old Brick Yard Road. TRAFFIC FORECASTS Trip generation estimates for the a.m. and p.m. peak periods and on a daily basis were calculated for the proposed development. The trip generation estimates were generated based on the 2003 ITE Trip Generation Reports, using the land use type and size. Trip generation estimates for the proposed development as well as the adjacent Bruggeman residential development are shown in Table 4. Table 4 Trip Generation Estimates Land Use Size Daily A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Trips In Out In Out Bluffi at M01ystown Development . Single Family Homes 451 units 4,157 81 244 262 154 Town homes 292 units 1,596 21 101 97 48 Neighborhood Commercial 22,500 sq. ft 2,983 45 29 130 141 Office 22,500 sq. ft. 423 50 7 18 86 Elementary School 600 students 774 139 113 76 92 Subtotal 9,933 335 494 583 522 Bruggeman Residential Development Single Family Homes 750 units 6,637 134 401 414 243 Total fi'om No-Build analysis(Table2) 6,689 877 434 459 386 Grand Total (2015) Build 23,259 1,346 1,329 1,456 1,151 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ SITE PLAN Figure 5 I BLUFFS AT MARYSTOWN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC STUDY CO~'Sl!1,llNG (;Rt..lBr, lNc~ City of Shako pee 0065653 March 2006 Mr. Michael Leek March 27,2006 City of Shakopee Page 11 I Traffic forecasts were developed for year 2015 (one year after construction). The trips were assigned to the adjacent roadway system using the directional distribution shown in Figure 3. The directional distribution was developed based on current local trave I patterns in the study I area. In addition, a two-percent yearly growth rate was used to account for growth in background traffic volumes on all roadways. The combination of background traffic growth assumptions, adjacent Bruggeman development and the developments assumed for the 2015 no- I build analysis, plus the estimated trips generated by the proposed development is shown on Figure 6. I FUTURE CONDITIONS I To determine how well the existing and future roadway system will accommodate the proposed development, an a.m. and p.m. peak hour operations analysis was conducted for year 2015 build conditions. The geometric layout and traffic control assumed for the 2015 no-build analysis was I assumed for all key intersections for the 2015 build analysis. Lane geometry for the new west leg at Marystown Road and TH 169 South Ramps was assumed to be a one-lane lane approach. All approaches for the new Old Brick Yard Road/17th A venue intersection are assumed to be I one-lane approaches. Table 5 I 2015 Build Peak Hour Capacity Analysis level of Service Results INTERSECTION Level of Service I A.M. Peak P.M. Peak MarystownRoad and Vierling Drive* AID AID I Marystown Road and TH 169 North Ramps* BID (B) F/F (B) I Marystown Road and TH 169 South Ramps* F/F (B) FIF (A) I Marystown Road and 17th Avenue* F/F (B) F/F(B) Marystown Road and 128th Street* AlC AID Marystown Road and BOth Street* C/C CID I Zumbro A venue and 130th Street* AIB AlB Old Brick Yard Road and BOth Street* A/B AlC Old Brick Yard Road and 17th A venue* AlA AlA Old Brick Yard Road and Frontage Road* AlB AlB Old Brick Yard Road and TH 169 South Ramps* AlB AIB Old Brick Yard Road and TH 169 North Ramps* BIC AIB * Indicates an un signalized intersection. The overall LOS is shown followed by the worst approach LOS (X) - LOS is parenthesis represents the expected LOS with the recommended improvements listed below ... 1\)"" CJ).... 4~ 383' 53. 00(,) O'Ico..... + Bluffs at 5 + Marystown 2-1- ... ... co Site 6 O'I~-,," ~...~ ... 0'1 ... ~~~ ............"!::.. w. ~ ......~ "" r -~ ... CJ)_ ""(,) --- --- --- .... ...--- (,)0).... l\)"'l\) 0>-1.... "" .... 01 d '$f. 0>000'1 CJ)oo ~ ~ ~ 6 (9) ................~L?!.....,..... ;; ;;;; + 25 (38) ';i; '(; -:; 33 (45) 01 .... ell L241 (228) 0'1 -I + ~~~'lm o 0 .01 229 (212) i ""010 0(1) I ....i + 6(4) .:11 + 25 (13) I +r LEGEND g 1+ (130) 120-t (120) 103 + + xx $XX) = AM PEAK (PM PEAK) (40) 8 = SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION (214)149 + ....-"" I (221)215. (0) 0 N o = SIDE-STREET STOP CONTROLLED :9~ (47) 21 (9) 7 "'" ~ 0) (7) 9 I INTERSECTION ___ N * = NEW INTERSECTION I .... N~ ....-1.... - = NEW ROADWAY ~~- Iii ! rmD 2015 BUILD PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Figure 6 BLUFFS AT MARYSTOWN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC STUDY Cot"iSUI.:flNO O(tovr, INC. City of Shakopee 0065653 March 2006 Mr. Michael Leek March 27, 2006 City of Shakopee Page 13 As shown in Table 5, all key intersections are expected to continue to operate at an overall acceptable LOS C or better during the peak hours with the assumed geometric layout and traffic I control, with the exception of Marystown Road/TH 169 South Ramps and Marystown Road/17th Avenue for both peak hours, and Marystown RoadITH 169 North Ramps for the p.m. peak hour. These intersections operate at poor levels of service due to the significant increase of traffic that I causes queuing on side-street approaches. High traffic volumes on the mainline do not allow for gaps for side-street vehicles. In order for these intersections to operate at acceptable levels, the following intersection improvements are recommended: I Marystown RoadITH 169 North Ramps . Installation of a traffic signal. Traffic volume for the westbound left-tmn during the I p.m. peak hour is over 600 vph and will not operate at an acceptable level without a traffic signal. . In conjunction with the new traffic signal, the lane geometry for the westbound I approach should be reassigned from a shared left-through and right-turn lane to a left- turn lane and shared through-right-turn lane. This allows for through vehicles to cross the intersection without being blocked by yielding left-turn vehicles and also allows I for protected-permissive signal phasing Marystown RoadlTH 169 South Ramps I . Installation of a traffic signal. The addition of the west leg at this intersection and increased traffic on all approaches does not allow for gaps for side-street traffic, which I experience significant delay. . In conjunction with a new traffic signal, the side-street approaches should include a left-turn lane and a shared through-right-turn lane. A northbound left-tum.lane should I be built opposite the existing southbound left-turn lane. For safety reasons, a southbound right-turn lane should be considered due to the high volume and high speed. limit on Marystown Road. I Marystown Road/17th Avenue . Based on high delay experienced by eastbound vehicles and the close proximity of the high school and elementary school, a traffic signal is recommended at this location. However, overall traffic volumes may not be high enough to warrant a traffic signal If a signal is not built at this location, traffic will have the option divert to the Marystown RoadITH 169 South RampsrNew Frontage Road to the north, to avoid the delay. . It is recommended that the geometries for the new west leg include a left-turn lane and a shared through-right-turn lane. A northbound left-turn lane should be built opposite the existing southbound left-turn lane. For safety reasons, a southbound right-turn lane should be considered due to the high volume and high speed limit on Marystown Road. Mr. Michael Leek March 27,2006 City of Shakopee Page 14 SYSTEM CONTEXT AND SITE ACCESS The extension of 17th Avenue from Marystown Road to Old Brick Yard Road was reviewed to evaluate its role and potential jurisdiction within the region Typically, County Highways within the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area tend to be longer, continuous routes that connect multiple activity centers and serve larger travel sheds. They also tend to operate at higher travel speeds I (i.e. provide greater mobility) and a higher degree of access control (i.e. few, if any, private access points and limited public access points). I With the extension of 17th Avenue to Old Brick Yard Road (see Figure 7), this route, along with the CSAH 16 segment, provides increased continuity from CSAH 18 to Old Brick Yard Road. This route covers approximately eight miles. Assuming that higher speeds and access controls I are in place, this route could be considered Dr county jurisdiction. The next parallel east-west route in this area, south of TH 169, is CSAH 42. CSAH 42 is approximately one mile south of 17th A venue and only extends to CSAH 17. CSAH 78 is approximately Y2 mile south of 17th I A venue. The spacing with CSAH 78 is typically closer than desirable spacing for county jurisdiction. However, other routes may be better suited for city jurisdiction, including CR 77 and CR 79 (north of CSAH 78) and CSAH 16 from CSAH 83 to CSAH 17. These routes lack I the continuity and spacing with other higher-order routes and they lack access to TH 169. These other routes could be included in discussions with Scott County on long-term system changes. I Access spacing was also reviewed for key routes. The proposed access spacing long Marystown Road is adequate and meets county road access requirements of quarter- mile spacing. As directed by the City of Shakopee, it was assumed that there will be no new development south of I BOth Street by year 2015. However, if this land does develop, there may be a need to upgrade Marystown Road and Old Brick Yard Road to four-lane sections. Preservation of right-of-way for four-lane sections on these roadways should be required. I We have reviewed the proposed Bluffs at Marystown site plan and access and the following recommendations are offered for your consideration: I a) In general, we are concerned that the existing routes (local routes) may not be perpetuated or carried through to the proposed development. For example, BOth Street does not line up with the existing Zumbro A venue to the south; These local I street discontinuities create short movements on county facilities and do not promote neighborhood connectivity. I b) It is unclear from the site plan how bus and drop-off traffic will be routed at the proposed elementary school; best design practice recommends that separate access be provided for bus and other site traffic. , c) The driveway to the proposed elementary school is located on an internal roadway approximately 200 feet from BOth Street. There is a potential for traffic queuing extending onto 130th Street due to the short distance. It is recommended 1hat the I driveway to the elementary school be located to increase the distance from the I - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ COUNTY ROADS Figure 7 BLUFFS AT MARYSTOWN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC STUDY CONSUltiNG Com,,_ 1>1<:. City of Shakopee 0065653 March 2006 Mr. Michael Leek March 27,2006 City of Shakopee Page 16 I driveway to BOth Street and separate accesses provided for bus and vehicle (drop- off) traffic. I d) 17th A venue will be a heavily traveled internal roadway that feeds the residential area, therefore it is recommended that no homes face or access directly to this roadway(this is consistent with Figure 5). I e) Access to local businesses along the proposed frontage road along the north side of the site should be consolidated as much as possible to reduce conflict points. This route. will see increased traffic if areas to the south and west develop along TH 169. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the analysis, the following conclusions and recommendation are offered for your consideration: 1) All key intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with existing geometric layout and traffic control 2) Under 2015 no-build conditions, all key intersections are expected to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the peak hours with the existing and future. geometric layout and traffic control. 3) Under 2015 build conditions, all key intersections are expected to continue to operate at an overall acceptable LOS C or better during the peak hours with the geometric layout and traffic control assumed for the 2015 no-build analysis, with the exception of Ma.rystown Road/TH 169 South Ramps and Ma.rystown Road/17th Avenue for both peak hours, and Ma.rystown RoadITH 169 North Ramps for the p.m. peak hour. These intersections operate at poor levels of service due to the significant increase of traffic that causes queuing on side- street approaches. High traffic volumes on the mainline do not allow for gaps for side-street vehicles. In order for these intersections to operate at acceptable levels, the following intersection improvements are recommended: a) MalYstown RoadITH 169 North Ramps 0 Installation of a traffic signal. Traffic volumes for the westbound left-turn during the p.m. peak hour are over 600 vph and will not operate at an acceptable level without a traffic signal. 0 In conjunction with the new traffic signal, the lane geometry for the westbound approach should be reassigned from a shared left-through and right-turn lane to a left-turn lane and shared through-right-turn lane. This allows for through vehicles to cross the intersection without being blocked by yielding left-turn vehicles and also allows for protected-permissive signal phasing Mr. Michael Leek March 27,2006 City of Shakopee Page 17 b) Marvstown RoadlTH 169 South Ramps 0 Installation of a traffic signal. The addition of the west leg at this intersection I and increased traffic on all approaches does not allow for gaps for side-street traffic, which experience significant delay. 0 In conjunction with a new traffic signal, the side-street approaches should I include a left-turn lane and a shared through-right-turn lane. A northbound left-turn lane should be built opposite the existing southbound left-turn lane. For safety reasons, a southbound right-turn lare should be considered due to I the high volume and high speed limit on Marystown Road. c) Marystown Road/17th Avenue I 0 Based on high delay experienced by eastbound vehicles and the close proximity of the high school and elementary school, a traffic signal is I recommended at this location. However, overall traffic volumes may not be high enough to warrant a traffic signal. If a signal is not built at this location, eastbound traffic will have the option to divert to the Marystown RoadlTH I 169 South RampslNew Frontage Road signal, to avoid the delay. Westbound traffic on 17th would not have other options to get to a signalized intersection, in this immediate area I 0 It is recommended that the geometries for the new west leg include a left-turn. lane and a shared through-right-turn lane. A northbound left-turn lane should be built opposite the existing southbound left-turn lane. For safety reasons, a I southbound right-turn lane should be considered due to the high volume and high speed limit on Marystown Road. I 4) Based on our review, connecting the proposed frontage road from Marystown Road to Old Brick Yard Road on the north side .of the bluff to the proposed frontage road connection at TH 41 would be the best option, leaving 17th A venue as a potential county road that ends at Old Brick Yard Road. I 5) As directed by the City of Shakopee, it was assumed that there will be no new development south of BOth Street by year 2015. However, if this land does develop, there may be a need I to upgrade Marystown Road and Old Brick Yard Road to a four-lane section (routes leading to interchanges tend to attract high-levels of traffic). Preservation of right-of-way for these sections of roadway should be required. I 6) Site access on l30th Street should be reconsidered so that some continuity of local streets is achieved between the north and south sides of 130th Street. I 7) It is unclear from the site plan how bus and drop-off traffic will be routed at the proposed elementary school, however, it is recommended that bus traffic and vehicle drop-off areas be I separated. I I Mr. Michael Leek March 27,2006 City of Shakopee Page 18 8) The driveway to the proposed elementary school is located on an internal roadway approximately 200 feet from BOth street. There is a potential for traffic queuing extending onto BOth Street due to the short distance. It is recommended that the driveway to the I elementary school evaluated and appropriate steps taken to increase the distance from the driveway to BOth Street. I 9) 17th A venue will be a heavily traveled internal roadway that feeds the residential area; therefore it is recommended that no homes face this roadway. I 10) Access to local businesses along the proposed frontage road along the north side of the site should be consolidated as much as possible to reduce conflict points. This route will see increased traffic if areas to the south and west develop along TH 169. I 11) The city and county should discuss the jurisdiction of 17th A venue along with other potential routes mentioned in this report. The continuity of .} 7th A venue and CSAH 16 suggest that r this may fit the criteria for a county facility; however, route spacing, especially with CSAH 78 and the fact that is lacks continuity on the west end (Old Brick Yard Road) detract from this jurisdiction. I I I , I 1 I