The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About13.D.2. The Bluffs at Marystown EAW-Res. No. 6555 ~ -#/3.J~, ~, WSB & Associates, Inc. Infrastructure I Engineering I Planning I Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Memorandum Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council, City of Shakopee . From: Andrea Moffatt, WSB Date: . December 26,2006 Re: The Bluffs at Marystown Environmental Assessment Worksheet WSB Project No. 1281-93 The public cemment peried fer The Bluffs at Marystewn Envirenmental Assessment Werksheet (EAW) ended May 24, 2006. The purpese eftheEA W is to. identify petential envirenmental impacts and determine whether er net an Envirenmental Impact Statement (ElS) is required. An ElS is a mere extensive envirenmental review process. Determining whether er net an ElS is neededdees not relate to. providing appreval or denial fer the preject. Based on the infermatien in the EA W and review agency cemments regarding the EA W, the preject dees net have the potential fer significant envirenmental impacts that cannet be addressed as part efthe permitting precess. Therefere, it is eur recommendatien that an ElS is net required Enclesed, please find the fellowing items fer yeur review relating to. this EA W: . Draft memo. dated December 26, 2006 to. the review agencies responding to. cemments received en the EAW (hereby referred to. as the comment/response memo). This memo. restates the agencies' comments and then respends to. each Issue. . The Findings efFact en the need fer an Envirenmental Impact Statement (ElS). . A cepy efthe agencies' comment letters. . Draft reselutien relating to. a Negative Declaration efNeed. Summary of Maier Comments As part efthe public comment period, comments were received frem the US Cerps efEngineers, Scott Ceunty Public Works, Shakepee Envirenmental Advisery Ceuncil, and the Department of Natural Resources. Outlined belew is a brief summary ef enly the majer issues previded in the review agency cemments: 1. Scott County had additional questions and concerns regarding traffic impacts in the area. These cemments were addressed with some additional analysis. Further, ceerdinatien Minneapoli1!:\~h~lp_~~\Adll1in\Docs\Final EA W Docs\MEMO - 122606 - hmcc.doc Equal Opportunity Employer December 26, 2006 Page 2 of2 with the Ceunty and City will be needed to obtain right-ef-way as the preject meves ferward in the area. 2. The EAC requested additienalbackgreund infermatien that has been previded in cemment/response memo.. Additienally, seme ef their questiens will need to. be addressed during the platting precess. 3. The DNR neted that the Shakepee Public Utility Commissien may need to. ebtain a DNR water apprepriatien permit to.. supply water to. this develo.pment. The EA W netes this permit requirement as well. City Co.uncil Decision Actien Action en the need fer an ElS fer this project has been delayed to.. cemplete the annexatien precess and ebtain Metrepelitan Council approval efthe City's Comprehensive Plan for the study area. Since these activities have been completed, the City is efficially the Regulatory Gevernment Unit (RGU) for the. study area and can move forward with an action en the EA W. The decision before the City Ceuncil regarding the EA W is to. decide whetherer not the project has the Po.tential fer significant environmental impacts that cannet be addressed through the permitting precesses. lf the Co.uncil determines that the preject dees net have the petential for these significant envirenmental impacts, the Co.uncil should issue a Negative Declaratien ef Need fer an EIS. If the Council determines that the prejectdees have the potential fer significant envirenmental impact that cannet be addressed threugh the permitting and. approval process, the Ceuncil sheuld require an EIS. Based en eur review, it is eur recemmendatien that an ElSis no.t needed fo.r this project. Ifyo.U have any questio.ns, please feel free to. call me at (763)287-7196. Attachments cc. Michael Leek, City ef Shakepee Mike Suel, DR Horten David Weetman, Westweed Professienal Services K:\OJ 28J-93\AdminIDocslFinal EA W Docs\MEMO - J 22606 - hmcc.doc RESOLUTION NO. 6555 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, MAKING A NEGATIVE FINDING ON THE NEED FORAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT(EIS) FOR THE PROJECT GENERALLY KNOWN AS "THE BLUFFS" WHEREAS, the preparation ef The Bluffs at Marystewn EA W and comments received en the EA W have generated infermatien adequate to. determine whether the proposed preject has the potentialfer significant environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, the EA W has identified areas where the petential fer significant environmental effects exist, but apprepriate measures have er will be incerperated into. the project plan and/er permits to reasenably mitigate these impacts; and WHEREAS, The Bluffs at Marystewn develepment is expected to. cemply with all the City ef Shakepee and review agency standards;. and WHEREAS, based en the criteria established in Minneseta R. 4410.1700, the project does net have the petential fer significant environmental effects; and WHEREAS, based en the Findings efFact and CencIusiens, the preject does net have the petential fer significant envirenmental impacts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City efShakepee has determined that an Envirenmental Impact Statement is net required. Adopted by the Shakepee City Ceuncil this _ day ef , 2007. Mayer ATTEST: City Clerk H: \CC\2007\OJ -05-2007\Resolution Bluffs at Marystown.doc . . WSB & Asso(:iates, 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: Judi Kolb, US Corps of Engineers Craig Jenson, Scott County Public Works Ryan Hughes,Skakopee Environmental Advisory Committee Joseph Kurcillka, Department ofNatura[ Resources From: Michael Leek, City of Shakopee Andrea Moffatt, WSB & Associates Date: December 26,2006 Re: The Bluffs at Marystown EA W Responses to Comments WSB Project No. 1281-93 The public cemment peried fer the Bluffs at Marystewn Develepment residential develepment Enviro.nmentalAssessment Worksheet (EA W) ended May 24,2006. Comnients were received frem the US Cerps efEngineers, Scett Ceunty Public Works, and the Shakepee Environmental Advisery Cemmittee. Cemments were received from the Department efNatural Reseurces.after the cemment peried en June 7, 2006. The Shake pee City Ceuncil delayed final actien en the EA W until the annexatien efthe site eccurred. Outlined belew, please find the cemments frem each agency fellewed by respenses to. these cemments. The cemment letters are also. attached fer your informatien. Comments from US Corps of Engineers Comment #1: [See specific letter fer backgreund infermatien.] If the prepesal invelves depesitien ef dredged or fill material into. water efthe United States, including discharges asseciated with mechanical land clearing, it may be subject to. COE jurisdictien under Sectien 404 efthe Clean Water Act. .. ..CW A prohibits discharges ef dredged er fill material into. waters eftheUnites States, unless the werk has been autherized by a Department of the Army permit under Section 404..... Response: There is ene wetland on the site and it is not anticipated to. be impacted. Hewever, the project prepesed will be required to ebtain all necessary permits frem the regulatory agencies, including the US Cerps efEngineers, if wetland impact will eccur. Comments from the Scott County Public Works Department .' Comment #1: The traffic study assumes that an interchange will be censtructed at TH 169 and CR 69 by 2015. We are net aware ef any funding fer the.censtructien ef an interchange at this location. An analysis should be cenducted fer the build and no. build scenaries that de net assume an interchange at TH 169 and CR 69. Minneapolis I St. Cloud Equal Opportunity Employer K:\01281_93\AdmiI/IDocsIMEMO-CRmemo-122606- SRF rev RML.doc < ,- December 26, 2006 Page 20/8 Response: The additienal analysis requested has been cempleted. Please reference the memerandum named Traffic Study for the Proposed Bluffs at Marystown Residential Development - Update, prepared by SRF Consulting Group, dated August 8th, 2006. Comment #2: The traffic study reveals that three intersectiens (CSAH 15/TH169 nerth ramp, south ramp, and CSAH 15117th Avenue) eperate at peer level ef service.. A recemmendation ef the EAW traffic study is fer installatien of traffic signals in order to. maintain the desired level ef service. We recemmend that an analysis be cempleted to. determine if installatien ef single er dual lane roundabeuts at these locatiens could maintain the same desired level ef service. Response: The additienal analysis requested has been cempleted. Please reference the memerandum named Traffic Study for the Proposed Bluffs at Marystown Residential Development - Update, prepared by SRF Censulting Group, dated August 8th, 2006. Comment #3: As preperty in Jacksen and Leuisville Tewnship is develeped with urban densities the traffic aleng CSAH 15, CSAH 78, and CR 69 will steadily increase. We recemmend right-ef- way bepreserved for the future to. accemmedate a minimum a feur-Iane divided design o.n all Ceunty reads (75 feet frem centerline). Response: The City has an established and utilized pelicy and practice fer preserving right- ef-way fer future use as new areas are annexed into the City and new develepment is approved. Until preperties in Jacksen Tewnship are annexed, hewever, it will be impertant that the County and Tewnship take steps to. preserve right-ef-way fer the desired design for Ceunty roads. Comment #4: Zumbro Avenue/CR 73 is a 5 mile road with a cennectien to. TH 282, and will likely serve as a majer cellecter ferthe City in the future. We recemmend a direct cennectienis made between Zumbro. and 17th Avenue. Response: While the City ef Shakepee andJacksen Tewnship have an erderly annexatien agreement, the Jacksen Tewnship Beard has indicated to. the City that it has no. present interest in properties south ef CSAH 78 (including the area described in the cemment) brought within the City's jurisdiction. Unless and until the area is in the City's jurisdictien, it will be incumbent en the Ceunty to. werk with Jacksen Tewnship to. make sure that such a connectien is made. Comment #5: CSAH 78 is currently an A Minor Arterial, andit likely will beceme a Principal Arterial with~ mile full access spacing in the future. The accesses.as shewn in the EAW will net meet long term access spacing. The current Friendship Church access is appreximately ~ mile frem CSAH 15 and weuld likely be made a right in/eut when CSAH 78 is upgraded to a divided roadway. We recommend a road is previded to. the church from the ~ mile leng term full access lecatien at Zumbro Avenue. Response: The City will continue to. werk with Scott Ceunty and develepers ef the subject property to. make sure that a future project is apprevable under the Ceunty's access spacing guidelines. K:\01281-93\Admin\Docs\MEMO-CRmemo-122606- SRF revRML.doc . " December 26, 2006 Page 3018 Comment #6: The Ceunty is eppesed to. having anether scheel site adjacent to. CSAH 78. As mentiened previeusly, CSAH 78 will likely be a future Principal Arterial carrying a high ameunt ef regienal traffic. This will create significant pedestrian issues depending en hew the property seuth ef CSAH 78 develeps in the future. The scheel site locatien should belocatedwithin the develepment as a neighberheed fecal peint and net adjacent to. high speed ceunty roadways. Meving the scheel location away frem ceunty roads will also. allew greater lecalcentrel ef speed limits and pedestrian patterns. Response: Because of the number efCeuntyreads and cellecter streets that criss-cross Shakepee and Jacksen Tewnship, and because ef the limited number ef parcels available in the marketplace for scheel purpeses, it is extremely difficult to. locate a scheel that is not adjacent to. Ceunty roads er ether higher speed roads. Mereever, simply meving scheol sites to. a site net adjacent to. Ceunty roads does nething to. selve the underlying. high-speed and pedestrian issues. Pedestrians trying to. access arelecated scheel site frem the seuth and east weuld still have to. cressCSAH's 78 and 15 respectively. Scheols may indeed serve an impertant purpese as a fecal point fer neighborheeds, but that dees net necessarily dictate a lecatien in the center ef a residential neighborhoed, as that poses its ewn traffic issues. Comment #7: Neise issues will increase in the area as traffic levels increase. The EA W dees not mentien neise generated frem the surreunding readways and their impact en the propesed land uses or how to. mitigate these issues. We recommend a neise study is cempleted that censiders state and federal neise standards. Neise attenuatien is the respensibility ef the City and develeper. Response: A specific neise study is required as a part efthe City's Planned Unit Develepment (PUD) and platting process. Comment #8: The EA W traffic study mentiens that 17th Avenue ceuldfit the criteria fer a Ceunty read between CSAH 15 and CSAH 69. The Ceunty feefs that the jurisdictien ef this road segment sheuld be under the Ceunty jurisdictien in the leng term. Ceunty jurisdictien ef 1 th Avenue weuld ceme with greater/restrictive standards which will result in changes to. the site plan. Ceunty jurisdictien standards that weuld need to. be met are as follews: . 1/4 mile full access spacing and 1/8 mile right in/eut. . Minimum 45 MPH design frem CSAH 15 to. CSAH 69 . Preservatien ef 150' tetal cerrider width The Ceunty is willing to. discuss the ultimate design ofthe read and hew these standards can be accomplished provided the leng-term needs are being preserved. A design ef 17th A venue wil~ need to. be created fer the entire length between.CSAH 15 and CR 69. Response: Whether the stretch ef 17th A venue between CSAH 15 and CSAH 69 needs to. be under the County's jurisdiction is an issue that must be werked eut between the City and the Ceunty. The City ef Shakepee has thus far been efthe epinien, in part because it weuld net cennect directly to. TH 169 that the specific segment weuld serve mere ef a lecal cellecter than arterial functien.Witheut a specific development propesal to. move fo.rward, K:\O 1281 ~93\Admin\Docs\MEMO-CRmemo~ 122606- SRF rev RML.doc . '" December 26, 2006 Page 4 0/8 and unless the Ceunty is willing to. meve ferward with a public imprevement preject for that roadway segment, the oppertunity to. arrive at a final design is somewhat limited. Comments from City of Shakopee EnvironmentalAdvisorv Committee: Comment #1: Question 6.a. and Questions 6.b. The EAC requested mere detailed infermation related to. the proposed land use, develepment, and impact. This included the fellewing requested exhibits: . Phasing plan fer the develepment, specifically a map shewing the propesed phases ef the preject and a statement related to. the maximum ameunt ef exposed land fer each phase of the develepment. . Develepment plan everlaid en existing zening/land use guiding map. . Develepment plan overlaid en Natural Reseurce Cerrider map. . Develepment plan everlaid en existing high-pressure gas line and highveltage transmissien line easements. . Develepment plan with all parks, epen space, and sterm water pending areas celer- ceded fer better visibility. Response: A cencept phasing map has been develeped and it attached. Phase 1 is the largest phase efthe develepment and weuldexpese a maximum of90 acres efland. As stated in Item 16 of the EA W, applicatien for ceverage under the NPDES General Permit will be submitted to. the MPCA prior to initiating grading en the site. The fellewing maps have also. been develeped.and are attached for yeur informatien: . Land use guide map shewing the cencept plan develo.pment . Natural Reseurce Cerridor map with concept plan develepment. It sheuld be noted that based en field review and infermation frem the City, the "DNR Stream" that is shewn en the figure is inaccurate - there is no. DNR stream in this lecatien. . Easement mapping with cencept plan develepment. . Concept level plan with parks, open space and pending Comment #2: Questions 6.c.,Question 9 and Question 27. In questien 6 c. the area is determined to. be guided fer lew, medium, and high density residential and cemmercial uses. In questien 9 and 27, the area is determined to. be guided fer lew- and medium- density residential and cemmercial uses. Please clarify in the text and previde a guided land use map. Additienally, what type ef commercial is the site guided. Response: The City's Cemprehensive Plan guides the area fer cemmercial, lew, medium, and high density residential develepment. The land use map is attached. There are two. pessible scenaries evaluated as part ofthis EA W, depending en whether the scheel is censtructed. The propesed develepment plan includes lew density develepment threugheut most efthe site with seme areas ef medium density and high density (likely senier housing). Thecemme.n::ial fl,rea is prepesed near TH169. The prepesed cemmercial has been guided as Neighberheed Commercial. Prepesed uses may include businesses such as a gas station K:\01281-93\Admin\Docs\MEMO-CRmemo-122606- SRF rev RML.doc ; , . ' December 26, 2006 Page 5 018 cenvenience store, a bank, a fast feed restaurant, and a drug stereo The gas station weuld require a Conditienal Use Pennit in a Neighberheod Commercial area. Comment #3: Question 7, Question 25, and Question 26. Accerding to. the building height infennatien the site may contain four stery condeminiums. This event was not addressed in Item 25: Scenic Views and Vistas er Item 26: Visual Impacts. Please clarify the impacts efthe prepesed feur stery cendeminiums. In additien, please identify the proposed lecatien ef the four stery cendeminium units and their cempliance withthe planned land use fer that area. Downtewn Shakepee and the Minneseta River bluffs can be viewed frem various lecations within the prepesed Bluffs at Marystewn develepment. The view from the prepesed preject sheuld be neted and the questien should be checked yes. The cenversien ef this area to. residential/commercial will change the current viewfrem dewntewn Shakepee. Additienally, how will this view be cempremised with the petential censtructien ef feur stery cendeminiums (See Questien 7 - Building Height), and lighting frem the prepesed cemmercial area? Please address these cencems and questien. Response: The cendeminiums have the petential to. be feur steries. Based en the item-by- item guidance fer the EA W, a scenic view weuld bea spectacular viewing peint aleng a lake, river, bluff, waterfalls, etc.. These areas could include state designated viewing areas, but can also include areas eflecal interest. The analysis efthis item is highly subjective in nature. If the EAC believes that this area provides a spectacular view of the area, a feur- stery building ceuld have impact en that viewshed. The cendeffiiniums weuld be lecated cleser to TH169 and Marystewn Read, with single-family hemesthreugheut the remaining areas. Comment #4: Questiens 10 and Questien 16. According to. Table 10.1 the site currently contains 34.6 acres ef woedlands and the develeper propeses to. preserve 21.0 acres ef weedlands fer Scenario. I and Scenario. 2. In questien 16, Scenario. 2 prepeses to grade approximately 304 acres ef the 322.98 acres, which preserves only 18.98 acres efland. The number in Table 10.1 and calculatiens in Questien 16 are net censistent. Please clarify. Response: Calculatiens ef weedland impacts are approximate and are censistent between Scenaries 1 and 2. The Cencept Site Plan shows removal ef approximately 55% ef the existing trees; hewever, efferts will be made by the City and developer to. minimize weedland impacts and preserve those areas with high quality species. A tree survey will be conducted prier to. submitting the preliminary plat, which will aid in identifying areas where impacts sheuld be minimized. The City requires tree replacement based en the quality ef the trees propesed to. be remeved . as a result ef develepment activities. The deveIeper will cemply with the City's Weedland and Tree Management Ordinance and Guidelines fer Builders. In additien, the builder has indicated that they will plant trees aleng streets, epen spaces, pending areas, buffer areas along majer readways, and en lets within the develepment. K:\O 1281 ~93\Admin\Docs\MEMO-CRmemo-122606- 8RF rev RML.doc . ,. December 26, 2006 Page 60f8 Comment #5: Questien lI.a. This sectien dees net discuss the quality eftrees and weedlands, which is hew the current Tree and Weedland Ordinance determines the replacement requirements for trees er weedlands remeved. Please discuss the quality ef the trees and weedlands en site and previde a map showing these areas and where tree remevals are anticipated to. eccur. Response: The develeper has submitted additienal infermation related to. respending to. this questien. A map identifying the different weeded areas en the site is included aleng with a descriptien ef the field revie'Y ef the site. This can be further reviewed as part ef the platting precess. Comment #6: Questien II.b. The last two. sentences ef this sectien should net be included in the EA W unless evidence to. suppert them is also included. The statement that the epen space and parkland "will" previde a natural cennectien threugh the site and premete wildlife mevement and access to ether epen space areas and parks can not be definitively determined ner is supperting evidence included. Additienally, to. state that these measures are expected to. "mitigate adverse effects" en seme wildlife does.net have supperting evidence. Please discuss the evidence to. suppert these statements. Response: The site is predeminantly agricultural. There are approximately 34 acres ef existing weeded area within the site. While there is ene wetland en site, it dees net previde significant habitat fer the area. The type of wildlife that ceuld exist here weuld include species that have adapted to. agricultural settings. As the EA W states, it is anticipated the develepment will lead to a decline in the wildlife that use the site. Any development would be required to meet the City's standards fer park dedicatien and greenway preservation. By dedicating parks and o.pen space, this can assist in mitigating fer impactsef development en wildlife. Due to. the highly disturbed nature ef mest ef the site, this impact en wildlife is net anticipated to. be regienally significant. However, the cumulative impact ef this develepment and ether develepment within the City dees have an impact en wildlife by displacing species that cannet adapt er by leading to. species decline. Comment #7: Questien 12 and Questien 17. Please provide miner watershed figure detailing the current and prepesed watershed and drainage directions fer water entering the site and leaving the site. The propesed sterm pond Ie cations are to. be included en the prepesed cenditiens figure. Response: A watershed map fer the area based en the existing cenditiens is attached fer yeur infermation. A map efthe propesed cenditiens is net currently available. This infermatien will be required as part ef the platting precess. Any develepment in the area will be required to. meet pending and infiltratien requirements efthe City. Comment #8: Questien 16. Please previde a figure shewing the propesed areas to. be graded with the seils identified en Table 16.1 also. shewn on the figure. The Envirenmental Advisory Cemmittee weuld like to. evaluate whether PHEL and HEL will be disturbed en site. Response: A figure shewing the soils and the PHEL and HEL classifications is attached fer your informatien. K:\O 1281-93\Admiu\Docs\MEMO-CRmemo-122606- SRF rev RML.doc . . December 26, 2006 Page 70f8 Question #9: Question l7.a. - Water Quantity. Please provide mere detail pertaining to. stormwater leaving the site and hew the existing cenditiens previde treatment prier to. discharge in to. the Minneseta River. Response: The infermatien previded in the EA W is the mest detailed infermatien currently available. Mere detailed stermwater analysis will be required with preliminary plat. The existing cenditions de net provide treatment prier to discharge to. the river. The area flows everland directly to. the Minneseta River. Mere detail will be required with plat submittal. Also, the develepment will be required to. ceuferm to. the requirements ef the City fer treatment, rate, control and infiltratien. Question #10: Questien 19.c. - Petential fer Groundwater Centaminatien. Please previde a copy of the pertien efthe Geologic Atlas of Scott County, Minnesota (1989) er evidence supperting the statements "The high sensitivity categery indicates that the estimated vertical travel time fer water.. berne surface centaminants to. reach greundwater 50 feet belew the land surface is weeks to. years." Response: The pellutien sensitivity map ef the Geologic Atlas of Scott County, Minnesota (1989) indicates that the sensitivity ef groundwater to. pellutien is high. Accordingte Groundwater Pollution Sensitivity (MnDNR, 2006), the High sensitivity categery indicates that the estimated vertical travel time fer water at er near the surface to. the water table or ether groundwatefof interest is weeks to. years.. Question #11: Questien 19.c. - Greundwater Protectien and Mitigatien Measures. The statement "The Bluffs efMarystewn project will effer a higher level ef greundwater protectien than exist under current conditiens" is speculative and can net be guaranteed. Please provide scientific evidence to. support this conclusien er censider revising. Response: The City agrees that this is speculative; however, it is based en infermatien frem ether develepment and agricultural activities in the state. Chemicals used in farming practices are either taken up by plants, run eff the land, er are infiltrated into. the land. ln many areas efthe state, greundwater is centaminatedby nitrates in agricultural.areas.The conversien ef the land use will eliminate the agricultural chemicals. Storm water will be treated prior to infiltrating into the greund. While there is no. quantitative analysis available fer this develepment, it is anticipated that the petential fer greundwater centaminatien will net be a significant envirenmental issue. Question #12: Question 24 - Noise. Will a Neise Study be completed fer the prepesed project, and specifically, what mitigation measures are anticipated to. addressneise in the multi-family and cemmercial sectiens, if any? Response: A specific neise study is required as a part efthe City's Planned Unit Development (PUD) and platting process. Comment #13: The Envirenmental Advisory Cemmittee requested that the econemic impacts and what entity will be impa<;ted er respensible from this development be detailed in a table. Fer example impacts to. the schoel system, fire department, pelice department, department respensible K:\O 1281-93\Admin\Docs\MEMO-CRmemo-122606- SRF rev RML.doc . . December 26, 2006 Page 8 of8 for utilities, City Services, etc. Please previde detailed infermatien en these impacts, estimated costs, and who is respensible fer paying for the imprevement in atable format. Response: A detailed ecenemic analysis is beyond the scepe ef an EAW. Commentfrom the Department of Natural Resources Comment #1: Physical Impacts to. Water ReseUfces (Item No. 12). This item describes a very small (l,484 square foet) seepage wetland on the site at the base efthe bluff. ltis net a public waters wetland. The EA W indicates that the wetland will not be affected by the propesed develepment. If the wetland is indeed associated with a greundwater discharge, the affects.ef develeping the upland (grading, increasing impervieus surfaces, turf establishment) may result in the reduction of greundwater recharge to. a peint at which the seepage is affected. Response: It is recognized that upstream land ceverchanges can have impacts en greundwater discharge wetlands. Any develepment in this area is required to infiltrate a pertien efthe treated sterm water runoff in cenfermance with the Scett WMOrules. Indirect impacts to the en-site wetland will be evaluated as part ef the preliminary plat precess. Comment #2: Water Use (Item 13). The EA W states that the cembined permitted pumping capacity of Shake pee's 12 wells is 25,908 million gall ens per year. It should be neted, hewever, that the maximum permitted annual greundwater apprepriate autherized under DNR permit No.. 80- 6205 is 2,159 millien gallens per year. Response: The EA W netes that any new wells er a water tewer to. servethe area will require an additienal DNR Water Apprepriatien Permit er an amendment to. the City's existing permit. The City and the Shakepee Public Utility Cemmissien will ebtain any needed approvals and autherizatiens asseciated with water appropriatiens fer municipal water service improvements. This conc1udesthe City's respenses to. the cemments generated as part efthe EA W precess. If you have any questiens, please feel free to. contact Andrea Meffatt at (763)287-7196. c. Michael Leek, City of Shakepee Mike Suel, DR Herten Jennifer McLeugh1in, Westweed Professienal Services Renae Cemelius, SRF mjI/am K:\01281-93\Admin\Docs\MEMO-CRmemo-122606~ SRF rev RML.doc ~~'i;;(~\ ; '/ ( , ~ ":!f1 1'1 j l I \ \ {..... If'" ~fj~~~~9~~~!r~i~~~~tii~Y~~~:i;'c,':c~a~":2'\""<' """",.,,,, I / ,J "'''' / /" """"f f~;;>~;~/(Yr"( iIi, If;)\,,_-i' 'r', ~ 'I /1 ""f:' - .".""..~::5,:~:..':;..'S.~~~';,'l'\" ..-. "",":~"';t' / " j ,', ,," " c"u i' :'W': /j, tp; " " \, I' ,'~ /,"~" ~-- -'"C.:'-::: ::;_)::;"~7~;:-~7f~:..:..-==-):.-(! /'J '; ~-r) I I'- II' 1,1/-"",1" (\ ,> o'" ,I:e~,/V' I '''~ ;; , " " ,,' 'IC<' j,.,'r"<"" s~'" "',, ,,/ ,10lii "!'i: " , I " " ", f:;t;,' "'-r~~;/ 1"'~1111'fif" ' ' , " r~~ 11" " 'I ",,,~' 'ci:j,~, ,+,' \~:i: IM',I" : : '; \, '. ,)#4'/11 'i i/ ";' " ,1 ,J' i" ' , \,,>1\1: i,;' ~ m " w" ,I J:;i~ v ~"it . ,,'i''( i', ,,*,.", I '" ' ,'\,/i,"','/ " j , ," ", ,,' ct",' '" '," "" ~" i,i,', 'i: '<~i-_I; i:,:: \,*1> '<" ',-,_, ~? }~ I~ '::0 .~' ,_,('~~~ 't:: I~~;~: I,) ~~ 'I, J I : ~ \ ~ ~( /1 ,W, (~j:>;~, 1:1'&'1-" - ~ ,1(( ,)! "I' 1",,\'" \' ,I,}, "V "I I' tW--R(f 1/",l"FF . ," ' "" ~I\\ ' ., :" ,: ~ \'1 ". '.::', \ " " , k , I,') J' ,',' iT ,', ' , ' ,," ,I " ' ",',' , /(~ I " "~I _ ,_ ' , " ','_, . ""., " , ) ",,, ; , L I" \" /[-l " , ' ~ "J%/f, '( -':-'-"= ~ r,. -fll;, ',"~ ' :11 v_ ' ,,-", \ " '" ., I")) ~ 1'1 '. ~l'--\ ".' ''''''' ,,'" ' " "A!J "," " ",,~,_~_~_"~JJ(")'\"\' ,///j'''-'tJ(' /, " ,,1\' \" 'I".w~ ,\\1 ,,,,-' d ' ' " " " ",,' / ,,,' ,,'" ' " . 'i'h~"?;"':;;''''''-' ((",'\\1'" ) let 21 "tTh" ,~A" ,\" ',,, "l~(', ,,,ij, ,,::x',jnT~'i":::; Vi " ~ /1":: "~,I " ;,',,\, "I I,: J'/" ,'/,"" /, ",," ",' ' ",,,," ,,",,~~," '" ,/' ," ", ~"v ''l~I) ,",' l XI.: ~ ",h' ,,' "",'" ,. , " ",' ',Y '" " . . ' ,,' _,," _'" ,.~ I' ~; . - , I I ,;, , /,' /, ,,' "",,,,-, "//4>,,,,,,,,,'4' "., " " R-' '11'/ ,1\':'" ,;,',ILII /eo,-:>-""" '.- "",,,"'j'''> .,~ ,/, ,J ' , ,," "," , , .'~" /,,,,,,'-,;'0 " !. ,; (:/(;,r'''~'+'''.:'::'''' ~\" / ~~, '- \ ,.', )fi/~", -.., ", ,T / )1,1 , ' ~_/"/_;)'\\(' ," /- ,"" ,(! " "lc". <:, .' ~ " . ,/,.' ~.'~ " ti':" jIC-' ' ' , ,'" j, '''-i ,e); I \y, ,,"C ,j , j" ~, ' ,,',I 'I'" W" ' " ' ," ' ,'" ,k-' ,," , ~' " ,,,"",,, ,,,,,, ,,,," ,,,, ",," ,"~' I. " ,,' ",,' /,'." '" ,,-' '-, " ,.,,'IJI ,,/,\:\:,j'( fl,ll ~Ir,,.r-~-:l' '(~I ,,' '/;:/' ,,"" "'. "i'\ 1 -:fIt ~;;::; "", -"h -"<.';<' J2')( " ,d,!i \, ,,\ ' ,'," ",'~ ",". " . '":if- ,"':: :~Jc/C C/,,' "" / . '" '" , ' }""i"! ,/"'" ' , 'l:;:,J";fi~ir'lliH' l:J .;' ,~,:- ~, . : ~~ 'M,<M," ~,;:' :i":""; ,':Wi"i,- ,'1::: I/~ '- = ~ ~: ", ,,"/'" ,,' " ~ ''''5'- , ,,' , ", ",' """",,,,, " " .",,' , '..ll~'"r,__._-:__---.;/I:",J~ ':1 flJJ'~"~ ,\;~"~ ,,,,,^,,,,,,, ,', "SJIi:,iitif!!i1tI..'" "",:,1," ",-,,'.' "".,",,' "H ,/,A,m ,"" _ ! .", (iF'''' ,.' ';,?'VJ ", ,,,',', " " ," 'I!!'! i " (""';" i ' (' ,,,,,,c,,/- ":,,, ": ' :~>:..~;,\1.I.;" . (, , ",- __~ rii~ r\ C)" ___I~~~; !,__.~ .~~./~M~""~-!' ".""""" ",,'. 7'-$':;:, """4''1'" , " ' ,[,\,::;, "'I\('~~~::;,.-;;~:::;::Iiif\\!r\\ "",I, ' ,,","1' ' ,,' lif?!'''', "",,,,,::;,,~I'" ",'1m:::' ",'""""",I"",,",,,:;"/iJ' ~i}2j\'<J I' ,', ",:, +" )"" >, "j g!i%i' ":',i' ",,,""':, I,';'o\',;~ ~i ';;:itj.%i\'\\";: ,'(,:,;,U,:, 'I, ?\"!:0~~:~":;\ ,. '- ., Ji/, ,,',. ._, 1 ~., ".".,,' ' "," ", ~",":f IT,,,",,,:,''I'' ,,' ',"i'V,",," (,""""" '",' <" ,'" " ,," 'II", ~y;~ ~((.",-;0 .;;..',./.i,M' /; ",-,h"""" 4;;>1'''''''''':'' \j ,I,"'''''''''' ''C''\'" r"')\ ,,' ", ""tt "", , ",:,m', \ 1"*:' " "" 'N V "f ,,.,, ,,"'" ,/,,,", : j" i" C "h/ ','" " ,,,,,\, "F' ':' ", ,,\ ' ,,'" "", ", '_\ ,\ ,:",\ ,,:" ,/ \'" ' 1 ,,;-~1J;f%: '//?0(~/;lr;Ii,i I ,?<<~:;-,~~.:\>,;\,~(~~~~~~~,7:!J)\\S~t-~~i::;. ,,,..-. :'.''C'' ~" 71,['.' ijf;~' ",-~ 'I', " I, ~{/ "II' " "I, \ ,-,"\I'__""lS~ -', " -'" L:..' " '!/' ,/ ' ,}.' c ,'<:<-. ,\,\\~~\'-' <;,J.,""t':"::;';;-:;:'-y,ry~ ,""""" ([/\ ""f,-'II'//I//;'j I ",;,\~l\\,Ci,.;,I~i<" ",. "". .', ." .' " ", j " , "" ,,,~_" "1;". ,',,' ',.N, ' "",,.,,,,";" ,,,,v" I'''''" ,," , ., ,,' ''', ,'!' " ' ,,,' ,', V,,""," ,\:,'"," C '" ,"j,,,' " ~"ili ,,\ ,\,:. """,' " Ii,""", h,:, ",~,,,~\\"",/, ." ,,, ," I:! ' "E~, ,,' , ' " "" " , ,,' ""'1'<,-""'"'"'''''''' "ii' I "",!l\,."""""'-' ""\,, ,I" ,,,""t'i:,,,.,,,,~,,,'" , . ,,'. .",' , ",'" ,,". . . "...."eXh" /,'\")' ,1", .>""" ,"",.' , "w"I",,'. ," ,.~.""""" "", '. ~,'j~" ~' '\' \ ~\: ," ." '/' . ,...;': . ;",";,:~'f{f'jj=,~\\:c,y"<:2: :;'.,,\;~':\~\,S~~~:~~~~~i;:.:rrqff(~~:(~~~f~~~!:~~ ; ,_ I ,\ r\ ' ~' ,,-,,,," "" ", . ' .,' . """ ,"~ .;\" "",,-' ,," ," ",,':'" \ ,,' ,,' .' . / ,,1,;'fifi-'h0'\,','; \ \-",~;~\ </I~ j )/;!)// ,:~~/I\),i;\J~~~/(~t\~,~;>'OY~i~i~~"~I/~:~I/:l{;' , " ' ' ,,' '" " ", " " " "" ,>,,," "" ~ ' " ~:__/""\I ,,;\ tK 1-'''','' " ' ' ," " :~f-: /,;:-:::/",~e:s}~U (/, \,\.'-." : /' / r....._~:/I,~,--;':' / ,A~iIJjf4;ii~~~~,,~~yj~.:;-~;I!i1;"jll'l/~ , " ':'" 1,,' ," '" " . "",' ", I """,,"< ",-r""-' ,,,"''''....'' " " '. "', Ull" !" '," "~:f-;B ; 5["'" \:i'>/''' :<",,"'\:' \" i ,r;fi,''ii:k},),filJ!!i!!!lf'l.lifff"j'~'f!i! ,\~~, ell""""'" /,,' ~,,; (' :c' "" ',< <"'I! /":7,,, ,,' ,'\,,,,%,\,,,:,,,"?:i'''i'\'1i'Jif4!$,,ll!l~ ,,,;;,i;JJ,',:1jffP: 'A! ~ ~ ~; \ ="=' .L:-," "i" " . ~;>~.i /' <~~-1:>' .~)( / "'.::1;1 {!(__-__-~:;~~~~~,}I~i~(~~~~~;:~;.(/~~;;-.~,j~;(I:{f;'~?~;("'Lr!(/j~i;:/!f!f;:-(/~(2i1\J(1U~'(('2;;liff4~~~)~/.. '~'" " " . ' '" ,,"'",,,,,,, ,.' ',,,"~ ",,,,,,,,,, "",,' .:_,,,,",,, I ... .\:"- }. :::ji~":::':~:::i" __~'.' ?\'.: """, ,~--, ,r,~' ! ", (" \\"i~'~.2:.-.::::,()((i/'" ,-;""~;-'.,"'~~'_'!l:,,,,~/'''Y',\';'I'.'I'''''''i\J.i~?,;).t''-~;:J \ '" ,,", "" " ,,~\.' C'. .' ",'" ,',,"'y'\'''' "" " 0" " \:,.\_.\1 ,," "d """,,,,,,,,,, ';,," , mtl ,j(, ' , ,.." ," ,'," ":..; \ ""v-/' \ i ",/:?"",'", ;/,1)'.',(,1'/1 ~}5''JI'~// __/<;'r-;;:l".1JV;~' ','f:J!1fi.:;'':;', j " ,'\' _" ",,, ".""." ",A"" //,,,,,. '" -,,,,,, :<~; ~1i'" ~'i ~Lm }Ijjl(~~!~~""'"'' ' y__~_~,~~~' \~:=:.:':-; -':;\ (\(\,,\,(-::::--;~.~\\i,(~~:;~~'i't!fff~>),;r;t~~~8~/~f~~1I1~J~ f!fI1r','r~~f;'."11 Ci / '~ " -=~, '" ,", ' ' , ," " ' ", '" , ,~"",jp"'#'" - ... --"" ","""1 ~' "iU' "'" Ii "'~".," " ,,<<' '"Ii,"" . .' ," ", ,) v, ,;: '.' ,,, ,,,,,.>~<,,,;}iI,,!r~,/i:,)jiffj>,,,~,,,, ~Ji{?!*,"'! f,' ", ~.;;:; , ' , ~.~ >~,>~<~~n-E' Y"" ,,," ,'c' 'ii,I;-' /L ":: :(t'ld/i%il'b~m~~;,;;t!i*%t;f"'f'I~ ,'" , :' . vk' " , ,p ,,, I "L!~ ",'.:iV''--, -}r;........~' ..-J('?')I"I,jfl.,ll~\~.?{~/I/~:'If:j!l$f!frF~~;!ifi!ffijfiJ}fffi ~l("j 1 " " " c, " ' ," "j ,,, ,," ". '" ' - " -" -" ,,"," ",,,' , i' h,' ill, 'l:' ,(' ,", I ' ) j~ ,,::<yf-} ,,<'''''> " :',,/j!,l !!1",t!t,~,ii.J,r';!;):;"" ,t'li' ", " ~. .' '" ' . ,//w." , " '" y/ "" "" ,~",""'" 41<" "",,""" ",,'" ,d ,'" ,,! ~,.. \., "n $' I~:~ ,!~~; r:: ,'$'1{) " .' ~ 1/,,)("'" ! :",,,/,,y-,';~'''i :,,,i!ft:k,~,,;,~,,,,,,!;/!ily,,,,w7;3!<;X',r, i ,<I'J ", ,," , ll' ' "", : ',jC:U " {' '1';,,<'''. IJ ii', " ',', \, ,,"f,;::;'Ji:ifi:: ",;'! :(~:,,,,,:gtf;;::Aj:';:Y J:1 t~tli' <" "" p" '" , 'lWli', ' . " /""' ,,,,, ,\ \ ,-"",:1",' ,,,_"'~'i!!"'/ ;;~1<'''(!f;''':;''?),' ,,;,,,/1 '/':, ",' " """ ~ "",' ., ' ' ' ...-" ,ttr' "" '_'''''''''';""'' ,_t/fIIj.s,,,,,,,,,,,~,,Y:A",' ,;", ",J/ ' " ,', ' ,,,'! " ~'" " "\, " ';'$Vii!N:Wftfrf""",~'ffr#if!!'(:p'e;,''''''/ ,/' / .' 1\" ~" .,,~ ' j,\" ~\ }yf/lJlffJff!!{!.)i!!I';' ~ :$~~I~j3fl~1)(lf! >:::_~(:'/ / /// /,-:::...:, 11:\;1 ,,' ' ' " _ ,,p "V" ",^, ""..- d" ",,,,,, ",' " , ';;i;" ' ' , ' ',/ ""~"i'I'J'''!J'''! ",B,ll!',!~"",,)/d "//",,,: ,/ ';' .' '. ,,, " " ,,'>':: ;\~,,,,,'~ ~~!f,'O,s// I,/' // i \ ',w' , !', j c' \' ~ ~t "I~l ()r~O"'" '" . '''t,~",,> ,~~;,'<;j,4fP':f~"lIfii1:il,:oS"'';-X'' '\""C. ,>"."7' >'.::, ' 'iI' /; ~~I,'d,i:i\r'I,~~~~;/- /___' +lll _ ~ - ~;!iJtl,."' _~~~'e.~it~Yif~~~~~~J2i:,.gefY;;/'> ~';/ \ ,: / / J', ( ,'/,"" , ," ,","""'" ' .. ,," """ "__,,,..\d'" ,,/ ,," "", ,," , ,,,'" , 'vi!li il;i;;' '1'",-,,, ~" ,'~ ,,' ... ' ,-4.""'~' 7PJ;;rttV/ /",''/ (,' ",/ .:r, . . I I P'\<!l1041087.02\d"g\20041087,Q2SKPO&.dw9 5/19/200& lO'36'ZO AM CST - f~ i I a' I ~EI fir [ g .. I in III J ~i~''/' J ,'\\'''. -..../0/U : ."" :\;, \ ~. \.... :\\ \\\ I"~ \~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~.. j\ \ ;;'~hf'::: '~9~ 'CiJ~,3t; . i I () ,:~ti:r~~ .-~!il ~~\ \~. ;;"-~ <-0: "..-;:: ,. ';.L ~~-;1 \; .". ___ . ~~ - ; _ ~~. ~;:.'!J" ," : "~:~~~~~ /' = ~ "- ~.::'\ ~.. :<..,. ... ',/ ......, ~.. ;:': '. ::;';~ ' ,_::"~ '~,. 1< ", ..Y ~ ,1 '. C;: t:; It'" ";t\ . ; .... /;""';::~ ;)', ' '\ ' . " I . . '~ . .~ ,..'ii j II \ \ ...." '\ ; '\' . ....., . ~::::::::::/-':"". ,," i 'f;., !,I..' . ... I :" ,/ ;:~~~. ))1. \.. > ' :'. ). ('~\\ /, ~~' '. ~.~ \f~1 ! - - . :"'~ ..~' 'J ~:~ \\\~\\ f ) ....... '),ll.~:~~) ') '~i" ;.< . :!\~~0:; .., . ~ ...I ("" . ( \ "J . .. :,:;'~, .,' ....""',' "";i},lj'.r', ,'" >\ \. I ; :=:~., .", i(" ,,,c' c... <,," , \<' l c' -= ~. .-: '.,'. .;:: t.:. /' ,\~\i, ).'/,J~ ~.;c~.:: "={"" ~'-':: \\~\.. " / " " I :~, ~~.'-.'''' ~.lc~;g;!)" .,; :'1,'\1 ,,/ . ",/ ,'0-1 l' ~~f' ! ,/ /. .. , I .. ." '" , ,'." \ ; ::; ':-' :;; \T,,~. ,j,' //" '\i~ ~!'~0?! \ & ' :0~\~i ,J '\ ~, ,_"f\'-~'~ '/ ,n" ~ .,' r . )'J.'-; '..-: ''; '., ./1: - .:.. 'P(-Q :l'\~~' .,) .< ,'\"".:\ (//r. ,', G'; b", . . - ~ ",.'/ '/,: ~'. 'jj. "'iM~~ ,sy..,>~,,!<'t?' ';~ mr ,::"" .<,,\.:.:::-~::^:: .,.~' ':, ~,'1", ,,' , ^ '.: . ..', ' - '~':"" I~'; ..... . (-'r.... " ., -.: >:i:;. ...,..^ ". ..' ^ . . " ",,' ~ t'r.\ ,'. -',' L.r:1" &' .' I- '.".., ~ (' '-r; /" '" ' .._ ~ ~~~f:'.:~22'" ,\ >.. .......- ~ .. . ,..' ,_.. . . .." . r "(: ~)t>, ..'.' , ~. " ",:,-<.,,! . if. .. 'Ir'.. ..', ( , " ..:\" .... . -, - .. ... "'~ .. . f ", J,ll n ,:\-..1. ~ ~~~ . ~ . lL ",! .,' ,-,! " . \ .'''''' ,.- ,/ .. (~/:1 '0.." , '" V;, .,' :.'" , .' . .::.'. ' . " (,.,~ ". ... if i ~ ",'" " " Y , I;" ''1(''-','""1filj , .. ",' ,/ i , :.::: ", :A'.;'~ ", ',' , ':.'. .- 'I ,"..... "" i , < ~ ~ [V(</=;'~:~' " , .. '~ Wi, - ':." ' . i ". "', '!~' ,.._' ~~- .- . ,:' / if ,"~ , , '" 1( ", '.;i"';,.. '-'0- I .":- .. ~ '\ , . .~, -',,;:~;' " .,,~,. .~, '" ',...: -- '.... ~~ j1\\~F i ~ (~~:~:I' '.' ~ ~... ~ '.~ .~ /.. ~ JI\ltl!l: / ~;>!;:'~::. l' . i,% , .,... ( ;r . j ,,:!I;~J.. -:_0~t Ii ~:'1m -;\ i':';' . . ~...2'.u; ~ . " ..".-'. ../'.- -' ,"'" , . .. n. [l .. 'v :w :~~) ., ., ... .. L '" \ ;> " ~:; ". ) .." {{ _,' . <<; , ; .:.....~,-....:""'.., ~".... ( :\... ", / ;' '" :r\"'~, q .~ -;:~j~':'~/~;~t>V-lr \ /f~:a '11(,1'7'),',;\", '5..~." ':i;:f?;lFl t i! ~ ' i !/~, :\1 .. .,;;i:-'i1.' . .. ~ ) ,~.-" .,,~;< /. 'v <> / t-C:: f~." 'I:~n-n; '''~IC_ "iif"" ~ 11;;)1; \~r;;:lln1 ~ !~ e! f S4.a ~~ ;e ~[ i '> , ~i ~ &2 x ~~ !OJ ii & ~~ ~~ l~ ~ ~ \';;{ 0 ~~ i ~ o. "ll '" . Ii $N C) , > ~ ~ F - [ I , Preserved Trees and Woodlands at The Bluffs at Marystown 7 June 2006 The quality of woodlands at The Bluffs at Marystown was determined from information obtained through the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System and through field reviews. Several areas of woodlands exist, with descriptions and impacts as characterized in the following table: Preserved Trees and Woodlands at The Bluffs at Marystown Tree/Woodland Location Size Quality assessment Area (acres) '..____.__._...__.__~",',..' .......,.....,.,. .......,..,........,... ......"....., ....,.. Impacts MLCCS data Field review Northwest High quality forest corner of the site along west dominated by bur This area is A property 1.01 Maple-basswood oak; dense ground minimally impacted boundary, along forest layer in places, by project north facing otherwise open development. bluff savanna Northerly Grassland with with mixed species Approximately one- portion of the sparse deciduous B property, along a 11.02 trees - altered/non- including willow, third of this area is north facing native dominated cottonwood, ash, impacted by project bluff vegetation ironwood, cedar, and development. oak ,_,,_"-,'-'-'-'~""'-"..._.._._._.-.._-'_'-' ..~-._.._..-._.,_.. ..."...................--. ........................-.........-....... ..........-.............".....-.............".....,.......-..-....-..-...-..-.-.. ....... Central portion Mixed quality forest of the site, dominated by surrounding cottonwood, ash, Approximately two- C existing home; 9.87 Maple-basswood ironwood, young thirds of this area is along generally forest maple, hackberry; impacted by project north facing ground layer dense development. slopes and a at edges with slight ravine buckthorn dominant ......._...................._.._._.._.H................._.........._........".._._.. ....".......................................................__m.._,,_~ ........ ... ...... m....H.........~..... ................~...... . ..... .............. Southeast Volunteer vegetation portion of the in fence row, Trees in this area will dominated by be removed as a D property, along 2.07 Not identified cottonwood, result of project the east edge of buckthorn, and development. an existing field sumac ~~--_.._~--~., ---,.,--".,-"."-'---..,,.,.,.-----'."v~l;;;;:t~~'~,.:;;;g~t;lti0;".'."".".""--.'''''''''''''''''''''''.''''''''''''''.'''''.'.''.'''''''' Central portion in fence row, Approximately 80 E of the property, 0.80 Not identified dominated by percent of this area is along existing cottonwood, impacted by project fencelines buckthorn, and development. sumac portion of the Mixed species property and including boxelder, Trees in this area will straddling the Altered/ non-native cottonwood, few be removed as a F north property 0.93 deciduous forest maples; very dense result of project line, on a ground layer development. generally including buckthorn northwest facing at edges __._....___.~.____._._._...._._.___.____._._.H___.__...._.__.__.____.__.__~. , . 1 -- -..y.-.-.-.....................-.""........--".........---........,"..."....".................."'....".........".....".."..."....".-............""".....""".........,.,.............,,............"...."............."................ High quality species including maple, basswood, oak, cherry; little ground layer vegetation in Southwest center of woodland, Approximately two- G portion of the 5.65 Maple-basswood dense growth at thirds of this area is forest edges; a few large impacted by project property cottonwoods and development. silver maples exist toward the north end where the topography flattens soils wet Notes: . Locations were identified from topographic mapping and Minnesota Land Cover Classification System mapping; three small areas of volunteer vegetation (shown on topographic mapping but not identified on MLCCS mapping) were not included in this table as a result of their small size ~ess than Vz acre). . Sizes were determined from topographic mapping and areas delineated on the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System mapping. Variation in sizes of woodland areas when comparing this analysis to an analysis of woodlands removed may result from differences in mapped areas on the two sources. . Impacts were based on concept level grading plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. @2006 Westwood ProfessiOllal Services. Inc. II c.";' ..- ,,1;. ~ ~---.. ~ i' II Legend :- C --. -.-- Impervious surfaces II !~ " ,. '-'". ~il . 'ii ~ Cultural vegetation " II .. Forests :1 . ~ Woodlands " US HwY.169~ ~ri~ _. L.::.. Shrublands If _._-~- Ii '= ~- . - {) - - .. Herbaceous " I_J Water I ff:1i " JS .J . ~_'=-~: i ~"j ~ - . - - j ~l . - if ~'" Il: tf ~ " 1:1 ~ l: ::: 0 - III ~ <!Of :!: - =--::.' 'u J ' . L I ~i "l(eTl .LJ ., "'-.""l J I =-'10' [ I i it' . . - ...II ...!'jJ - --- --- "-..,...----- l " II ,I" II -- " r ~.n' ... -~' ~'.' : Ir.. - -= : ... '1 . II I' ...... l ., lJ j, ~I -- , b If - _. Dala SllUn:.:(S): USDA F5^ APHl ])()Q (200)). \.linn.:sota L<mJ Cover C1assifK.,:tIIl>ll SySh.>m N A 0 1,000 2,000 I Feet Map Document (P:\20041087 .02\gis\EAVV\20041087 _02mlccs01A_2.mxd) 6/2612006 u 8:28:41 AM The Bluffs I '" Westwood Professional Services, Inc. at Marystown MLCCS Mapping I 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952.937.5 t 50 FAX 952.937.5822 Shakopee, Minnesota TOLL FREE '.888.937.5150 Westwood wWoN.westwoodps.com ~-_.~._.._.~--- -~~-- @ 2006 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. ~US'H~1'69' 11 f - Ii I I ~ "" I ~~ "0 "0 ~ . 0 r:: I I ~ i III ; >- ! .... I ra I i :E ! I ' I I i L '-- --- 130th St w I ~ Legend Corridor Priority Ranking D Project Boundary GOOD - DNR streams .. BETTER .-.I/fI c=J Waterbody .. BEST E:: t I .. ParkOpenSpace ~ r- I Buffer - Connector Data Sourcc(s): WI'S (2U06). CilynfShakopt:c 120(6). N '0 1,000 2,000 ^ I Feet Map Document: (P:\20041087.02\gis\EA\^I\20041087 _02misc01A_nrc2.mxd) ~26~006--75252AM The Bluffs I '~J WestwoodProfessionaI5ervices,lnc, t M town Natural Resource I 7699 Anagram Dnve a arys Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Corridor Mapping PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 Shakopee Minnesota TOll FREE '-888-937-5150 , Westwood www.westwoodps.com @2006 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. N Legend A i ! Cl EAW Boundary 0 1,000 2,000 - Transmission Line and Pipeline Easements I Feet Map Document: (P:\20041087.02\gis\EA\IV\20041087 _02pipe01Scen1.mxd) 6112/2006 -- 9:46:15 AM The Bluffs I!:d Westwood ProfeSSional Services. Inc. at Marystown Existing Easements I 7699 Anagram Dnve Eden Pralrre, MN 55344 and Scenario I PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 Shakopee, Minnesota TOLL FREE '-888-937-5150 wwwwe!otwoodps com ------ . . @ 2006 Westwood Professional Se",ces, Inc. i 'Ia.f \ Data Source(s): USDA FSA APFO DOQ (2003), WPS (2006). N Legend A c:::J EAW Boundary 0 1,000 2,000 - - Transmission Line and Pipeline Easements I Feet Map Document: (P:\20041087.02\gis\EAV\I\20041087 _02pipe01Scen2.mxd) 6/1212006 -- 9:49:15 AM The Bluffs I!:d Westwood Professional Services, Inc at Marystown Existing Easements I 7699 Anagram Dnve Eden Prairie, MN 55344 and Scenario 2 PHONE 952.937,5150 FAX 952.937,5822 Shakopee, Minnesota TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 www we~twoodps.(om --- I . I I I I I ~ C\J "- ~ '" Cl . ." :g ~ ~ r.: ! C\J " Cl . ." " ~ r.: ! 0' BOO' 1600' 2400' C\J " 2oo41061.02SKP08_D'MJ Ii. The Bluffs Dolo: 06/14/06 m- 1 ()II 1 i I '" -.t~IIrvta-. At --..... Scenario 1 ~PniMI,."!iDM Marystown - .......... Open Space Mll -..... lOU.... ....-..aHl. Site Plan WIIt..ood -- L ,~ I -.J I - ~---_. ---, --~- -- -- ~-_..- I I I I 1 >-. ~.'> I g C\J "- If) , '" Cl . " g; ~ '" ~ " ! C\J " Cl Legend . " " C\J _ Open Space 0 " CD _ Wetland 0' 800' 1600' e 2400' .. e _ Ponds e ~ 2oo41087.02SKP09.0VIG Ii The Bluffs DldIo 06/14/06 ~ 101'1 I \\. -..ood,..."....,....,....., Inc. At --..... Scenario 2 Eldlm ...... .. !IDM Marystown - .....,..... Open Space MX ......... TOU.... ~IO Site Plan ww-....t -- ' MInnsa L ~ @ 2006 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. i I I US Hwy 169 I I I I I I I I I I ~'---<"~-~' I I I I --_._~_..,-,..~- \ I I - 130th St W I Legend D Approximate Property Boundary N .. Commercial A .. Industrial .. Medium Density 0 1,000 2,000 , I Feet I c:J Single-Family I Map Document: (P;\20041087.02\gis\EA'M20041087 _02misc01A_Iu2.mxd) i 612612006 -- 12:04:30 PM The Bluffs I I I~!d Westwood Professional Services. lnc. at Marystown Jackson Township I I 7699 Anagram Drive I Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Land Use Map I PHONE 952-937-5150 FA)( 952-937-5822 Shakopee, Minnesota TOLL fREE 1-888-937-5150 I wVI/VV.westwoodps.com I I - - - --. ~..- ---.,-- ~--,-.- ,--- -,~.- -_._'''~ - ..-- @2006Westwood Professional Services. Inc. L ....J .... -~ I I I I ~ '" .". I 1 \ i I I I I I I Legend Corridor Priority Ranking D Project Boundary GOOD - DNR streams .. BETTER , G~ D Waterbody .. BEST .. ParkOpenSpace Buffer ~ - Connector Data SOllfCl'(S): WI'S (2006). Cily ofShakorcc (2nn6). The Bluffs at Marystown '" Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Shakopee, Minnesota 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 N Natural Resource Corridor Mapping FAX 952-937-5822 A~ I Feet TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 Westwood WINW,westwoodps,com 1,000 --~-_.". ----- ----- . I I I I I I I Bluffs at Marystown - Subwatcrshcd Map WSB PrOject No 01281-93 Date July 2006 .... 701 Xania Avenue South, SUIte 300 WSB MinneapoliS MN 55416 \OWW wsbeng COOl Figure ,\ ,.1"""l.'/llk.\, In.. ._7Sl-)41.&1J)1-Fil~1.1lfX Shakopee, Minnesota INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING PLA~NING CONSTRUCTION - --------- ------------------ -------------- I I .-' . leqend HdA I ~ HEl Ea.A ;:: E5thervd I-LClEL::: Hd...d~rlIU HeA;:: /)uDt)aHlI lcO~ ::: lester '51 TbE :: Tem! sa HeB2, 00 PHEL Et:lB ::; Esltlervll HaF,,- == H<ttdt':'n 10 hl~8 ::; nlJ[)oardl If;;: LA Sueur TeA:: Ternl ~l I Sole Loca.o" EaS2 , ESlhe",,' "'bel ' "eyuen sa HeS2 ' hul,'"'''' I Ma ' maosh TcS Te"oI s' HdB2 I Soils EaC2:: p.Slhervll HOOL' " tl,avdcn S<I HeC ::: hubbiirtll Oa "'" Osrliiwa SI Tee ~. Ternl SI I Legend EbB2 :: eslhcrvll HI)DJ ::: Hayden $a H;5C2 :: r1ubll<trd r PaA :: p~<ll cltlt1 TeD ~ Tern! 51 I CdA:: copas SIt EbC2 = e~thf"f\,/l\ >-1tJE2. ;;; Ha.,.(Jtm Sit l.~C ::: lakp~'lll(; PaB ;:: peat arJ.cl W :: Wnler lli.2~ HeB CdB = copas 51! Gd ;:: Glencoe S HcD" = 11a~dtm <::1 e loB2::: lakevlllt:' PuA::: pt-'al tIel:' WaA:: Waukegan I DaB2;;; dakota 10 H",S::: Hayden 10 HCO:~ ::: Havop.n so LbCl:: IOtk~~I\\e Ra ;;: rauvllle WaB .:: Wauk6Qan ee2 HeA DbA:: (]aknf(l sa HaS2 :: Hayaen 10 HcE :: h.:tVt1f>fl cl LbO = take'. III., &: = Stony LHfl WaB2 = WalJkegan I DbB = dakola Sd H~C = Havden 10 HeEl = Harden so LtB:: Le<;tm >;1 Tit = Terrace E Wb ~ 'N~\)s\ef.G ILTc-AJ '" OtlS2 :: dakota SA HaC2 :: havd~n 10 HdA = huODard I Lc62 :: lest~r SI ThB :: Tf>rn! sa I ObC2 = <:lakola 53 HaD:: Hayden 10 Hl18 ;: hubbard t Lee:: Le5kr 51 TbC :: Ternl sa DbA. I 0<1 = ONchesle MaD::? = hayden 10 HdBL :: rllJtJbaru r Lr:C2 = leS!fof 51 TtJO = Ternl sa ~ I HeC2 . ~ DbA WaA ~ I ~ ~~ I l1E!iJ TbB f' DbC~ . ,D~ WaB2 iL,~L.. fDaB2 HeB2' . ) "_ I HeA l HeB2 - ~- 1_- .TbB WaB EaB I H~B HdA HeB2 DbB \ HaE2r> . " ,. ~aB DbBI ~ -/2 - I :/ QQ. fW.A I EaB' t~ rCcB. ..I EaC2 , I ~ '-~~1Y" WaB I ' .A r ,Ta I ;,,,, ~ I ~ ~~ I I Ea~ I I '~ I I I I I Erodible Soils Map t A The Bluffs at Marystown WSB ,Feet Shakopee, MN 0 500 1.000 2.000 ., I "" I> MAY-18-2006 08:28 WSB 8. ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.02/03 .. 'MAY-18-2005 08:45 952 233 3801 P.02/03 \ DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY /28/-1"3 S-/ltJ/Ofo ST. PAUL DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS ARMY CORPS of ENGINEERS ceNTRE JN . 190 FIFTH STREET EAST ST. PAUL MN 55101-1638 MAY t 6 m p.6PLY TO ATTl!Nll0N Operations Regulatory (2006-2411-JMK) Mr. Michael Leek City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Dear Mr. Leek: .. . . We have received the document entitled The Bluffs at Marystown EA W dated Apri124. .. . 2006. Due to limited staff and resources, it is unlikely that U$. Army Corps of Engineers ':'1 Regulatory staff will review or comment on this document until we receive a jurisdictienal determinatien request and/or a permit application. In lieu of a specific response, please consider the following general informatien concerning our regulatory program that may apply to the preposed project. If the proposal invelves deposition of dredged or fill maferial into. waters of the United States, including discharges associated with mechanical land clearing~ it may be subject to the Corps of Engineers' jurisdiction under Section 404efthe Ciearj. Water Act (CWA Section 404). Waters efthe United States include navigable waters, their tributaries, and adjacent wetlands (33 CFR ~ 328.3). CWA Section 301(a) prohibits discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, unless the work has been authorized by a Department of the Army permit under Section 404. Information about the Corps permitting process can be obtained online at http://www.Il1vD.usace.armv.mil/regulatery. The Corps' evaluation ef a Sectieo 10 and/or a Section 404 permit application involves multiple analyses, including (1) evaluating the proposal's impacts in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) (33 CFR part 325). (2) determining whether the proposal is contrary to the public interest (33 CFR 9 320.4), and (3) in the case of a Section 404 permit. determining whether the proposal complies with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (Guidelines) (40 CFR part 230). If the proposal requires a Section 404 permit application, the Guidelines specifically require that ~\no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable - alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does net have other significant adverse environmental consequences" (40 CFR 9 230.10(a)). Time and money spent 00 the proposal prior to. applying for a Section 404 permit cannot be factored into the Corps' decision whether there is a less damaging practicable alternative to the proposal. printed on * ~ecycl.d P.P'l" MAY-18-2006 08:28 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 .--':-1 '~MAY-18-2006 08:46 P.03/03 952 233 3801 P.03/03 : lMVP-2006-2411-JMK) Page 2 of 2 . If an application for a Corps pennit has not yet been submitted, the project proposer may request a pre-application consultation meeting with the Corps to obtain informatien regarding the data, studies or other information that will be necessary far the permit evaluation process. .A pre- applicatien consultation meeting is strongly recommended if the proposal has substantial impacts to waters of the United Stlltes, or if it is a large ercantroversial project. For further infonnation or to request a pre-application consultation meeting, please contact Judi Kolb at (651) 290-5361, the Corps' project manager for the County in which this proposal is located. Sincerely, ~K~ . - .... ..... - .... obert I. ~ng - - -- .... - }-' Chief. Regulatory Branch Copy furnished: Mr. Mike Suet Ryan Development, Inc. 20860 Kenbridge Court, Suite 100 Lakeville . ," . ' - . , .._. _.._. ._. ...._. n..... -.' . .--. .. . I .., _ .-.- .---........- -- TOTAL P.03 TOTAL P.03 .~ " CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum To: Michael Leek, Cemmunity Development Director Frem: Ryan Hughes, On Behalf ef the Shakopee Envirenmental Advisory Cemmittee Date: June 7, 2006 Subject: Cemments en Bluffs at Marystewn EA W The Envirenmental Advisory Cemmittee (EAC) discussed and reviewed the Bluffs at Marystown Envirenmental Assessment W erksheet (EA W) at the May 10, 2006 meeting. Based on this review the EAC has the fellewing cemments: 1. Question 6.a. and Questions 6.b. The EAC requested mere detailed informatienrelated to. the preposed land use, development, and impact. This included the fellewing requested exhibits: . Phasing plan for the development, specifically a map shewing the propesed phases efthe preject and a statement related to the maximum ameunt ef expesed land for each phase ef the develepment. . Development plan everlayed en existing zening/land use guiding map. . Develepment plan overlayed en Natural Resource Cerrider map. . Development plan everlayed en existing high-pressure gas line and high voltage transmissien line easements. . Development plan with all parks, open space, and sterm water pending areas color-coded fer better visibility. 2. Question 6.c., Question 9, and Question 27 In questien 6.c. the area is determined to be guided for lew, medium, and high density residential and cemmercial uses. In questien 9 and 27, the area is determined to be guided fer lew- and medium- density residential and commercial uses. Please clarify in the text and previde a guided land use map. Additienally, what type ef cemmercial is the site guided. 3. Question 7, Question 25, and Question 26 Accerding to the building height infermatien the site may centain four stery cendominiums. This event was not addressed in Item 25: Scenic Views and Vistas er Item 26: Visual Impacts. Please clarify the impacts of the proposed feur stery -- condominiums. In additien, please identify the propesed locatien of the feur story condominium units and their compliance with the planned land use fer that area. 4. Question 10 and Question 16 K:\O 1281~93\Admin\Docs\Commcnt Lencrs\060706 - Bluffs at tvlarystown EA W-EAC COl1unents-FINAL.doc ,-.... According to. Table 10.1 the site currently contains 34.6 acres ef woodlands and the developer proposes to. preserve 21.0 acres efwoedlands for Scenario. I and Scenario 2. In Question 16, Scenario. 2 proposes to grade approximately 304 acres of the 322.98 acres, which preserves enly 18.98 acres ef woedland. The numbers in Table 10.1 and calculatiens in Questien 16 are not consistent. Please clarify. 5. Question ll.a. This sectien dees net discuss the quality ef th,etrees and woodlands, which is hew the current Tree and Woodland Ordinance determines the replacement requirements fer trees or woedlands remeved. Please discuss the quality ef the trees and weodlands on site and provide a map shewing these areas and where tree removals are anticipated to. eccur. 6. Question ll.b. The last two sentences sheuld net be included in the EA W unless evidence to. suppert them is also. included. The statement that the open space and parkland "will" previde a natural cennectien through the site and promete wildlife mevement and access to. ether epen space areas. and parks can net be definitively determined nor is supporting evidence included. Additienally, to state that these measures are expected to. "mitigate adverse effects" en some wildlife. dees net have supperting evidence. Please discuss the evidence to. suppert these statements. 7. Question 12 and Question 17 Please pre vide miner watershed figure detailing the current and preposed watershed and drainage directiens fer water entering the site and leaving the site. The proposed storm pond lecatiens are to. be included en the propesed cenditiens figure. 8. Question 16 Please provide a figure shewing the prepesed areas to. be graded with the soils identified on Table 16.1 also. shewn en the figure. The Environmental Advisery COlmnittee would like to evaluate whether PHEL and HEL will be disturbed en site. 9. Question l7.a. - Water Quantity Please previde more detail pertaining to stermwater leaving the site and hew the existing conditions previde treatment prier to. discharge into the Minneseta River. -- 10. Question 19.c. - Potential for Groundwater Contamination Please previde a copy of the pertion ef the Geologic Atlas of Scott County, Minnesota (1989) er evidence supperting the statements "The high sensitivity category indicates that the estimated vertical travel time. fer water-borne surface centaminants to. reach greundwater 50 feet belew the land surface is weeks to years." K:\O 1281.93\Admin\Docs\Comment Lctters.,060706 - Blutfs at Marysto"'ll EA W-EAC Comments-FINAL.doc ,", ). 11. Question 19.c.-Groundwater Protection and Mitigation Measures The statement "The Bluffs efMarystewn project will effer a higher level of groundwater pretectien than exist under current cenditiens" is speculative and can net be guaranteed. Please provide scientific evidence to. support this conclusion or censider revising. 12. Question 24 - Noise Will a Noise Study be cempleted for theprepesed project, and specifically, what mitigatien measures are anticipated to. address noise in the multi-family and cemmercial sectiens, if any? 13. Question 25 - Scenic Views and Vistas Dewntewn Shakopee and the Minnesota River bluffs can be viewed frem varieus Ie cations within the prepesed Bluffs at Marystewn develepment. The view from the proposed preject should be neted and the questien sheuld be checked yes. The cenversien of this area to. residential/commercial will change the current view from dewntewn Shakepee.. Additienally, hew will this view be cempromised with the potential constructien ef four stery condeminiums (See Questien 7 - Building Height), and lightingfrem the prepesed cemmercial area? Please address these cencems and question. 14. Question 28 The Envirenmental Advisory Cemmittee requested that the econemic impacts and what entity will be impacted er respensible from this develepment be detailed in a table. Fer example impacts to. the scheol system, fire department, police department, departments respensible for utilities, City services, etc. Please provide detailed infermation en these impacts, estimated cests, and who. is responsible fer paying for the improvement in a table format. On behalf of the Envirenmental Advisery Cemmittee, thank yeu for the eppertunity to review the Bluffs at Marysto.wn EA Wand we loek ferward to. respenses to. the comments. Sincerely, Ryan Hughes Natural Reseurce Specialist City ef Shakopee cc. Mark Themig, Parks, Recreation, and Natural Reseurces K:\OI281-93\Admin\Docs\Comment Lcllers\060706 - Bluffs at Marystown EA W-EAC COll1mo:nts-FINAL.doc ~ ^. .- ~ SCOTT COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION -;;""\t'\'" HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT .600 COUNTRY TRAIL EASl'JORDAN, MN 55352- 9339 (952) 496-8346 . Fax: (952) 496-8365 'www.co.scott.mn.us LEZLlE A. VERMILLION PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR May 8, 2006 Michael Leek City ef Shakepee 129 Seuth Helmes Street Shakepee, MN 55379 RE: Bluffs of Marystown EA W Dear Michael: We have reviewed the Bluffs efMarystewn EAW and effer the fellowing cemments: . The traffic study assumes that an interchange will be constructed at TH 169 and CR 69 by 2015. Weare not aware ef any funding fer the censtruction ef an interchange at this lecatien. An analysis sheuldbe conducted fer the build and ne.build scenaries that de net assume an interchange at TH 169 and CR 69. . The traffic study reveals that three intersectiens (CSAH 15/TH 169.nerth ramp, south ramp, and CSAH 15/lth Avenue) eperate at peer level. of service. A recemmendatien ef the EA W traffic study is fer installatien ef traffic signals in erder to.. maintain the desired level ef service. We recommend that an analysis be completed to' determine if installation ef single or dual lane roundabouts at these locations could maintain the same desired level ef service. . As preperty in Jackson and Leuisville Tewnship is developed with urban densities the traffic aleng CSAH 15, CSAH 78, and CR 69 will steadily increase. We recemmend right-ef-way be preserved fer the future to. accommedate a minimum a four-lane divided design on all Ceunty roads (75 feet from centerline). . Zumbro. Avenue/CR 73 is a 5 mile read with a connection to TH 282, and will likely serve. as a majer cellecter fer the City in the future. We recemmend a direct connectien is made between Zumbro and I th Avenue. . CSAH 78 is currently an A Miner Arterial, and it likely will become a Principal Arterial with 12 mile full access spacing in the future. The accesses as shewn in the EA W will not meet long term access spacing. The current Friendship Church access is appreximately 14 mile freffi CSAH 15 and weuld likely be made a right in/out when CSAH 78 is upgraded to a divided roadway. We recemmend a road is provided to the church freffi the 12 mile leng term full access location at Zumbro A venue. .'''' " '. Bluffs of Marys town Page 2 . The Ceuntyis oppesed to. having anether schoel site adjacent to. CSAH 78. As mentiened previeusly, CSAH 78 will likely be a future Principal Arterial carrying a high ameunt ef regienal traffic. This will create significant pedestrian issues depending en hew the property seuth of CSAH 78 develops in the future. The schoel site lecatien should be located within the develepment as a neighborheed focalpeint and net adjacent to high speed ceunty roadways. Mo.ving the scheel location away from ceunty reads will also. allow greater lecal centrel ef speed limits and pedestrian patterns. . Neise issues will increase in the area as traffic levels increase. The EA W does not mentien neise generated from the surreunding readways and their impact en the preposed land uses or hew to. mitigate these issues. We recommend a neise study is completed that censiders state and federal neise standards. Neise attenuatien is the respensibilityofthe City and develeper. . . .-" . The EA W traffic study mentiens that 1 ih Avenue ceuld fit the criteria for a Ceunty read between CSAH 15 and CSAH 69. The Ceunty feels that the jurisdictien ef this read segment sheuld be under the County jurisdiction in the long term. County jurisdictien of 17th Avenue weuld ceme with greater/restrictive standards which will result in changes to. the site plan. Ceunty jurisdictien standards that weuld need to. be met are as follews: . 1/4 mile full access spacing and 1/8 mile right in/eut. . Minimum 45 MPHdesign frem CSAH 15 to. CSAH 69 . Preservation ef 150' tetal cerrider width The Ceunty is willing to discuss the ultimate design ef the read and hew these standards can be accemplished previded the leng-term needs are being preserved. A design of 1 ih Avenue will need to. be created fer the entire length between CSAH 15 and CR 69. Thank yeu for the eppertunity to. cemment en the Bluffs efMarystewn EA W. lfyeu have any questiens, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, ~ Craig Jensen Transportatien Planner r" Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55106 651.772.7900 June 7, 2006 Michael Leek, Community Development Director City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street Shakopee. Minnesota 55379 RE: The Bluffs of Marystown Environmental AssessmentWorksheet (EAW) Dear Mr. Leek: The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the EAW for the proposed Bluffs of Marystown mixed- use development in the City of Shakope~.ln general the document appears to be complete and accurate. We offer the fellowing comments for your consideration. . . Phvsicallmpacts to Water Resources (Item No. 12) This item describes a very small (1,481 square foot) seepage wetland on the site at the base of the bluff. It is not a public waters wetland. The EAW indicates that the wetland will not be affected by the proposed development. If the wetland is indeed associated with a groundwater discharge, the affects of developing the upland (grading, increasing impervious surfaces, turf establishment) may result in the reduction of groundwater recharge to a point at which the seepage area is affected. Water Use (Item No. 13) The EAW states that the combined permitted pumping capacity of Shakopee's 12 wells is 25.908 million gallons per year. It should be noted, however, that the maximum permitted annual groundwater appropriation authorized under DNR permit No. 80-6205. is 2.159 million gallons per year. . Thank you for the opportunity to review this project and the EAW. We look forward to receiving your record of decision and responses to comments at the conclusion of environmental review. If you have any questions about these comments, please call Wayne Barstad, the Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist, at 651-772-7940. .. C: Steve Colvin, Wayne Barstad. Sarah Hoffmann, Diana Regenscheid. Pat Lynch, Daryl Ellison. Dale Homuth, Dirk Peterson, Tim Bremicker (DNR) Jon Larsen (EQB) Nick Rowse (USFWS) #20060471 SHK06BluffsMarystown ,doc An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity DNF{ Infornlation: 651 ~296-6157 1-888-646-6367 TTY 651-296-5484 1-800-657 -3929 (~ CITY OF SHAKOPEE In the matter ef the Decisien en the Need fer an Environmental Impact FINDINGS OF FACT Statement (EIS) fer The AND CONCLUSIONS Bluffs at Marystewn Develepment in Shakepee, MN DR Herten and Ryan Develepment are prepesing a mixed use residential and neighberheed cemmercial develepment en 323 acres in western Shakepee. Two. scenarios were evaluated. Scenario 1 includes 451 single-family homes, 232 tewnheme units, 60 cendeminium units, 50,711 sf ef cemmercialloffices, and 52,500 sf ef scheel. Scenario 2 includes 467 single-family hemes,. 284 tewnhome units, 180 cendominium units, and 28,211 sf of cemmercial/effices. The difference between the two. scenarios lies in whether er not the scheel is included in the develepment. The preject area is generally lecatedseuth efTH169, west efMarystewn Read, nerth ef 130th Street West, and east ef Old Brick Yard Read. Pursuant to. Minneseta R. 4410.4300, subp. 19, an Environmental Assessment Werksheet (EA W) has been prepared fer this prepesed project. As to. the need fer an Environmental lmpact Statement (ElS) en the project and based en the recerd in this matter, including the EA Wand written cemments received, the City ef Shakopee makes the fellewing Findings efFactand Cenclusiens: FINDINGS OF FACT I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Project The proposed project invelves grading up to. 304 acres to. censtruct streets, utilities, residential units, and co.mmercial areas. The project is anticipated to remove 13.4 acres efweeded area, construct stenn water management areas, convert an agricultural area to. developed with lawn and landscaping, and add approximately 136 acres efimpervieus area. B. Project Site The project area is generallylecated seuth efTH169, west efMarystewn Read, nerth ef 130th Street West, and east ef Old Brick Yard Read. The site currently contains appreximately 34.6 acres efweeded area, 0.03 acres ef wetland, 277.2 acres ef agricultural fields, and 11 acres ef impervieus surface and lawn areas. December 26, 2006 K:\OJ 28J-93\AdminIDocs\FOF - J 22606.doc Page J of 6 !... f II. PROJECT HISTORY A. The preject was subject to. the mandatery preparatien of an EA Wunder Minneseta R. 4410.4300 subp. 19. B. The EA W dated April 2006 was prepared fer the proposed project and distributed to. the Envirenmental Quality Beard (EQB) mailing list and ether interested parties en April 19, 2006. C. A public netice centaining info.rmatien abeut the availability ef the EA W fer public review was published in the Shako pee ValleyNews en April 27, 2006. D. The EA W was neticed in the April 24, 2006 EQB Moniter. The public comment period ended May 24, 2006. Cemments were received frem the US Cerps ef Engineers, Shakepee Envirenmental Affairs Cemmittee, Scett Ceunty Highway Department, and the DNR. Copies ef these letters are hereby incorperated by reference. Respenses to the comments are also. incerperated by reference. III. CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS. Minneseta R. 4410.1700, subp. 1 states "an EIS shall be erdered fer projects that have the petential fer significant environmental affects." In deciding whether a project has the potential fer significant environmental affects, the City ef Shakepee must censider the feur facters set eut in Minneseta R. 4410.1700, subp. 7. With respect to. each ef these facters, the City finds as fellews: A. TYPE, EXTENT, AND REVERSIBILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The first facter that the City must censider is "type, extent and reversibility ef envirenmental effects", Minnesota R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.A. The City's findings with respect to. each efthese issues are set ferth belew. 1. The type ef environmental impacts and mitigatien efferts anticipated as part efthis projectinc1ude: a. Wildlife Habitat: The land usewill be cenvertedfrem agriculture to residential. While the site do.es not provide significant wildlife habitat, wildlife that has adapted to. agricultural practices will be displaced. The City will werk with the develeper to. maintain a greenway corrider as eutlined in the City's Natural Reseurce Corrider map. This is anticipated to aid in mitigating impacts to. wildlife. December 26, 2006 K:\OJ 28J-93 \Admin IDocslFOF - J 22606.doc Page 2 Cif6 ~ . b. Water Consumption: This develepment is anticipated to. use between approximately 244,435 - 283,617 GPD ef water upon full development.Censtructien efene new municipal well, water tewer, and water main will be required to. serve the needs o.f the propesed development. The City will ebtain any necessary DNR permits fer this werk. c. Wastewater Generation: This develepment is anticipated to. generate appreximately 222,214 - 257,834 GPD efwastewater upen full develepment. Wastewater will be discharged to the City's sewer system and then to. the Blue Lake Wastewater Treatment Plant. There is eneugh capacity at the treatment plant to serve this develepment. Municipal sewer lines will need to. be extended to. the site. d. Storm Water: The preject is anticipated to. generate additienal stermwater runeff.This runoff will be treated within a series ef en-site pending facilities. Treatment and infiltratien to. meet the Scett WMO standards is required. The stermwater management plan is anticipated to. mitigatienfer any negative impacts. e. Wetlands: One small (0.03 acre) wetland is located within the site at a greundwater discharge area at the bettom efthe bluff. This wetland is net anticipated to. be directly impacted by the preject. Indirect impacts due to changes in upstream infiltration will be analyzed as part ef the platting process. f. Traffic: The deve1epment will generate additienal traffic in the area. The mitigatien measures outlined in the Traffic Study in the EA W will mitigate the impacts ef this additienal traffic. The City will centinue to. work with the Ceunty to. address traffic issues on the Ceunty roads. g. Contaminated Soils: Petroleum centaminatien ef seils near the shed en the Theis site has been neted. A Response Actien Plan (RAP) will be deve1eped to. preperly address the impacted seils. 2. The extent and reversibility ef environmental impacts are censistent with these ef residential develepment. B. CUMULATIVE POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF RELATED OR ANTICIPATED FUTURE PROJECTS December 26. 2006 K:\OJ28J-93\AdminIDocs\FOF - 122606.doc Page3 of6 , '.' The secend factor thatthe City must censider is the "cumulative petential effects ef related er anticipated future prejects", Minnesota R. 4410.1700 subp.7.B. The City's findings with respect to this facter are set ferth belew. 1. The changes in regienalland use in the Shakepee area frem epen space and agricultural land to. mere urbanized uses is expected to. have a cumulative impact o.n the area. The City ef Shakepee has planned fer future growth and develepment as part ef its Comprehensive Plan Update. Mitigation ef impacts will be frem requiring parkland dedicatien, requiring sterm water management, addressing traffic impacts, and pretecting the Natural Reseurce Cerrider. 2. There are no. knewn plans to. develep en adjacent lands. Consequently, the precise timing and nature ef future develepmentin the project vicinity is unknewn. Hewever, land adjacent to. the project site is eventually expected to. develep, thereby converting existing epen space and agriculturallan~ to residential and cemmercial uses. The City of Shako pee Plan Update anticipates and guides the intensity ef develepment within the City and directs necessary infrastructure imprevements to. suppert the planned develepment. C. THE EXTENT TO WHICH ENVIRONMENTAL AFFECTS ARE SUBJECT TO MITIGATION BY ONGOING PUBLIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY 1. The fellowing permits er approvals will be required fer the preject: Unit of Government Type of Application City ef Shakepee Preliminary Plat Approval City ef Shakepee Orderly Annexation Agreement City ef Shakepee Cemprehensive Plan Amendment City o.f Shakepee Planned Unit Develepment / Conditienal Use City o.f Shakepee Rezening Applicatien City ef Shakepee Final Plat Appreval City ef Shakopee Grading Permit City of Shakepee Building Permit Shakepee Public Utilities Municipal Water and Sewer Cennectien Cemmissien Permit Scett Ceunty Ceunty Readway Cennectien Permit Jacksen Township er City Wetland Delineatien Cenfirmatien J acksen Township Orderly Annexatien Agreement MN Department efHealth Well Abandenment and Water main Extensien MN Department of Natural Water Appropriatien Permit Reseurces MN Pellutien Control NPDES/SDS General Pennit Agency December 26. 2006 K:\OJ 28J-93\AdminIDocs\FOF -122606.doc Page 4 of6 . . Unit of Government Type of Application MN Pellutien Centrel 401 Water Quality Certification er Waiver Agency MN Pollutien Centrol Sanitary Sewer Extension Approval Agency Metrepelitan Ceuncil Sanitary Sewer Cennectien Permit 2. The City finds that the potential envirenmental impacts efthe project are subject to. mitigatien by engeingregulatery autherities such that an EIS need net be prepared. D. THE EXTENT TO WHICH ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS CAN BE ANTICIPATED AND CONTROLLED AS A RESULT OF OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES UNDERTAKEN BY PUBLIC AGENCIES OR THE PROJECT PROPOSER, INCLUDING OTHER EIS's. The feurth facter that the City must censider is "the extent to. which environmental effects can be anticipated and centrelled as a result ef ether envirenmental studies undertaken by public agencies er the preject proposer, including other EIS's" Minnesota R. 4700.1700, subp. 7.D. The City's findings with respect to. this factor are set ferth belew: The propesed project is subject to. the fellewing plans prepared by the City: . City efShakepee Cemprehensive Plan (updated to. include preject area) . City efShakepee StermWater Management Plan (updated to. include area) . Traffic Study fer Bluffs at Marystown The City finds that the environmental effects of the project can be anticipated and centrelled as a result efthe envirenmental review, planning, and permitting precesses. CONCLUSIONS The preparation efThe Bluffs at Marystewn Develepment EA Wand cemments received en the EA W have generated infermatien adequate to. determine whether the proposed facility has the potential fer significant environmental effects. The EAW has identified areas where the potential fer environmental effects exist, but apprepriate measures have er.~illbe incerporated into. the preject plan and/er permits to. December 26, 2006 K:\OJ 28J-93 \Admin IDocslFOF - 122606.doc Page 5 0/6 . . , . mitigate these effects. The project is anticipated to. cemply with all City ef Shakepee standards and review agency standards. Based on the criteria established in Minneseta R. 4410.1700, the project does net have the petential fer significant environmental effects. Based en the Findings ef Fact and Cenclusions, the proj ect dees net have the petential fer significant environmental impacts. An Environmental Impact Statement is net required. December 26,2006 K:\OJ 28J-93\Admin\DocsIFOF - 122606.doc Page60/6 I I I I The Bluffs at Marystown EAW I I I I I OPEE I I I RGU: City of Shako pee, MN. 129 Hol mes Street I Shakopee, MN 55379 Phone: (952) 233-9300 Fax: (9,52) 233-3801 I I EQB Monitor P,ublication Date: A~ril24, 2006 I Comment Deadline: 06 May 24, 20 ' I I I I I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) I The Bluffs at Marystown EAW I Note to preparers: This form and EA W Guidelines are available atwww.eqb.state.mn.us. The Environmental Assessment W erksheet provides infermatien about a proj ect that may have the petential fer significant envirenmental effects. The EA W is prepared by the Respensible I Gevernmental Unit er its agents to. determine whether an Environmental lmpact Statement sheuld be prepared. The project prepeser must supply any reasenably accessible data fef- but sheuld net complete - the final worksheet. If a cemplete answer dees not fit in the space alletted, attach I additienal sheets as necessary. The cemplete question as well as the answer must be included if the EA W is prepared electronically. Note to reviewers: Cemments.must be submitted to the RGU during the 30-day cemment peried I fellowing neticeefthe EAW in the EQB Monitor. Cemmentsshould address the.accuracy and cempleteness ef infermatien, petential impacts that warrant further investigatio.n and the need for an ElS: I Project Title The Bluffs at Marystown EA W 1. I 2. Proposer: D.R. Horten Ryan Develepment, lnc. Contact Mike Suel Dennis Grisweld I persen: Title: Develepment Project Manager Directer ef Land Address: 20860 Kenbridge Ceurt, Suite 100 8700 13th Ave East I Lakeville, MN 55044 Shakepee MN 55379 Phene: (952) 985-7823 (952) 894-3200 Fax: (952) 985-7400 (952) 894-3207 I 3. RGU: City ef Shakepee Contact Michael Leek I persen: Title: Community Development Director Address: 129 Holmes Street I Shakopee,MN 55379 Phone: (952) 233-9300 I Fax: (952) 233-3801 4. Reason for EA W Preparation I OEIS 0' Mandatery o Citizen ORGU o Propeser Sco.ping EAW Petitien Discretien Volunteered I IfEAW or EIS is mandatory giveEQB rule category subpart numbers(s) Part4410.4300 Subo. 19.D. and subpart name(s) Residential Develepment. I I 1 I The Bluffs at Marystown EA W April 2006 I 5. Project Location County: Scott Ceuntv I City: Shakepee. Minneseta Twp: EY2 and SW ~ efSectien 14. T1l5N. R23W. I The propesed preject is generally lecated west efMarystewn Read, nerth of 130th Street W, east efOld Brick Yard Read, and seuth efU.S. Highway 169 in western Shakopee (Exhibits 1 & 2). I Attach copies of each of the following to the EA W: . Ceunty map showing the generallecatien efthe project; . U.S. Geelogical Survey 7.5 minute, I :24,000 scale map indicating project beundaries I (photecepyacceptable); . Site plan shewing all significant preject and natural features. I 6. Description 1 a) Provide a project summary of 50 words or less to be published in the EQB Monitor. Develepment efThe Bluffs at Marystown is prepesed to. include up to. 931 residential units, 1 50,711 square feet ef effice condominiums I neighberheed cemmercialland uses, and appreximately 52,500 square feet fer a Po.tential elementary scheel. The site is located west efMarystown Read, nerth ef 130th Street W, east efOld BrickYard Road, and seuth of U.S. 1 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 that will 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 duration of construction activities. I D.R. Herten, Inc. and Ryan. Develepment, lnc. are prepesing constructien ef a mixed-use residential and neighborheed cemmercial develepment in westernShakepee.- The prepesed preject area is lecated in the SW ~ and E ~ ofSectien 14, Tl15N, R23W. The proposed I project is generally lecated seuth efU.S. Highway 169, west efMarystewn Read, north ef 130th Street West and east efOld Brick Yard Road (Exhibits I & 2). . . I This EA W addresses two. develepment scenaries in erder to. incerperate a range of impacts frem the project. Scenario. I would result in the lewestnumber efresidential units, and includes develepment ef 451 single family lets, 232 villa and ceach to.wnhemes, 60 I cetideminium units, effice condeminiums, and an elementary scheel site in the south central pertion ef the property (Exhibit 3). Scenario 2 will address a mere densely developed plan, including an additienal 61 single family units with a pertien of those in lieu of the scheel 1 site, an additio.nal 52 multi-family units in place ef26 single family lets in the southwest co.rner efthe site, and two. additional60-unit cendeminiums instead of the effice cendeminiums in Scenario. 1 (Exhibit 4). Prepo.sed commercial develepment is the same fer I beth Scenaries. Table 6.1 describes the unit ceunt fer Scenarios I 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-famill 451 -- 426 r-o -- I Single-family (scheol site) 0 -- 41 -- Multi-family (Townhemes) 232 -- 284 -- Multi-family (Cendeminiums) 60 -- 180 -- I Office Conde 50,711 28,211 N eighberheed Commercial -- -- Scheel -- 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 cenvert approximately 323 acres ef agricultural fields and three farmsteads to. streets, hemes, lawns, landscaping, parkland, trails, and stermwater pending. Land use within the site will include censtructien efup to 467 single family lots,. and up to. I 464 multi-family units including tewnhomes and cendeminiums, inadditien to. a pessible elementary scheel site. Petential adverse effects en the envifenment will be mitigated by preservation and creatien efhetween 50 and 67 acres efweedland, parkland, epen space, I and wetland (Exhibit 3 & 4). Open space and parkland en the site will previde natural areas to promete wildlife mevement and cennectiens to. ether epen areas and parkland. I Each residential let will be served by the City ef Shakepee sanitary sewer and water supply systems. At least ene new municipal water well and water tewer will be required to. service the needs of the preposed develepment. The City ef Shakepee is currently analyzing I petentiallocatiens fer a municipal well and a 500,OOO-gallen elevatedsterage tank. Due to. the range in topography en site, a beester statien is propesed to. service the site prior to. censtruction ofthe water tewer and well. The beester statien will service topegraphic I elevatiens greater than 915 feet. No. on-site sewage systems are beingprepesed. Public streets will service the develepment, funneling traffic toU.S.Highway 169, Marystewn Read, and 130th Street West. . I Project constructien will eccur in phases, with the first phase expected to. begin in 2006. I Full build eut is anticipated in 2013; hewever, censtruction timing will ultimately depend UPo.n market cenditions. It is anticipated that constructien will entail moving up to. approximately 2.4 million cubic yards ef seil. Censtruction dewatering may be conducted I en an as-needed and permitted basis to. install sanitary sewer, municipal water, and sterm sewer. Best Management Practices will be implemented during and after constructien to. protect water quality and reduce the petential fer seil eresion 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 Scett County is ene efthe fastest growing counties in the Twin Cites Metrepelitan area. Accerding to. US Census data, the City ef Shakepee had the third largest percent increase in I pepulation, behind the cities efSavageand Elko, between the 1990 and 2000 census, The City of Shako pee Comprehensive Plan Update (2004) identifies the need fer additienal heusing to meet the demands ef this. grewing populatien. The purpese efthe propesed I Bluffs at Marystewn develepment is to. meet the grewing demand fer single and multi- family residential heusing, and neighberheo~ cemmercial develepment. The project will be I censtructed and implemented by D. R. Herton, Inc., and Ryan Development, In,c.,private develepers. The Bluffs at Marystewn develepment is net currently within the Shakepee city limits. The I City ef Shakopee and J acksen Township have initiated an Orderly Annexatien Agreement to. _ ... gevem the eventual transfer efthe study area frem the Tewnship to. the City. The City's adepted Cemprehensive Plan guides this area fer lew, medium, and high density residential I and cemmercialuses. The MUSA boundary will need to. be extended to include this area. When annexatienis cemplete, the City's Comprehensive Plan will be submitted to. the I Metrepelitan Council fer review and appreval. . 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!o 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 Tetal Preject Area: 322.98 acres .1 Number ef 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 Cemmercial, Industrial, er Institutienal Building Area (total sq. ft. Scenario 1: 103,211 gressfleor space): Scenario 2: 28,211 I Indicate areaefspecific uses (in square feet): Scenario 1: 50,711 Retail/Office Scenario 2: 28,211 Other Industrial none I Scenario 1: 52,500 Wareheuse none lnstitutienal Scenario 2: none Light Industrial none Agricultural none I Manufacturing none Other Cemmercial (specify) None Building Height 2 story single family homes and up to 4 story condominiums I I 4 I The Bluffs at MarystownEAW April 2006 I If over 2 steries, 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 imancial assistance including bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing, and infrastructure. I All required permits and apprevals will be ebtained. Any necessary permits er approvals that are net listed in Table 8.1 were unintentionally emitted. I Table 8.1 Permits and Approvals Required I Unit of Government Type of Application Status City ef Shakepee EAW Negative Declaration To. be determined I City ef Shakepee Preliminary Plat Approval To. be applied for City ef Shakopee Orderly Annexation Agreement ln process . I City ef Shakepee .. Comprehensive Plan Amendment To. be applied fer City ef Shakopee Planned Unit Development / Cenditienal Use To. be applied for City ef Shakepee Rezening Applicatien To. be applied for I City ef Shakopee Final Plat Approval To. be applied for City ef Shakopee Grading Permit To be applied fer Cityef Shakopee Building Permit To. be applied fo.r I Shakepee Public Utilities Municipal Water and Sewer Cennectien To. be applied fer Cemmissien Permit Scott Ceunty Ceunty Readway Cennectien Permit To. be applied fer I Jacksen Tewnship Wetland Delineation Cenfirmatien In process Jacksen Tewnship Orderly Annexatien Agreement ln precess MN Department efHealth Well Abandonment and Watermain Extensien To. be applied fer I MNDepartment efNatural Water Appropriation Permit To. be applied for Resources (if needed) I MN Pellution Centrel NPDES/SDS General Permit To. be applied fer Agency MN Pellutien Centre I 401 Water Quality Certificatien er Waiver To. be applied fer I Agency (if needed) MN Pellution Centre I Sanitary Sewer Extensien Approval To. be applied fer Agency I Metrepelitan Ceuncil Sanitary Sewer Cennectien Permit To. be applied fer 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 potential environmental hazard due to past land uses, such as soil contamination or I abandoned storage tanks, or proximity to nearby hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. Histeric aerial phetegraphy indicates that portiens efthe site have been under agricultural I production since at least 1937. Recent aerial photegraphy (2003) indicates thepredeminant land use en the site is agricultural, including the presence efthree farmsteads. Land uses adjacent to. the study area include agricultural land, weedland, wetland, parkland, religieus, and residential I (Exhibit 5). The preperty is currently lecated within Jacksen Tewnship. The City ef Shakepee and Jackson Tewnship have initiated an Orderly Annexation Agreement to. gevem the eventual transfer efthe study area frem the Tewnship to. the City. The City efShakepee's City-Wide I Land Use Plan (2004) shews that the site is guided fer lew- and medium-density residential and cemmercialland uses. Once the Annexation Agreement is finalized, a Rezening Applicatien I will be submitted to the City, which will make the preject censistent with the City's future land use plans and zening requirements. I The City ef Shakepee's Natural Resource Corridor Map (December 2005) indicates that areas within the site beundary meet Corridor Priority Ranking o.f Geo.d, Better, and Best based en existing natural reseurce data. These areas are associated with existing weedland areas en the I site, and a ravine lecated in the nerthern pertion ef thepreperty. The project prepeser has met with the City to confirm that prierity areas have been identified and preserved in cenformance with existing regulatiens. Pertions efthe ravine meet the Scott Watershed Management I Organizatien (WMO) bluff designatien (Exhibits 3 & 4). Development efthe site will be in compliance with Scett WMO standards and setback requirements along these areas. I Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) were cenducted by American Engineering Testing, lnc. <AET) in July and August 2004. The Phase I ESA performed en the Jee Theis and Den La TeUf parcels (AET Project Ne.03-02040JT, July 2004) indicated that I altheugh the assessment revealed no. evidenceef recognized environmental conditiens en the preperty, twedispesal areas were identified on the site. The repert recommended that items and equipment from the disposal areas be removed and properly disposed of at an approved landfill I er recycling facility. The Phase I conducted en the Nerbert, and Larry Theis Parcels (AET Project No.. 03-02040NLT, I July 2004) identifies the follewing recegnized environmental cenditiens: Surface staining of the ground ordirt surfaces within the shed/shop building, . I adjacent to the above ground gasoline tank, 'and adjacent to the exterior north side of the compressor room attached to the barn at thefarmstead at 12226 Marystown Road. I . The on-site septic system connected to the.floor drain in the shop at the farmstead at 12226 Marystown Road. I I 6 I The Bluffs at Marystown EA W April 2006 I Based en the results efthe Phase II ESA (AET Project No. 03-02040.ii, August 2004), petreleum centamination was present in the shed and adjacent to. the gasoline abeve gro.und storage tank (AST) west efthe shep. The petroleum centamination includes diesel range I erganics (DROs), gasoline range organics (GROs), andvarieus benzene, ethyl benzene, teluene, and xylene (BETX) constituents. Samples asseciated with the septic system and adjacent to. the barn were analyzed and no censtituents discernible by the analysis were detected at a level I abeve the laberatory reperting limit. The report recemmended that, in cenjunctien with develepment of the property, a respense actien plan (RAP) be develeped fer proper management of the impacted seils. I A search en the Minnesota Pellutien Centrol Agency's (MPCA) Web site (What's In My Neighborhood?) revealed no. knewn petential sources of seil er groundwater centaminatien. I Natural Gas Pipeline Two. 16-inch natural gas pipelines are lecated en the preperty and are currently operated by Xcel I Energy (Exhibit 6). The Blue Lake Natural Gas Pipeline was censtructed in February 2005 and runs east and seuth frem the nerthwest property beundary. A secend pipeline is o.riented in a north/seuth directien threughthe eastern pertien efthe site and serves the Rahr Malting facility. I The actual pipeline depth will be field-verified and cenfirmed during the early stagesef preject censtructien to. avoid petential interference. I 10. Cover Types Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after I development. Exhibit 6 indicates the site currently censists o.f agricultural land, wetlands, weedland, lawn and I landscaping, and impervious surface. Table 10.1 provides infermatien en the estimated acreage efland cever befere aildafter project develepment. 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) Agricultural Fields! 277.25 0 0 I Wetlands 0.03 0.03 0.03 W eedland . 34.60 21.00 21.00 I Impervieus Surface (Pavement, Buildings, Readway) 8.70 125.90 129.30 Lawn and Landscaping 2.40 126.40 123.00 . Parkland/Open Space (private and public) 0 14.20 14.20 I . Stermwater Pending 0 10.10 10.10 Scheel Site (Impervious - school and parking) N/A1 4.50 7.00 I Scheol Site (Lawn and Landscaping) . N/A1 0 12.30 Scheel Site (park and pending) N/A1 20.85 6.05 I Total 322.98 322.98 . 322.98 1 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 Ecolo!dcallv 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 reseurces en and near the site are directly related to the cempesitien, I quality, size, and cennectivity ef natural cemmunities including agricultural lands, weedlands, and wetlands. The existing cever types based en aerial phetegraphy are shewn en Exhibit 6. Wildlife reseurces that exist througheut the site likely include these species I that have adapted to epen lands and cropland habitats such as pheasant, meadewlark, field sparrow, cottentail, red fex, and white-tailed deer. The epen fields previde seasenal feod and cever fer these species. The wetland has the potential to provide habitat and cover for I many species cemmenly feund in the upper Midwest such as weedceck, thrUshes, racceen, and amphibians; however, the wetland en site is small and likely dees net provide significant habitat cempared to a larger wetland complex. I Cenversien of agricultural fields to residential and cemmercial develepment is expected to. result in a decline in the type and number ef wildlife species that currently use the site. I Pepulatiens ef species that depend upen crepland, such a ring-necked pheasants, wild . turkey, and meadewlarks, will likely be displaced. Migratery birds may experience competitien fer a reduced number of nesting sites upen their return from wintering habitats. I Seme sengbirds that readily adapt to. suburban habitats may beceme mere numerous. Nen- migratory species with small heme ranges such as small mammals will experience more adverse effects. These species will cempete with the same o.r o.ther species to. claim I territories in neighbering h~bitats, er may succumb to. mertality during project censtructien. I 8 I The Bluffs at MarystownEA W April 2006 I Between 16 and 21 percent efthe 323 acre preject area will be open space and woodland, which is expected to help mitigate adverse effects en wildlife. . The preject is net expected to. I result in a regionally significant decline in wildlife abundance er species diversity. Measures to reduce the effects en wildlife include preservatien of existing weedland and wetland, develepment ef a trail that will be integrated with epen space and parkland, and I censtructien ef stermwater Ponding. ln additien, epen space and parkland will provide a natural cennection threugh the site to. promote wildlife mevement and access to. ether open space areas andparks. These measures are expected to. provide additienal habitat fer I wildlife and mitigate adverse effects en seme wildlife. b) Are any state-listed (endangered, threatened, or special concern) species, rare plant I communities or other sensitive ecological resources such as native prairie habitat, colonial waterbird nesting colonies or regionally rare plant communities on or near the site?O Yes Ii:1 No If yes, describe the resource and how it would be affected by the I . project. .Indicate 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 contacted give the correspondence reference number: ERDB 20060471. Describe I measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. I The Minnesota Department efNatural Resources cenducted a database search in December 2005 to determine if rare plant er animal species er ether significant natural features are knewn to. eccur within an approximate ene-mile radius etthe preject site. The database I review did net identify any recerds ef rare species er native plant cemmunities within the search area <Appendix A). I 12. Physicallmpacts 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,li:1No If yes, identify the water resource affected and give the DNR Protected Waters Inventory number(s) if the water I resources affected are on thePWI. Describe alternatives considered and proposed mitigation measures to minimize impacts. I Wetland boundaries were delineated using the level two. reutine.determinatien method set forth in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratery, Waterways Experiment Statien,1987), in which a sampling transect was established in a representative I transitien zone ef an identified wetland. Westweed Prefessional Services cenducted ene transect, censisting of ene sampling point in upland and ene peint in wetland. Six additienal data peints were sampled througheut the preperty to. determine if ether 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 the United States (FWS/OBS Publicatien 79/31, Cewardin et al. 1979). I One intermittent riverine wetland (Wetland A) tetaling 0.034 acre was delineated by Westweed en May 11, 2005 (Exhibit 7). The wetland censists of a groundwater discharge zone at the I bottem ef a steep, weeded ravine en the north-central pertien ef the preperty. Steep slopes are dominated by bexelder and American elm trees. The bettem ef the ravine is veid ef vegetation. I 9 I The Bluffs at Marystown EA W April 2006 I The greundwater discharges and flo.WS approximately 30 meters dewnstream, then dissipate~ into. the sandy soils. The remaining pertion efthis ravine was dry at the time efthe delineatien. The wetland beundary was flagged to. include the groundwater discharge and to. include I saturated seils. No. other wetlands were delineated en The Bluffs at Marystewn property. The wetland boundary was reviewed in the field and verbally cenfirmed by Jacksen Tewnship. Written cenfirmatien ef the beundary is still pending. I The 0.034 acre wetland lecated in the nerth central pertien efthe property will not be affected by the propesed project. I 13. Water Use I Will the projectinvolveinstallation or abandonment of any water wells, connection to or changes in any public water supply or appropriation of any ground or surface water (including dewatering)? 2fy es 0 No. If yes, as applicable, give location and purpose of I any new wells; public supply affected, changes to be made, and water quantities to be used; the source, duration, quantity and purpose of any appropriations; and unique well numbers and DNR appropriation permit numbers, if known. Identify any existing and I new wells on the site map. If there are no wells known on the site, explain methodology used to determine. I According to the Minneseta Geelogical Survey's (MGS) 2005 County Well Index (CWI), there are seven wells lecated near the study area (unique well numbers 206812, 211853, and 206806) I (Exhibit 8). The Phase I ESA cempleted fer the study area in July 2004 indicates there are no. additional wells lecated on the property. All existing wells are fer demestic use. During censtructien, all wells will be identified, abandoned, and repo.rted to. the Minneseta Department I ef Health according to. state law prier to. develepmen~ ef the site. Water services within the City efShakepee are municipally-owned, but independently eperated I by the Shakopee Public Utilities Cemmissien. Shakepee Public Utilities Cemmissien currently eperates 12 wells, which are permitted under DNR Water Appropriatiens Permit No. 806205. The combined permitted pumping capacity o.f all 12 wells is 25,908 millio.n gall ens per year. I Reperted pumping fo.r the municipal wells, in 2004, tetaled 1,588 million gallens (average 4,350,684 gallons per day). The estimated water demand fer the develepment is between 244,435 (Scenario 1) and 283,617 (Scenario 2) gallons per day, less than 3 percent ofthe tetal I allewable pumping. Water demand estimates are based en the assumption that censumption is approximately 110 percent efwastewater generatien (see Item 18). I At least ene new municipal water well and water tewer will be required to. service the needs of the propesed development. The City ef Shakepee is currently analyzing petentiallecatiens fer a municipal well and a500,000-gallen elevatedsterage tame Due to. the range in topography en I site, a bo.ester statien is propesed to service the site prier to constructien ef the water tewer and well. The beester station will service tepegraphic elevatiens greater than 915 feet. The new well and water tower will require an additienal DNR Water Apprepriation Permit o.r an I amendment to the City's existing permit. Specific lo.catio.ns for the sterage tank and well have not been finalized, but will be addressed prier to water services being required by The Bluffs at Marystown develepment. I I 10 I The Bluffs at Marystown EA W April 2006 I Regardless of the lecatien of new water supply facilities, thewell(s) needed to. service the preject area will be installed according to. the fellewing precedures to. ensure a safe and clean public water supply: I a. Cemplete a Feasibility Study to. determine the specific timing and need fer the elevated sterage tank, and welles). I b. Cemplete the delineatien ef a Wellhead Protectien Area. c. Model the aquifer under the Wellhead Pretection Plan to. verify the zene ef influence of I pumping en the drawdown ef the aquifer. d. Map the area contributing to. the public water supply. e. Investigate the well yield required, the thickness ef the aquifer, the integrity efthe I cenfining layer, and any hydrolegic interconnectien between aquifers when evaluating petential new well Ie cations. I f. Use protective measures during well constructio.n, such as extending the well casing to. the.bettemofthe confining layer to. maintain the natural geolegic pretectien of overlying materials. I g. Preperly case and grout off well bering(s) to. prevent centaminatien efpetentially deeper aquifers. h. Grout the well frem the bettem ef the casing er the top ef the filter pack to the greund I surface, and grout all annular spaces adjacent to the confining layer to maintain its integrity. I 1. Co.mplete well testing to. determine the rate at which water can be reliably produced, previde a measure ef the preductive capacity ef the ~ture well, and evaluate the asseciated drawdewn. I j. Determine the transmissivity of the aquifer fer a 24-hour er 72-hour peried. k. Estimate the directien and magnitude ef the lecal greundwater flow field. I 1. .. Cenduct chemical sampling and testing to. verify that the new well is free from centaminatien. I The abeve procedures will previde for a safe, clean, and adequate municipal water supply. The new welles) will be required to. meetMinneseta Department ofHeaIth(MDH) standards and comply with theMDH WellheadPretectien (WHP) rules. The fundamental goal ofWHP rules I is to. prevent centaminants from entering public wells.WHP rules set requirements fer time-of- travel and aquifer transmissivity to. ensure safe.water supplies. I Dewatering Dewatering will beceme necessary if surficial groundwater is enceuntered during utility installatien. It is unlikely, however, that dewatering will be necessary because the depth to. I groundwater exceeds the planned depth ef sanitary sewer, municipal water, and sterm sewer in most areas within the study area. Groundwater depth within the vicinity efthe site ranges frem I 153 feet to. 232 feet based on recerdsfrem nearby wells (Ceunty Well Index, 2005) (Appendix C). The quantity and duration efpetential censtruction dewatering is not known at this time, but it is expected that any necessary dewatering fer censtructien will be temperary. If I greundwater is enceuntered during utility installatien, it will be discharged to. temporary I 11 I The Bluffs at Marystown EA W April 2006 I sediment basins lecated within the project site, which is consistent with City efShakopee and Scott WMO regulatiens. I If censtructien dewatering and pumping from the propesed deve1epment exceeds the 10,000- gallon per day or 1,000,000 gallons per year'threshelds, a DNR Water Apprepriation Permit will be obtained. If it becemes apparent that censtructien dewatering will net exceed 50 millien I gallons in tetal and duration efene year frem the start of pumping, the centracter or project proPo.ser will apply to. the DNR Division efWaters fer ceverage under the amended DNR General Permit 97-0005 fer temperary waterappropriatiens. It is net anticipated that I co.nstructiendewatering erpumping frem the propesed development will be extensive er centinue leng eneugh to. impact demestic ermunicipal wells. I 14. Water-Related Land Use Management District Does any part of the project involve a shoreland zoning district, a delineated 100-year I flood plain, ora state or federally designated wild or scenic river land use district? DYes 0No If yes, identify the district and discuss project compatibility with district land use restrictions. I The project site do.es net include a shereland zening district, a delineated 100-year floedplain, er a state er federally designated wild er scenic river district. I 15. Water Surface Use I Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body? DYes 0 No 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. The Highly Erodible Land List fer Scott Ceunty, Minneso.ta (USDA NRCS, 1993) indicates that I fifteen seils en the site are classified as either highly eredible land (HEL) er petentially highly erodible land (PHEL) (Exhibit 9). Table 16.1 includes infermatien en erodible seil classificatiens and acreages ef each soil type. I I 12 I The Bluffs at Marystown EA W April 2006 I Table 16.1 Highly Erodible Soil Classification I Map Classification Erodibility Acreage Symbol Dakota sandy loam, 6.,12% slepes, IDederately . DbC2 PHEL 4.0 I eroded EaC2 Estherville learn and sandy learn, 6-12% slepes, PHEL 5.0 mederatelyeroded I EbC2 Estherville gravelly sandy learn, 6-12% slo.pes, PHEL 0.7 moderately eroded HaC Hayden loam, 6-12% slepes PHEL 9.7 I HaC2 Hayden Ie am, 6-12% slepes, mederately eroded PHEL 25.5 HaD Hayden leam, 12-18% slepes HEL 12.6 I HaD2 Hayden learn, 12-18% slepes, moderately eroded .. HEL 5.7 HaE2 Haydenloarn, 18-25% slepes HEL 4.6 HaF2 Hayden loam, 25-30% slepes HEL 11.3 I HbD3 Hayden sandy clay learn, 12-18% slepes, 'HEL 8.2 severely eroded LaC Lakeville loam, 6-12% slopes PHEL 0.4 I LbD Estherville-Burnsville cemplex, 12-50% slepes HEL 25.0 LcC Lester learn, 6-12% slepes PHEL 8.3 LcC2 Lester leam, 6-12% slepes, mederately ereded PHEL 4.3 I ThE Terrillearn, 18-25%slepes HEL 2.6 Total 127.9 I According to. the Metropolitan Ceuncil, Digital Soil Survey fer ScettCeunty (1955), steep slepes (i.e., slepes steeper than 12 percent) are associated with seven efthe soils listed in Table 16.1. Twe-foot co.nteurmapping indicates that elevatiens onthe site range frem 796 feetin the I northwestern portien efthe site to. 1,004 feet in the seuthwestern pertienofthe site. Seme slopes asseciated with the ravine in the nerthern pertien ef the site meet the definition ef a bluff. I Any development prepesed along these areas will meet Scott WMO standards and setbacks. Because the project will invelve disturbance efmore than ene acre efland, applicatien fer I ceverage under the National PeIlutant Discharge Eliminatien System/State Dispesal System (NPDES/SDS) General Permit will be submitted to. the MPCA prier to. initiating earthwerk en the site. This permit is required for discharge of stermwater during censtructien activity and I requires that Best Management Practices (BMPs) be used to. centrel eresien and that all eresion centrels be inspected after each rainfall exceeding 0.5 inches in 24 heurs. Erosion contrel practices that will be implemented en the site include: I I. Censtructien of temperary sediment basins in the locatiens prepesedfer stermwater pending, and develepment ef these basins fer permanent use fellewing censtructien. 2. Silt fence and other erosio.n centrel features installed prier to. initiation ef earthwerk and I maintained until viable turf er greund cever is established on expesed areas. 3. Periedic street cleaning and installation of a reck constructio.n entrance to. reduce I tracking of dirt o.nto. public: streets. I 13 I The Bluffs at Marystown EA W April 2006 I 4. Stabilizatien of expesed seils, phased with grading, within 7 days for slopes steeper than 3:1, 14 days fer slepes less than 3:1 but greater that 10:1, and 21 days fer slepesflatter . than 10:1. I 5. Energy dissipatien, such as riprap, installed at sterm sewer outfalls. 6. Use ef cever crops, native seed mixes, sed, and landscaping to. stabilize expesed surface I soils after final grading. Erosien centrol plans must be reviewed and accepted by the City ef Shakopee prier to. preject censtruction. Because the abeve BMPs will be implemented during and after constructien, I petential adverse effects from censtructien-related sediment and erosien 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 permanent controls to manage or treat runoff. Describe any stormwater pollution - . prevention plans. I Water Quantity The preject site is approximately 323 acres. The anImal runeffvelume efwater leaving the I site for existing and prepesed conditions was analyzed using the guidance from the Minneseta Stermwater Manual (Nevember 2005). Theresults.o.fthis analysis are eutlined belew. I Existing Conditions Existing site conditiens are agricultural uses with seme weeded areas and a farmstead. I The site generally drains east and nerth teward TH169. Sterm waterrunefffrem the site enters the Shako.pee Upper Valley Drainageway and eventually reaches the Minneseta River. Based en the medeling data, the site generates an annual runeffvelume of I approximately 77 acre-feet. This informatien is summarized in Table 17.1. Proposed Conditions I Two. scenaries were. evaluated with this EAW as discussed in Item 6. The develepment will censist ef a mix ef single family homes, tewnhemes, cendominiums, and neighberheod commercial uses. A school may also. be censtructed en the site. I The drainage patterns are anticipated to. remain the same as the existing cenditiens with sterm water being directed to. the east and north, eventually discharging to. the Minneseta I River. Sterm water pending and infiltratien to. meet City and Scett Ceunty WMO standards will be required. Prior to. providing infiltratien, Scenaries 1 and 2 are anticipated to. generate an average runeffvelume ef87 acre-feet and 84 acre-feet, I respectively. Thisrepresents an increase in runeffvelume, which is anticipated with development. Hewever, infiltratien shall be required to meet Scott WMO rules which states that fer projects that increase runeffvelumes for the 2-year critical storm event, at I least 1/2 inch ef runeff from all new impervieus surfaces will be infiltrated. Infiltratien areas are propesed in the cenceptplan and will be further reviewed and addressed threugh the permitting process. I I 14 1 The Bluffs at Marystown EA W April 2006 1 The sterm water discharge rates are net anticipated to increase as ponding is required to. limit the proposed discharge rates to. the pre-settlement discharge rates per the Scott WMO rules. Pending will need to be provided en~site to. meet these requirements. 1 Water Quality A water quality analysis has been completed fer existing and propesed.cenditions within the 1 project area using the guidance fremthe Minneseta Stermwater Manual (November 2005). This analysis included annual phospherus leading and tetaI suspended So.lids leading under existing and proposed site cenditiens. The multiple pending areas proposed within the 1 study area will be designed to provide treatment to. Natienal Urban RuneffPregram (NURP) recemmendatiens prier to. discharge frem the site. 1 Existing Conditions The existing cenditiens analysis was used to. predict pellutant dischargesfrem the pro.ject area. The landcever used to. predict water quality cenditions fer the existing I- _ conditiens assumed that a majority efthe drainage area was iU.agriculturalproduGtien with small segments efweo.dland, grass, and farmstead land uses. I Under existing conditions, the model predicted that 67 peunds efphespherus and 17,380 lbs eftotal suspended selids are generated by the site annually. There is currently no treatment o.r Best Management Practices (BMP) fer runeffbefere discharging frem the I site. I Proposed Conditions This analysis assumed a level ef everall impervieusness fer the proposed land defined fer develeped residential and cemmercialland uses. Analysis o.f these propesed I cenditiens for bethscenario.s is shewn en Table 17.1. Sterm water is required to. be treated to. NURP recemmendatiens. The data eutlined belew shews the results ef the analysis with and witheut sterm water treatment. 1 Table 17.1: Water Quantity and Quality Analysis Annual Runoff Annual Annual I Annual Total Annual Total I Volume (acre~ Phosphorus Phosphorus Suspended Suspended feet) Loading Loading After Solids Before Solids After Before Treatment . Treatment Treatment Treatment (lbs/year) (lbs/year) (Ibs/year) 1 (lbs/year) Existing 77 67 ' NA 17,380 NA Conditions I Scenario 1 87* 65 26-33 10,548 1,055 - 2,637 Scenario 2 84* 65 26-33 10,869 1,087 - 1 2,717 * Dees net take into. account the required infiltratien. I I 1 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 Divisien of Waters digital watershed mapping, the project site is I located within the Minneseta River (Shakepee) major watershed (Exhibit 2). Surface water drains everland to. east and nerthte the Shakepee Upper Valley Drainageway. Stermwater is eventually discharged to the Minneseta River and/or infiltrates en-site. Pest-constructien I drainage will fellow similar pathways, with miner differences in drainage reutes. Pest- develepment stermwater runo.ff will either travel everland, er thro.ugh sterm sewers prier to. discharging to. receiving waters. I Based en the water quality analysis thatwas completed and the storm water treatment that is I required ef develepment in this area, there is no. anticipated adverse impact tedewnstream waterbedies, -- ..- ---. . 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 nermal demestic wastewater preductien is expected. The types efwastewater I produced will be typical efnew residential andcemmercial develepments. No. on-site municipal or industrial wastewater treatment is anticipated. I Beth the MPCA and the Metropelitan Ceuncil Envirenmental Services (MCES) have cempiled and decumented extensive data that relates wastewater flew generation to. Po.Pulatlo.n and land use. Sanitary wastewater productien fer th~ prepesed development was I estimated based en the metheds 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 productien frem a typical residential cennectien. One SAC I unit is defined as 274 gallons efwastewater flew vo.lume. Scenario 1 I Single family, tewnhomes, and condeminiums are assigned o.ne SAC unit per dwelling. The velume efwastewater preduction fer the school was assigned ene SAC unit per 18 students, which is based en 30 sq. ft. per student er 15 gallens per student. Commercial and effice I cendeminium land uses were assigned SAC units based en building area. The. estimated maximum petential daily wastewater productien for the entire develepment under Scenario. 1 is 222,214 gpd. The fellewing table prevides infermatien en wastewater preductien 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 Proposed Use SAC Rate Units SAC Units Wastewater (gallons/day) I Single family units 1/Unit 451 451 123,574 Multi family units 1/Unit 232 232 63,568 (tewnhomes) I Multi family units l/Unit 60 60 16,440 ( cendeminiums) Elementary schoel 1:18 850 48 13,152 I . Students ( students) Oftice/cendeminium 1:2,400 s.f. 22,500 10 2,740 I Neighberheed Cemmercial 1 :3,0008.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 ene SAC unit per dwelling I unit, and the cemmercialland use is assigned SAC units based en the area ef the building. The estimated maximum petential daily wastewater productien fer the entire deve1epment under Scenario. 2 is 257,834 gpd. The follewing table provides infermatien en wastewater I productien based enland use. Table 18.2 I Wastewater Production Predicted under Scenario 2 Wastewater Proposed Use SAC Rate Units SAC Units I (gallons/day) Single family units lIUnit 467 467 127,958 Multi familiunits l/Unit 284 284 77,816 I (townhemes) . Multi family units 1/Unit 180 180 49,320 (condeminiums) I N eighberhood Cemmercial 1 :3,000s.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 treatment. Identify rec~iving 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 prejectwill net include on-site sewage systems. As described belew, wastewaters will be discharged to. the City efShakepee wastewatercellectien 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 ~'O~.: The_,City ef Shakepee system eutlets through the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) Chaska interceptor ferce main and ultimately reaches the Blue Lake WWTP in Savage, Minnesota. Per infermatien frem the Metrepelitan Ceuncil's website, I the Blue Lake WWTP has a design capacity to treat 38 million gallens efwastewater per day. The daily flew in 2004 was 28 millien gallens efwastewater per day. No wastewater faCility or treatment capacity issues are anticipated. I 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 preject will net include facilities that generate liquid animal manure requiring dispesal. I 19. Geologic Hazards and Soil Conditions a) Approximate depth (in feet) to groundwater: --L minimum 202 average I Groundwater elevatiens within the vicinity ofthe site range frem 690 feet to. 736 feet abeve sea level based on records from nearby wells (County Well Index, 2005). Twe-feot I tepo.graphic mapping indicates that elevatiens en the site range frem 796 to. 1,004 feet. Extreme changes in topegraphy on the site contribu!ete significant ranges in depth to greundwater en the site. Based en greundwater elevations from wells and existing I topegraphy, the maximum depth to. groundwater is estimated at abeut 314 feet. Because surficial groundwater is sometimes enceuntered in the wetland, the minimum depth to. greundwater is estimated at 0 feet. I Approximate depth (in feet) to bedrock: .J.:L minimum 1.1.1... average I Depth to bedrock was estimated frem recerds efnearby wells (Co.unty Well lndex, 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 knewn geelegic hazards in the ferm efsinkheles, faults, shallow lirnestene formations, and karst tepographyare present en the project site. Measures to aveid er minimize environmental preblems due to these hazards are net propesed. I c) Describe the soils on site, givingNRCS (SCS) classifications, if known. Discuss soil granularity and potential for groundwater contamination from wastes or chemicals I spread or spilled onto the soils. Discuss any mitigation measures to prevent such contamination. I The Soil Survey Ge_ographic (SSURGO) digital database for Scett Ceunty (USDA NRCS, 2004) indicates that the follo.wing seils eccurwithin the prejectarea (Exhibit 10). I Table 19.1 Soils Classification I Map Classification Hydric I Drainage 2 Symbol . I DbB Dakota sandy leam, 2-6% slepes No. somewhat excessively Daketa sandy loam, 2-6% slepes, moderately . semewhat DbB2 No. I eroded excessively DbC2 Dakota sandy loam, 6-12% slepes, moderately No. semewhat eroded excessively I EaB Estherville learn and sandy loam, 2-6% slepes No. semewhat excessively .. EaB2 Estherville loam and sandy Ie am, 2-6% slepes, No. semewhat I mederatelyeroded excessively EaC2 Estherville leam and sandy leam, 6-12% slepes, No. somewhat moderately eroded excessively I EbC2 Estherville ,Gravelly Sandy Leam, 6-12% slepes, No. excessively Mederately eroded HaB Hayden Io.am, 0-6% slepes . . No well I HaB2 Hayden learn, 2-6% slepes, moderately eroded No. well HaC Hayden leam, 6-12% slopes No well HaC2 Hayden learn, 6-12% slepes, mederately ereded No. well I HaD Hayden learn, 12-18% slopes No well Hayden learn, 12-18% slepes, mederately HaD2 ereded No well I HaE2 Hayden learn, 18-25% slopes No. well HaF2 Hayden loam, 25-30% slepes No. well I HbD3 Hayden sandy clay Ie am, 12-18% slopes, No. well severel y ereded I 19 I, The Bluffs. at Marystown EA W April 2006 I Map Classification Hydric I Drainage 2 Symbol LaC Lakeville leam, 6-12%.slopes No. somewhat I . excessively LbD Estherville-Burnsville cemplex, 12-50%.slepes No. somewhat excessively 1 LcB Lester loam, 2-6% slopes No. well LcB2 Lester Ie am, 2-6% sleoes, mo.derately eroded No. well LcC Lester learn, 6-12% slepes No. well I LcC2 Lester learn, 6-12% slepes, mederately ereded No. well PaB Palms muck, sleping 2-12% slepes Yes very peorly I ThB Terrillearn,2-6% slepes No moderately well ThE Terrillearn, 18-25% slepes No. mederatel y I well WaA Waukegansiltleam" 0-2% slepes No. well WaB Waukegan silt leam, , 2-6% slepes No. well I Wb Webster-Glencee silty loams Yes peorly 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 Accerding to the Seil Survey of Scett County, Minneseta (USDA NRCS, 1955), the site is located o.n the Lester- Webster-Glencee asseciatien, which censists efrolling to. nearly level I seils, darkly celored, and medium texture. Soils in this associatieu were derived frem calcareeus, mederately fine textured glacial material. I Potential for Groundwater Contamination The susceptibility ef greundwater to. pellutien relates to. depth to. the water table and the appreximate time it takes water to. infiltrate the land surface and percelate dewn to the I underlying aquifer. The pellutien sensitivity map ef the Geologic Atlas of Scott County, Minnesota (1989) indicates that the sensitivity ef groundwater to. pellutien is high. The High sensitivity category indicates that the estimated vertical travel time fer water-berne I surface centarninants to reach greundwater 50 feet belew the land surface is weeks to. years. Hewever, a High sensitivity rating dees not suggest that water quality has been er will be degraded. If there are no. centarninantseurces, for example, pollution will not occur. I Preservatieu oflarge areasefparkland/open space including natural areas and adequate stermwater treatment is expected to minimize the potential for greundwater contarninatien at the The Bluffs at Marystewn develepment. I Groundwater Protection and Mitigation Measures The Bluffs at Marystewn develepment will be censistent with the go.als, pelicies, and I strategies described in the Scott County Groundwater Protection Plan. The goal efthe plan is to.. "assure County residents access to. petable water by protecting existing and future greund water reseurces." The plan describesgeals related to land use to pretect I greundwater in the ceunty. The Bluffs at Marystewn preject will effer a higher level ef greundwater protectien than I exists under current conditions. Chemical applicatiens can be high in agriculturally .1 20 I The Bluffs at Marystown EA W April 2006 I dominated landscapes. The cenversierl ef the site to. urban uses will enSUl."e greater pretectien ef greundwater by: (1) cevering expesed seils with turf and landscape plants to. reduce infiltration of nutrients and pesticides; (2) reducing hazardous materials en the I preperty to. include enly heuseheld quantities; (3) protecting the jurisdictienal wetland en- site, (4) abandening and sealing existing wells; (5)previding between 50 and 67 acres of parkland and o.pen space including natural corriders; and (6) providing stormwater treatment I and infiltratien methods. 20. Solid Wastes, Hazardous Wastes, and Storae:e Tanks I 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 Censtruction activities fer this residential development will generate waste en-site. Hewever, the ameunt of waste will be typical ef a constructienQroject. The centracto.rwill dispese o.fwastes generated at the site in an appreved methed. The contracter will try and I recycle any censtructien waste that can be recycled. .After censtruction, solid waste generatien will be typical of residential and commercial I develepments. It is not anticipated that the propesed residential develepment will generate significant ameunts efwastes thatweuld be considered "hazardeus." The majerity efthe solid waste generated will include paper, erganics (feed wastes and weo.d), yard waste, and I inert selids. The remaining wastes will include plastics, metals, and glass. The Minneseta Office ef Environmental Assistance (MOEA) reperted an estimate of I residential So.lid waste generatien ef 0.33 tens per persen per year in 1998 fer the Twin Cities Metropelitan Area. The residential selid waste generation rates were based en the censervative figures that the average single-family dwelling consists ef2.68persens. The I heusehold occupant number is then multiplied by 0.33 tens per person per year, based on the MOEA figure ferthe Twin Cities. Using these figures, the prepesed development is expected to generate between 657 (Scenario 1) and 822 (Scenario. 2) tens efresidential I municipal selid waste per year. Accerding to. MOEA, Scett Ceunty generated 59,330 tens efmunicipal selid waste in 2003. I Appreximately 89 percent of this waste was delivered to landfills in ether ceunties er delivered to. eut-of-state landfills. The remaining 11 percent was precessed at the Elk River RDF Processing Facility and Hennepin Energy Resource Cempany. I Dick's Sanitatien prevides residential garbage, bulk item pickup, yard waste and recycling services fer the City of Shakepee. The city requests that recyclable materials be sorted into. I two. categeries: (1) glass, aluminum, and plastic and (2) cardbeard, newspaper, mixed mail, and magazines. Residents are billed quarterly fer these services. I Scott Ceunty has consistently led the region in the percentage ef mixed municipal waste being recycled. According to. MOEA statistics fer 2003, appreximately 69,583 tens ef I 21 I The Bluffs at Marystown EA W April 2006 I recyclable materials were cellected frem Scett Ceunty residents and erganizatiens in 2003. Participatieu in the recycling program by future residents of the study area is expected to. . reduce cests for solid waste trucking and disposal. I b) Identify any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or present atthe 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 prese~t in the shed and adjacent to. the gasoline above ground storage tank (AST) west o.f the shop. The petroleum contaminatien I includes diesel range erganics (DROs), gaseline rang erganics (GROs), and varieus benzene, ethyl benzene, teluene, and xylene (BETX) constituents. Field and laboratory analyses asseciated with the septic system and the barn revealed that nene efthe I constituents that were_discernible by the analysis was detected at a level abeve the laberatery reperting limit. The repert recemmended that in cenjunction with develepment I efthepreperty, a response action plan (RAP) be develeped to. properly manage the impacted seils. I Future commercial develepment may include a retail compenent or may be used as an automebile cenvenience statien. lfthe co.mmercial develepment includes an autemebile cenvenience statien with undergreund sterage tanks, annual licensing by the MPCA will be I required. The licensing and inspectien requirements efthe MPCA are expected to mitigate er minimize the petential impacts frem these nermal business activities. Censideratien will be given to. develepmeut of spill and leak detectien and preventien techno.legies, as well as I deuble-walled tank censtructien, to. reduce the petential fergreundwater centaminatien frem sterage tanks that may be develeped. Any undergreund sterage tanks will be installed accerding 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 cenducted by AET, I and indicated that an AST and an en-site septic system were found in asseciatien with the Theis preperty at 12226. Marystown Road. The Phase II Environmental Site Assessment of the Larry Theis Farmstead (August 2004) presents the results ef seil berings, field screening,. I and laberatery analysis perfo.rmed fo.r the area. No. contaminatien was encountered in associatien with either tank. The project preposer will be required to. remeve and dispose of the fuel storage tank in cempliance with applicable regulatiens prier to. develepment. I It is currently unknewn whether abeve er below gro.undtanks to. store petroleum er other materials will be lecated onthe project site. lf abeve er belew greund tanks are prepesed en I the site, they will be installed according to MPCA regulatiens and censideration will be given to. spill and leak detectien and preventien technelegies, as well as deuble-walled tallk censtructien. I I 22 I The Bluffs at Marystown EA W April 2006 I 21. Traffic Parking spaces added: Unknewn I Existing spaces (IT project involves expansion): 0 Estimated total average daily traffic generated: 9,933 Estimated maximum peak hour traffic (if known) and time of I 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 correspending increase in carben monexide.1evels and ether vehicle-related air emissiens. Baseline air quality monitering er predictive air quality I modeling has not been scheduled at this time, and no. measures to. mitigate air quality impacts have been censidered. The prejeCt is expected to. have a negligible impact en 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 EAW Guidelines for a listing) and any greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide) and ozone':'depletingchemicals 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 statio.nary source air emissiens are anticipated as a result efthis project because development of heavy industrial facilities is notpropesed enthis 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 or intensity 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 Preject deve1epment will net generate eders, noise er dust in excess eflevels emitted during construction ef typical suburban deve1epments. Any o.ders, noise, er dust produced during construction will meet the requirements ef the MPCA and applicable lecal regulatiens. I Odors The project will net generate significant edors during censtructien er eperatien. The emissien I ef oder by any use shall be in cempliance with applicable ceunty er municipal regulatiens. Noise I It is anticipated that neiseleve1s will increase lecally during project constructien. The neise levels en and adjacent to. the site will vary censiderably depending en the pieces ef equipment being eperated simultaneously, the percent ef time in operatien, and the distance frem the I equipment to. the receptets. It is anticipated that mest constructien activities willbe cenfined to. the heurs between 7 :00 am and 7:00 pm and that a number of machines ceuld potentially be eperating simultaneeusly. I Dust The construction process is expected to. generate seme dust. lt is net anticipated that fugitive I dust will be generated in objectienable quantities. Censideratien will be given tesuppressien ef airbeme dust by application efwater if significant fugitive dust generation eccurs during site I grading. 25. Nearbv Resources I Are any of the following resources on orin 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? DYes ~ No I The Minneseta State Historic Preservatien Office (SHPO) cenducted a search efthe Minnesota Archaeolegical Inventery and Histeric Structure lnventery fer the preject area (Appendix B). I Based en their review, no. archaeelegical sites were identified in a search of the Minnesota ArchaeolegicaUnventery fer the search area requested. One Historic Structure, Jackson Tewn Hall, was identified within the search area;.however, the building no longer exists. I Prime or unique farmlands or land within an agricultural preserve? iii Yes D No I Accerding to. the Natural Resources Censervation Service (NRCS), seven of the 26 seil types found en the site are classified as prime farmland. One additienal seil type feund o.n-site is classified as prime farmland when drained. Eight soil types feund en-site are censidered I farmland ef statewide importance. These seils comprised approximately 242 acres or 75 percent efthe 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 Daketa sandy learn, 2-6% slepes Statewide Impertance 2.3 I DbB2 Daketa sandy learn, 2-6% slepes, Statewide Impertance 2.2 mederately eroded EaB Estherville learn and sandy learn, 2-6% Statewide Impertance 29.2 I slepes EaB2 Estherville learn and sandy learn, 2-6% Statewide Impertance 3.1 slopes, moderately eroded I HaB Hayden loam, 0-6% slopes .. Prime 44.5 HaB2 Hayden loarn, 2-6% slepes, moderately eroded Prime 2.5 .. I ' HaC Hayden loam, 6-12% slepes. Statewide Lrnportance 9,7 Hayden leam, 6-12% slepes, meqerately HaC2 eroded Statewide. Impertance 25.5 I LcB Lester learn, 2-6% slopes Prime 95.1 LcB2 Lester loam, 2-6% slepes, mederately Prime 1.8 I eroded LcC Lester learn, 6-12% slepes Statewide Impertance 8.3 LcC2 Lester learn, 6-12% slepes, mederately Statewide lmpertance 4.3 eroded I TbB Terrilleam, 2-6% slepes Prime 4.8 WaA Waukegan silt learn, , 0-2% slopes Prime 2.4 I WaB Waukegan silt learn, , 2-6% slepes Prime 4.4 Wb Webster-Glencoe silty learns Prime (if drained) 1.7 . Total 241.8 I Based on the USDAlNRCS Prime Farmland and other Important Farmlands for Scott County, Minnesota (2005). Prime farmlands censist of land. that has the best cembinatien ef physical and chemical I characteristics fer producing feed, feed, forage, and eilseed creps. Accerding to. the NRCS, prime farmlands have "an adequate and dependable water supply frem precipitatien, a faverable temperature and growing season, acceptable acidity er alkalinity, acceptable salt and sedium I content and few or no. rocks." This dees net mean all seils listed as prime farmland preduce exceptionally high crop yields. I Farmland ef statewide importance consists ef seils that are important to the agricultural reseurce base but they de not meet the requirements for prime farmland. These soils are more eredible, droughty, seasenally wet, and difficult to. cultivate than prime farm land. They are also. usually I less productive than prime farmland soils. No. farmland preservatien measures have been censidered. Because the site is guided for I development, no. clear alternatives to. conversienef prime farmland 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. 1 As indicated in Item 9, the City efShakepee's Natural Resource Corridor Map (December 2005) identifies recemmended preservatio.n areas within the site beundary asseciated with the ravine and existing woedland areas. The City's Cemprehensive Plan identified two. park search I areas within the project area. The preject prepeser has indicated they will werk with the City to. . preserve these natural areas threugheut the develepment. and create park areas in cenfermance with City requirements. I Scenic views and vistas? 0 Yes 0 No I No scenic views er vistas exist within the immediate vicinity efthe site. -1- Other uniqueresources? 0 Yes 0 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 Yes o No. If yes, explairi. 27. Compatibility with Plans and Land Use Regulations 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. 1 The study area is net currently regulated under the zo.ning autherity ef the City ef Shakopee. However, the City has cempletedland use planning as part efthe City's Cemprehensive Plan fer this area. The City efShakepee and Jacksen Tewnshiphave an Orderly Annexatien I Agreement. When annexatien is cemplete, the study area will be subject to. the City ef Shakepee's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The propesed develepment 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 Shakopee's City-Wide Land Use Plan (2004) shews that the site is guided for low- and medium- density residential and cemmercial land uses. I I I I I 26 1 The Bluffs at Marystown EA W April 2006 1 28. Impact on Infrastructure and Public Services Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure or public services be required 1 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 theEAW; seeEA W Guidelines for details.) 1 Public and private infrastructure improvements will need to. be censtructed in asseciatien with this develepment. These include but are net limited to.: roadways, trails, the stermwater system, 1 electrical lines, telephene lines, and continued imprevements and upgrades to. the sanitary sewer and water supply systems including future develepment ef a water tewer and municipal well. Environmental impacts related to. the improvements that are directly asseciated with the project I are discussed threugheut this document. 29. Cumulative Impacts 1 Minnesota Rule part4410.1700, subpart 7, item B requires that the RGU consider the 1 "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 EA W in 1 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 1 cumulative impact under the appropriate item(s) elsewhere on this form). The changes in regienalland use in the Shakepee area frem epen space and agricultural land to. 1 mere urbanized uses is expected to. have a cumulative impact on the area. Cumulative effects ef this and future projects en natural resources and infrastructure are expected to. be reughly preportienal to the impacts discussed in thisEA W, er semewhat greater if future projects are 1 develeped at a higher density. The City ef Shakopee has planned fer future grewth and J development as part ef its Comprehensive Plan Update. . This effert will ensure that the cumulative impacts effuture grewth and develepment to. the envirenment and to. the City's 1 service capacity are anticipated and mitigated. The project proposer is not currently planning projects on adjacent lands. Consequently, the 1 precise timing and nature effuture develepment in the preject vicinity is unknewn. Hewever, land adjacent to the project site is eventually expected to. develep, thereby cenverting existing epen space and agricultural land to. residential and cemmercial uses. .The City of Shako pee Plan I. Update anticipates and guides the intensity ef develepment within the City and directs necessary infrastructure imprevements to. suppert the planned develepment. 1 Mitigatienofpotential cumulative impacts will include previding appreximately 50 to 67 acres ef epen space (15 to. 20 percent ef the site), pretecting the jurisdictienal wetland and quality weedlands and natural areas to. the extent practicable, pretreating stormwater, providing 1 adequate municipal facilities such as petable water and wastewater treatment, and addressing future traffic issues. These provisions will help minimize potential cumulative effects o.f past developments and future develepments within the regien. 1 1 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 ether adverse environmental impacts are anticipated as a result efthis preject. 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 Summary of Issues and Mitigation Measures I Item Title Issues I Miti2ation Measures I Fish, Wildlife, and Preservation efbetween 50 and 67 acres ef parkland, 11. Ecelogically Sensitive storplwater pending, weedland, wetland, and open Reseurces space. I The addition ef a municipal water well and water 13. Water Use tewer on er adjacent to. the site; cempliance with DNR Water Apprepriatien Permit requirements; I connectien to. the municipal water supply system. 16. Eresion and Sedimentatien BMP implementation; compliance with NPDES/SDS General Permit requirements. I 17. Water Quality: Surface Water Creatien ef stermwater treatment ponds and Runeff infiltratien areas to. manage stermwater runo.ff. Improvements to. Marystewn RoadlTH 169 north and I 21 Traffic seuth ramps and to. Marystewn Readll ih Avenue need to. be made. 9 Petroleum centamination of Develepment ef a Resperise Actien Plan (RAP) will I and soils near shed on the Theis 20 parcel be develeped to. preperly address the impacted seils I I I I I 28 I The Bluffs at Marystown EA W . April 2006 I RGU CERTIFICATION The En~ Quality Boan! will Clnlyaccept SIGNED En.vironmcnt.al AssClWtlent Worlclheets fOr public DOti" I in the EfJIJ Monitor. I hereby certifY tbst: I The inf'onnatioD contained in this docmncnt is acc:wate and complete to the best of my laIowledgo. The EA W descrlhes the conIpIc~ projcd; there are no other projects, stages or components othet.th:m tbose dC$cl"i'bcd in ~ doC\.\ment, which are related to the project as c;Ol3DCCted actjODS or phased actions, as defined at Minnesota Rules, p~ 4410.0200,. I 0Dbpart0 ~ ~:. Copies:fthD EAW... bciog _ tutbe..... EQ8_un Signature - . ~,(~L DateLJ"t/\V?/'Y"7b I Title: Mich~el L~Communitv DeveloDment Director The En'Viroilmentil Assestment Worksbeet was prepared by the: slafi' of the &vitonmezu:U QuaUtyBOlltd at I Mim1csota :Planning. For additional imOrxnatioIt, warbbeen: or for RAW GuMelil1es, CAmtacC Ettvironme~ QualitY &ard. 658 Cedar S1:J:'ed, St. Pwl. MN 55155, (651) .2gc..8253, or www.mnplo.n.state.mn.!.IS. "-.. 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 , \ \1 @ 2006 Westwood Professional SeNices, Inc. ... II \. I 33 II I II I II I I I I :1 -- I :1 ]7 ~~ :1 \ @ ( 1,.- (>.. . . . .).", . I - ,- ',-' iff;; - .L" --.- J. T 'J.'~J. II I ::: : ~19 " :~:< I . .L. . . . . I. ~ T . I. . ., , , . 150TH . · Sf.. . 'II. , . , ~ . .., . . . I. . II · 35 . . .- "' . I N , I Legend A [::J EAW Boundary 'I 0 1 2 I Miles Map Document (P:\20041087.02\gis\EAVV\20041087 _02Ioc01A.mxd) I 121211'2005.. 7:13:34 AM The Bluffs I!:d We~twood Pfo1e1j~ional Services, Inc. at Marystown I 7699 Anagram Drive Site Location Eden Prairie, MN 55344 I PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952.937-5822 Shakopcc, Minnesota TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 wlNW.westwoodps.com EXHIBIT 1 I I @ 2006 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. . \ \, ."). -. '. _ - ./~. /i/k[''';~:' . ::~;~~~T~:i~:~J*f.':.!1 '~,' +,~~ :JI";~:~:>,F:.i'.'; >}".-:,: ,".:/\~:r:; : ,:: t , \ ' -", .,.j_ "f.icP-:"J". :V( iX-- :,j'1~:;.;.A,,;'.i:~~:'iJ_::Lt:.~~, ,fJ ,.J:;...{:... ,'J', . "".:\ ' ; td1b~.. I '" 1-""'. :/'.... L.O...,..::.r....:....~;..~'f...,., ~_.-'--:<~.l. ~":...-.'..:...t~::. ~"<>-~-;~ I ,~-~)( . - I fG<jjff .- ,,:) ",' r.c 't' ,~, , '.f" -: r" I' j ,.' " I...i., :J.I:.-?": ,., I .-: .-l. . , i-,' .'1 .,. 1",' J., .~ I. .........01 /' ..' I -',' ..~.~/, "..' ",'..:..'r: .~. ", . \ ...:::'.ff,~.. .... ...." "<':", . __~'./.. <(.',;:?;""'.,/ '-;.- ".1.:.I.....:.'.'~I:..~,.i.~<..,"A.. ~/!...l~.~', I' l..,.,..,:.....; ':.; l1.~........l'" /' \ '~7"''- '>7'" ",.~,:...,~~."..l""...., .., ,;:;:""';'.',, ..' ',," ',/ \ - -"".-,,' "J .:., . ,.' ".1<',"""" '-'n I '-'il,M.r,"',I. '- '/ "...~-;.. ~ I -' ~:I(:t ( ~~'JJ'1 : ..~" ," ~ ~., ..1.""......... .. . I' -:;:~' ,.-. ':11 ! . I /. -' ,'1' -' tFy ,'/,V " ". ,...~,o;"..w:'"'J<'..'.l '1f-'''''"i. ". '~~:f\,.,...~" ' ,/, _~1"""'~:~; i'/" ,,-- 1"1;' ," J. :,..,.-:,.., , . .,:5,' : .'.. , 1 ~,:;,,,":::',: - ./ I I':;....~ .-r~ ,. '7 _. /~, ;;.. ~: l' . 't'" ~" '. I "j", - -. .,,:>;.. .... I / ~ .-' r-- I ~~~ / ,"'" ..~ ~bA,' J _ /'./ _ . ~ ;., >..,', :..'" .:.,~...: " ... .~....,... #....." - ~.; ~ ':"';I~': "f;' . ,~~ - ,- ) ~1i~..,.~.,./I-.,I'\/ ""// ~ .~.. 1\....).1...-1.).,.1.'.,;...., '82'" -",'~"'.-...::.:.,,, /' J~ , ''-I.~ . '" "I ,/.... .~. ,<,(1'.,' --......::':" ."f: ...... .'~ .-'.1" v'~ " " /7 )f -:0.- ..I . ',.... ...,;... ,'...,..-.;,....:.~,.,.....r! J ....'L ' .. ..<~.,.:I,~;..,".:.,..~. 1") ~- :.:./\.; ",,/~t;-:;';iO.~/ )'#,;,,,_/ /"'-:.,,'... J( .;' ,'l....~..~:,.:)b;k:!;,::.. ..c' > ,,11 . ~"~~"'. ,.~- I ~4 gjjfJ./;::;,//;7 1;< /~.;r-'.~ . ':=:It.:::;('':~J??,';; Minnesota River ,-;:...-x" ;:~'3~{~~j;tjti.f.~>~~~~,';J . ~~~;~~J./<;j\1~1i.~:r~~.:>/ '.;. '~ " .~-_'-" "~:'0'N/~ /', .-{t. /,.Y" I' '~'~":;~--\"";~>'{7" '..... u -". ~- ., '~~.. ) I " :{~':~~?S:.;:':' /~.~;~~~~: .,~. :" /-~I'::-:~;~:-= ':"~-T ,..~ ~.' -' ,/'-' I . n. ',I'/~ -"'0,,_ --' , . ',- '-""~-::::':~':~.f/=::~ . ~"(:;) /.'x/::;1" 7, .' ,- .- t .', ..J,. ,.. .-, \. ,hr'. n,/, r . ,..' "-" .'.' . (~.~/"/ //. It'. {/ .. . . - - ~ - ->I .~"....- \J .. ,-, ~~ . ~., ,'I: ..... /;///,''- ,:/,;:;-/ ' 0)1-,--:' ('----', ,A .-,' "" .....~~'~.'~>~. /;:-~'/;:'--~,,'I ~-- ,.':+-"-.',' / ,-h,~----'I _...-,--,,',_..,\ ~. . ...,.,.'. ;:f"i,'t .,. //j' . /'./. .US H 169 /.~ 1'-:_.;. ~5!p' . , '.' " < /. ~'''' ... d.. ..., ~.':-WjJ.- - _~._...~I;:-"'i?'-_ .-----'-,.;. .-.', "j '. I '8-;~v.1/~/~~ ..-.}/.- .;':.~i~'.~~" - .~l~.~~.-/~. . . - '~" ~ '"-11' ,;: ,"./ \<;.~_.~_..- ;.."..:..., - - - -.L____. :.. .t._i"/-I',""" "."C1.,/' r' ..... ..... ~."-' .... . .". ...-.--,', . .-:-~ ",' ~.". , ""'I'" ',' , ,. - " /' /, . \ .... . ',/ " - '. ,. -'. " ~7-{'Z. J:"'Yti'~'....... 1- .. /",: ' " // ..__~ _;.:':'::-.: -' ;'-..~~:;~~,l. -'. '. -. --' .', _ _ . ;;;;'7" ..1 ,.$;;.n<TarrOi' ',' .'., "E' ,.-- /. '. /'.- . ::p B ;. ,;1 . ' - ~ I ,~~f.J~<, ,'~/ ',.(~";1"'::"~?~':~i{.j-~.,:.::~~{:i4~:~~.;~' t~~;<:, q~~.,~~< 1.'. \"'. I I 'iff",'J f' 1.:,a,I<'r P.z,', / u. l,.?~ . '-;".,;.; J." "\. '.'. ~ :r · t......, ~ . . \," \ j .' . .~) ;--' . .". . ~'~J '-=l,/A-':,:' :j, J:i."j;'"-''' 'f,; l'.".':::--~',~' ! '-, I '<:~:-. ....,' ',/, (' 'c ;''' / . -' ._e,jD mr" Lol. IC-.jh) IL n. IN,....... ,......--...: I \ - "" I ,'. I /./ .......-"/~ :'.-../....r' \...;<: di~~ 9~r.J.:/'- ~~-. .._ ~ .'':.;~ ..~. ,; '. "~."'" I _... /' / --' .,.J;! ,'0CC4f~' . (',.1.. ;." "".! 1 L.,~ """ "", . I I '-..." /}:--;.'~'.-~.F/l'_. ./ _~ ::~ 2ff;;~"'~' ',~ >,~ .9~1 .1 ,'j,: (', ., .,';;~)~. I J / ( . .r -'. ..k:.J.~ ';.r~{I'1r ( -'. I'" ' , \ ~-l1-':"".'.:'. .. - --..... . . ". ~/ /or"'- ./~. '~A-,,-; -~'(~~1~~)' t~\.\(! ~::..~ \ '.._ .."'" 'r... ,:..~.~-~.~.:~:.\~~~~ I ,) / ',~ ~~'-".oN"'- - ( \" " '_.'-'.A-.- .,"-r. .... I I ::t'/~;~'-~~;Lf~!~it~f~br~~~,'~'~~, ',' :.,:I~,:'/'~)~"" ,':,.J .- ~d~t~7~~~~~"(S~z!:;~~~~ i / >;/:d? .-'" "/!6~~' -', I,'. " "I' .. 1 .: ::;7,.~C. . /' 'f..;:1r!,> I /.. ::. ,I \ t ~r, '. # =-- \ # I . L (' . ~ "', \_ ' _ -: ~ (.") \.1 %' 'C', 1.--., '0"'....., ' '- ---'..: 'd ., ". , .,J ...', I I->.'~('~(lr--~~~'::~':_~':~':='~"-'~'(::::L, :," \ " r-I'...... 11.. J~""'I r' ---..' , ' I ~ I ' .,,~.,.. \ "/,1 r-, ,r.. ( 1',\ - ')'--' J' -, . I ,~. + ~2\~_'" I.~ (" /~~-<.. " ('\ - ''\ ~"l: ,: ,l ',', . - i ...' ':'.5:-~.:-;.. .,~__, ~:_.~--..'~' ~ ". r A 'T"'~1'~'~~~~'":'""0---::- - -", ~, ...., J 0 , . _,_',', '.';'0_'. Ij)a.~ .:' '\ \ --~..t" I. I ,r./;, ,.-.),%<.:;~~,;,J~~. , '.;- "'~r'l r.-;,'.'" \'-J 130thIIS"f:W',':::.:-' ':-'<-.,,- -:,til ,)' ,~:'. " ".I( r ~-' ::- ";'?';~',~ ;>----~o~,:;. , ~:<~_~.:~..?lit~;,,~~.~,"J,:' " ~:. (~;i-~,.".'?,"~ ' 0/<.. )(,:. :;' .><~:, ';'.Jr:~': ',\.:':;" \>}~i~.~;;, ~;{'~:::" / ~- ' I " ','.- ' ,..1 :::--''' .1,'1"<> .." '..".'0 '.- f"" " .,,1 ::.. ,- - 0 / '.' ;'i',\ .', 0. ., I ~, , "~'" "'I' ..-{ " ., - -I",..' '. 'l!'" " '. '''',':~.) /, " - - - , ' , - I. _ -. .... r " '\ -, - - ~ 0 . . ,~,...., .J I - ~~ - __ ~,.... "i. ~:,' __ ~'-./ \~,0 ;0_,'"'' -~(,.,.... I.... ~. r,' .~.- . 1 ::-- ..... .' _) 6~':-'" ~. - -~. :: ....' ;,-....,.)\.1 ,- .....:"..-.. -"';i'l~~::';;:-_".".."-':_,O ")"-'l'\""{ . ~ ~,,' ~1 t/l'. .--~/..,:C:) ,") V(", ' ..-'" .!o:.r-:':'; / '-";.v~ ~7~) ~.1 (,.'- .. , , . ~J)I.' "-. Or "> L '- '. . ~. ,\.' .... - ~.,: ,'. .~t;_X (cJ''''' 'I"~ I'.l'-'.;"""'" . "'."..' ~~,_::Jfj;') 0 ',''0 I.Y-'l)' ". ,," :....., - .-':~':,,,-:,~, ,,~,.,'I'( .",.~" '~; .~~!~~,' l~:':' .1:7)'~~~\ ;-:~~{..~~;;-;?:~~~r ;,:'-' ../J','<: ,> ., ' ~ ~/:: -j :,/ ll</ ,~\) .~.~, - ,;9~rr-~ -:-~..:-~..<~. ,~- - :::-~~~:. ~o~_; ;:~':fi \;" :':-. ~ , ~:~, ~l I '.' ,-/ "r:(2:',.~~~ ~';''fSfi!\;~.d( i' '.',' .. 10,! .'~! " ,.--:-;(I~n.JI;'-', :,-"]~-:I.:'.-:. ~: "_:'I:~"i'-(,'F' -/;: .'.(-:::".."'_~-/:i~:=-~.~~::---.J-._J~_~j:.~~~':,..r'" "_~ L:'~~' _.t~':l':o~, (.~ i:\:_/~<:;" ,;?: 7;~" 'jl,:- , ,: ~ - -.'__ '-:-'~~i~~~\, \~ (~~:<, \ t:~/:,; .- .......~'...-._-._, \.\:c-'.'- ) ,.'...'.i".... ., " . '..u_..~t~-.,., ""'-'---',1".- ....;\- .-.-.- ,-'~!l+i~,' ~ 1'1 "\-' -<,~>~,:.' .':':.:?,~~;.z~} ':~~~"7C.-:: -~.'~~:-r~.. -: .---'~- .:~.- .;'; ,:',' ,<'" / ",,-'..:..-.,...t, ':",;", ::-)..~.:(r.~/, :'. :~::.-" ..~.~.,.- I .~~:/ ,_." C_?'9'Jo0',;,,:, '. '., :-c: ' {" I ,-,.' ,I ' ' -' - "'J";I -. -' r)' J,1;r~. "._...J. ..~~ ~~~ ,)'~~'1:~ 7~:~{C';~~ 'C', 1- ",:,";!"" ',;/'"')2 ~ ,.;:':.z::~ I I Data Source(s): USGS/MnDNR DRG (Shakopee Quad, rev. 1993), MnDNR Watersheds (1999). N Legend I D EAW Boundary A c::J Minor Watershed Boundary 0 2,000 4,000 I Note: The site is located within the I Feet I Minnesota River - Shakopee Major Watershed I ~~~,~~~"n;i~~0:'108702\giS\EAW\20041087_02drg01Am'dl Th e Bluffs I ,~., WestwoodProfessional5ervices,lnc t M . t USGS Topography I 7699 Anagram Dnve a arys own I Eden Prairie, MN 55344 d W t h d I I an a crs e S PHONE 952.937,5150 FA)( 952,937,5822 ' I TOLL FREE 1.888.937.5150 Shakopcc, Mmncsota I Westwood wv.w.we>twoodps.com EXHIBIT 2 :1 I -- - ,-~ ~-~--- ._"-,'----~,.~ ,--,-.'- ,,- ~- - - -------- I @ 2006 Westwood 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 Data Source(s): USDA FSA APFO DOQ (2003), WI'S (2006). Legend N I Cl EAW Boundary A [ - Bluff Line I 0 1,000 2,000 I Feet Map Document: (P:\200410B7.02\gis\EAI/IJi200410B7 _02cQrlc01A.mxd) I 1/1112006 -- 8:25:40 AM The Bluffs I!:d Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Scenario 1 I 7699 Anagram Dnve at Marystown Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Preliminary Site Plan I PHONE 952.937-5150 FAX 952.937-5822 Shakopee, Minnesota TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 I WININ we!otwoodps com EXHIBIT 3 I I I. @ 2006 Westwood Professional Services. Inc. II I II II II I II I I I I ,I I I I Data Source(s): USDA FSA APFO DOQ (2003), WPS (2006). Legend N I c:::J EAW Boundary A - Bluff Line I 0 1,000 2,000 ,Feet I Map Document: (P:\20041087.02\gis\EAW\20041087 _02conc02A.mxd) The Bluffs 2/1312006 -- 9:54:28 AM '" Westwood Professional Services, Inc. at Marystown Scenario 2 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Preliminary Site Plan I PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952.937.5822 Shakopee, Minnesota TOLL FREE '-888-937-5150 Westwood wWoN.westwoodps.c:om EXHIBIT 4 I - ------ :1 @ 2006 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. "~"'-' II I II I il i. :. I II I :1 II I :1 I I I I :. :. I ;,\t II Data Sourcc(s): USDA FSA APFO DOQ (2003). I Legend N I c::J EAW Boundary A 'I 0 2,000 4,000 I Feet Map Document (P:\20041087.02\gis\EA\rV\20041087 _02doq01Amxd) The Bluffs I 12121/2005 - 8:14:50 AM I~!d Westwood Professional Services. loc. at Marystown 2003 Aerial Photography I 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 and Land Use Types I I PHONE 952.937.5150 FAX 952-937-5822 Shakopee, Minnesota TOLL FREE '-888-931-5150 wl/IfIN.westwoodps.com EXHIBIT 5 I I @ 2006 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. I I I I \~ ':' I f .. I I I I , I - I I I Legend c:::J EAW Boundary Agricultural I .. Wetland N A .. Woodland Impervious I .. Lawn/Landscaping 0 1,000 2,000 - Pipeline Easement I Feet I ~~ 1~~~~m~~t~~~~~~~~087 .02\gi s\EAW\20Q41087 _02cvr01A.mxd) The Bluffs I!:d Pre-Development Westwood Professional Services, Inc. at Marystown I 7699 Anagram Drive I Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Cover Types and PHONE 952-937-5150 Pipeline Easements FAX 952-937.5822 Shakopee, Minnesota TOLL FREE '-888-937-5150 www.westwoodps.com EXHIBIT 6 I - -~~ - ---~~. --..--.,..---. ---- ._-,-.--- - I @ 2006 Westwood Professional Services. Inc. I <:<;; - -. I I I I I I \ I I I I I I I I I I -l I / - ,,- ~ I f . - I Data Sourcc(s): USDA FSA APFO DOQ (2003), WPS (2005). Legend N i I A C=:J EAW Boundary I - Wetland Boundary 0 800 1,600 I Feet Map Documen\: {P:\20041081.02\g\s\EAW(lG041087 _02wt\d01Amxd) I 2/2/2006 -- 8:28:23 AM The Bluffs I~d Westwood Professional Services, Inc. I 7699 Anagram Drive at Marystown Wetland Boundary Eden Prairie, MN 55344 I PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 Shakopee, Minnesota TOLL FREE 1-888-931-5150 www,westwoodps.com EXHIBIT 7 I --~-~ .- I @ 2006 Westwood Professional Services. Inc. 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). Legend N I c:J EAW Boundary A 0 Registered Well Locations I 0 1,000 2,000 I Feet I Map Document (P:\20041087.02\gis\EA\N\20041087 _02welI01A.mxd) 1/1212006 -- 7:15:19AM The Bluffs I~!d We.stwood Pro1essional Se!"llices, Inc, at Marystown Domestic Wells I 7699 Anagram Drive I Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 fAX 952-937.5822 Shakopee, Minnesota TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 wlNW.westwoodps.com EXHIBIT 8 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 t EaB Estherville Loam and Sandy Loam, 2-6% Slopes I EaB2 Estherville Loam and Sandy Loam, 2-6% Slopes, Moderately Eroded EaC2 Estherville Loam and Sandy Loam, 6-12% Slopes, Moderately Eroded EbC2 Estherville Gravelly Sandy Loam, 6-12% slopes, Moderately eroded HaB Hayden Loam, 0-6% Slopes HaC Hayden Loam, 6-12% Slopes I HaD Hayden Loam, 12-18% Slopes 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 I HaF2 Hayden Loam, 25-35% Slopes HbD3 Hayden Sandy Clay Loam, 12-18% Slopes, Severely Eroded LaC Lakeville Loam, 6-12% slopes LbD Estherville-Burnsville Complex, 12-50% Slopes LcB Lester Loam, 2-6% Slopes LcB2 Lester Loam, 2-6% Slopes, Moderately Eroded I LeC Lester Loam, 6-12% Slopes LeC2 Lester Loam, 6-12% Slopes, Moderately Eroded PaB Palms Muck, Sloping, 2-12% Slopes TbB Terril Loam, 2-6% Slopes TbE Terril Loam, 18-25% Slopes , I I WaA Waukegan Silt Loam, 0-2% Slopes WaB Waukegan Silt Loam, 2-6% Slopes Wb Webster-Glencoe Silty Clay Loams ~ I I I I I I I Legend c::J EAW Boundary N I Highly Erodible Land A Potentially Highly Erodible Land _ Prime Farmland 0 800 I Prime Farmland, If Drained 1,600 ,Feet _ Farmland of Statewide Importance Map [)Jcument: (P:\20041 087 .02'lgis\EAVv'\2004108 7 _02soi10 1A _prfl.mxd) The Bluffs I 2/2/2006 u 9:39",52 AM I '" W@stwood Professional Services, lnc. at Marystown Prime Farmland, I 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Important Farmland, I PHONE 952-937-5150 Shakopee, Minnesota and Erodible Soils FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1.888.937.5150 Westwood wW'W.wEstwoodps.<:om EXHIBIT 9 I -- - 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 I EaB Estherville Loam And Sandy Loam, 2-6% Slopes EaB2 Estherville Loam And Sandy Loam, 2-6% Slopes, Moderately Eroded EaC2 Estherville 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 LbD Estherville-Bumsville Complex, 12-50% Slopes LcB Lester Loam, 2-6% Slopes LcB2 Lester Loam, 2-6% Slopes, Moderately Eroded I LcC Lester Loam, 6-12% Slopes I LcC2 Lester Loam, 6-12% Slopes, Moderately Eroded PaB Palms Muck, Sloping, 2-12% Slopes (HYDRIC) TbB Terri I Loam, 2-6% Slopes I TbE Terril Loam, 18-25% Slopes WaA Waukegan Silt Loam, 0-2% Slopes I WaB Waukegan Silt Loam, 2-6% Slopes Wb Webster-Glencoe Silty Clay Loams (HYDRIC) I I I I I I I I I ! I I N I Legend A CJ EAW Boundary _ Hydric Soils 0 800 1,600 I I Feet Map Document: (P:\20041087.02\gis\EAV\I\20041 087 _02soiI01Amxd) The Bluffs I 1212CV2005 -- 11:44:28 AM I '" Westwood Professional Services. Inc. at Marystown EXHIBIT 10 I 7699 Anagram Drive Soils Eden Prairie, MN 553-44 I PHONE 952-937.5150 Shakopee, Minnesota FAX 952-937-5822 TOlL FREE 1-888-937-5150 Westwood wlNW.westwoodps.com I --~-- --- -----,,--- -" ------~.---..--- ._.._- - ----" I I I I I I I ........ - -..- I ,I APPENDIX A I Minnesota DNR Natural Heritage I Database Search I I I I I I I I I ! Fi~("'f=Pfe-;-,. , ...........~.!J....I J I.; Minnesota Department of Natural Resources JAN 3" -.',.' . i 0 2006 i Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, Box 15 ! 500 Lafayette Road, ' l~jL.P'!,\.:;r\I"'l'I , W~ '~Jo~" ~ :2 '! \,.; ,~.J't.../ I' St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-40_ n~OfES,;Jlo-NAL SfftVICt~:::. ; Phone: (651) 259-5107 Fax: (651) 296-1811 E-mail: sarah,hoffmann@dnr.state.mn.us . ; I DeCember 29. 2005 I Ms. Jennifer McLoughlin _II Westwood Professional Services, Inc.- 7699 Anagram Drive i ' Eden Prairie;MN 55344 .. Re: Request fur Naturnl Heritage infurmatiuu fur vicinity of propOSU<i The Bluffs at Marystown, , Tl1.5N R23W Section 14, Scott County ! . . . . I NHNRP Contact #: ERDB 20060471 . Pear Ms. McLoughlin, l. . The Minnesota Natural Heritage database has been reviewed to detennine if any rare plant or animal I species or ather significant natural features are known 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 of rare. sPecies' or native plant cammUIlities in the area sear~hed_. " 'The Natural Heritage databl,lSe is maintained by t.he Natura1H~ntage and Nongame Research Program, . . .a unit within th~ Division of Ecological $elYices, Departmen(ofNaturaIResauf(~es. It is. continually updated as new informatian becomes available, andis the most complete source of data on MinnesQta's rare or otherwise , significarit species, native plant communities, and other ,naturalfeatures.. Itsp:urpase:js ,ta,.fQster" better understanding and protection .of these features. :; ;::;:; :',:'. . ~~, ,':':~,:;:}~~:' ._,:,. ,;:,c:"..:; , '.: : ,r,"',,!- :"', v' ,.:'-;; , : .'J. . ,~ecause' .our informatian is nat based on ~l"compieh:ensive inventary, there may be rare or ot~erwise . . sigliificaD.t n,atural f~t.u.res inthe state tl1atai"enot represent.e.. 4 nit. J1e da.tab. ase, .A cou~ty::bY. -C?Ui1.ty~surve~ of rare natural features IS now underway, and has been com.plet~ for Scott County. OUf infonnattonaboutnatiye. pl~t communities is, therefare; quite thoraugh for that cou~ty. However, because survey WO(k:fOf rare plants ~ . and animals is less exhaustive, and because there has not been an on-site survey of all areas of the county, ecologically significant features far which we have na records may ~x:ist on the project l1!ea.,. .. Please be aware that reviewby the Natural Heritag~ and N~ngalne Research Program fbcuseso,nl)1.on , .' =e natural/eatures. It does nni coustitute ",view ,in approval by theQepartnleJit of l'!a'tualResOurces,as a " . .'. .' .. -l ". " .. whole.If. yau require furth~r information an. the:environille~ta,~ tev.ie.w. p;roc.ess for(j~her.h~tural reSQurce~..,. . '.. .: 1:el~t,~J~sR~&) yoJi t.Qayh;;~~a~n~Qu(~egipI!~U~nvrr~~went~l:As$~~sine~tJ~c?!Ow~t~~~~~~~~~~4~.~t:{~~J,);.;::;, ' . . 772-7940" ..' .,' '.' " .':.;.', .,...:::(:'...;.,,:':.,'....>> .-;.: ':..' ,'. An invoice in the aUlountof $Q6,07 will be mailed to yoij..undei separate cover witllll).}:wo w~eks .of the date of this letter.. You are being b~lled far map and database se~ch and staff scientist review, Thank you for consulting us on this matter, and for yoUr interest i,n preserving Minn~ota,'~ rarenaturalresaurces., . .. ' . '" ,.' :'.' ,~infe~~ly,.. . r.., ' " ,.,:: ','.' " : .;,:.;;,.;,..;. 'i- ::; ~ .' .'.: : :,~.' . '. . . . ..:' . ::: .', ;- .~;_ : ' " ".7 .' '. .;~. >~;~. :.~'; ~" ':'.: '-:.:i;~:: :- .'~" . :.-;~".." ":.,~::; :; .::::.: ;':.:.:,;';,; :.i;-.:\(.~.:!; l';'.',j\.~ /...(.r . .,. . .:;'....,.:. , ... ~ ,:. :.:.., ". .:.,:::ft;;'Printed'on'ik'cycledPaperCootaininoa .. , .. An Equal OPPQrll1n1ty gmpJoy_er. . ". -:-. .. "'., ' .- ..'::.. .:,. .,. ... .,.,., '..... Minimum of' 10:% Post-9onsumerWaste . . " : . ' '0" ," _. ."..:.' ',-0" ':" ------...... ...-.. .-.....--.--.-.,...------.-.....-..------.,.-.....---....-.-.. ....-.-..... ............... ......--......-....--..-......------..--- '.. . . . . . . . .' . 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, 2005 8:43 AM To:. Jennifer McLoughlin Subject: RE: Cultural Resources Review forThe Bluffs at Marystown, Shakopee I 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 SHPO 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 necessary to adequately assess the area's potential to contain historic properties. I With regard to ,Environmental Assessment Worksheets (EAW), a negative known site/structure response from the SHPO databases is not necessarily appropriate information on which to base a I "No" response to EAW Question 25a. It is the Responsible Governmental Unit's (RGU) obligation to verify the accuracy of the information contained within theEAW. A "No" response to Question I 25a without written justification should be carefully considered. If you require a comprehensive assessment of a project's potential to impact archaeological sites I 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. The Minnesota SHPO Survey Manuals and Database Metadata can be found at I http://www.mnhs.org/shpo/survey/inventories.htm I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX C I Minnesota County Well Index Well and Boring Records I I I I I I I I I 1....._.._.... ....... .PP. . . "'" ...... u.. .. P...... Unique No. 00172736 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH U date Date 1991/08118 WELL AND BORING RECORD p 1 County Name Scott ._ Mjnneso~..Statutes Chapter,,1031 Entry Date~~~~?2/11 Township Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed 1 115 23 W 14 ACD 340 fl. 340 fl. 1980/09/22 Well Name THEIS, NORBERT Drilling Method .._~-~-~.._~........._-- Drilling Fluid I. Well Hydrofracturecl? [] Yes 0 No 1 From fl. to fl. -........-.... - - ._--_.~... Use Domestic I I ew.. Driw Sh~' 0 Vos O:j Hde Damom' 1 j'. ~ ! I ! Iii : I : i 1-' -- .......--. ! ! Screen I Open Hole From ~:_~u ft. .1 I I~ ~ ~ ! --I i I .I~, Wa.... LewI 225 fl. ~m """...- .~~D:;i. 1980109/17 i I. i. PUMPING LEVEL (below land. surface). I 1_._ ft. after ......"'. hrs. pumping g.p.m. Well Head Completion ! Pitless adapter mfr Model I I. I~ j CaSing Protection .-i 12 in. above grade j 0 At-grade(Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) [ Grouting Information .. Well grouted? ~ Yes --.'-[f'-No-- I i-' I I I ! I I ...... _"_' ; . j Nearest Known Source of Contamination I I 100 ft. direction type I Well disinfected u~~~ completion? 0 Yes [J ~~. 1 I Pump 0 Not Installed Date Installed I' '. . I Mfr name 4 Model HP Volts I I. ... -. ..--...-- _.- · .... ""'" Pipe Leng<h, fl. Capacity g.p.m Type I .- . ! ~; not in-use and not sealed Well(S)~~'~roperty? ".'0 Yes 0 No I I I : ._~~~ a variance ;ranted from the MDH for this Well? [i Yes n .No ! USGS Quad: Shakopee Elevation. i Aquifer: Alt ld: Well CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION Lie.. Or Reg. No. ' 1 . . I License Business Name Report Co Name of Driller HE-01205-06 (Rev. 9/96) I ,. < ! I, ~ Unique No. 00206806 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH U date Date 1996/02/12 I WELL AND BORING RECORD -~- County Name Scott Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031 . Entry Date 1988/02/11 Township Nam~ Township Range Dir Section Subsectlon Ii Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed 1 115 23 W 15 DDDDDD, 400 ft. 400 ft. 1974/05128 Wel~ Name CARPENTER, PERRY I Drilling Method 1 ! Drilling Fluid \ Well HYdro. fr.actured.? 0 Yes 0 No From . ft. to ft. Use Domestic I. Cas~ng Drive Shoe? 0 Yes [J N r Hole Diameter GEOLOGICAL MATERIAL COLOR HARDNESS .FROM TO Casing Diameter Weight(lbslft) I 1 CLAY YELLO 0 25 5 in. to .ft___ I : . GAA.~L BROW 25 . 38. i 4 in. to 280 ft I \ I I CLAY BLUE 38 110 ! I 1 GRAV~~_..._ BROW 110 115. .1. .._.______ .__ ' I I' LIME R~CK BROW 115 258 I Screen N I Open Hole . From._ 280 ft. to 400 ft. I SOFT SANDROCK WHITE SOFT 258 370 ! Make Type . -'.--- ! SHALE + SANDROCK WHITE 370 390 I ______ i I SHALE + SANDROCK GREE 390 400 I I I Static Water Le~el 190 ft. from Land surface._ 'Date 1974/05128 1 1 PUMPING LEVEL (below land surface) I o ft. after hrs. pumping 60 g.p.m. Well Head Completion 1 I PitJess adapter mfr Model Casing Protection 0 12 in. above grade I 0 At-grad~(Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) _. I I G"'....., lnfonn.lIon wen Qro.".l1 0 Y.. 0 No i I I I. --'-~- 1 I Nearest Known Source of Contamination ! ft. direction type I Well disinfected up~ completion? 0 Yes 0 No I I Pump 0 Not Installed Date Installed Y ! Mfr name MCDONALD . I I Model HP 1 Volts I. -~~MARKS, ELEVATION, SOURCE OF DATA. etc. ___....\ Drop Pipe Length ft. Capacity g.p.m 217-B-7 i . Type S , Any not in use and not sealed well(s) on property? 0 Yes 0 No 1 1 Was a variance granted from the MDH for this Well? 0 Yes 0 No 1 USGS Quad: Shakopee Elevation 930 I i AqoJ"" WPL All", I Well CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION U~ '" Rng. N.. 70241 I I ----.-.. License Business Name II Report Co Y I NameofDriller JA<;:OBSEN. K. . HE.0120S-06 {Rev. 9/l;l6} \ 1 I 1__......... .'...". ..........-............ ...... . . ..... ............-......... . . ..u.. .....-..... ... . . ... .. ..... . ........ .......... ...... .. ..... .....u..... _.u...............u.....u...u Unique No. 00206812 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Udate Date 1996/Q2/12 I WELL AND BORING RECORD . P .' County Name Scott .____u.__/!!innesota statutes Chapter 1031 Entry Date 1989102/23 Township Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed ,. 1 11523 W .11 CCDCA 170 ft. 170 ft. 1972/09/12 Well Name VAN HEEL, VIRGIL Drilling Method 1 Contact's Name VAN HEEL, VIRGIL Drilling Fluid I We II Hydrofract~~? 0 Yes 0 No . 1780 SAND ST Fft t ft rom . 0 . SHAKOPEE MN 55379 -.-..-....--.- ----.... Use Domestic I eas;;;-- -- D.... S....? 0 y" 0 NToI. DI;;"'" I GEOLO~I~AL ~~':~IAL COLOR HARDNESS ~RDM TO Casing 01...- WoIght(lbslft)-..... , DRIFT 0 27 4 In. to 132 ft!. I SHAKOPEE 27 127 J. I I SANDSTONE 127 170 . . ..... __ I I Screen N I Open Hole From 132 ft. t~_.~~.~. I Make Type i I 1 ---- I Static Water Level 100 ft. from Land surface Date 1972/09/12 I I I PUMPING LEVEl. (below land surface) I o ft. after hrs. pumping 20 g.p.m. i '-~~;;'Head Completion ! I I~~~ ~ . I Casing Protection . 01~ in. above grade ! [] At-grade{Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) I. . I Grouting Informl(ltion . Well grouted? 0 Yes 0 No I I I I I , 1 I. 'I!'~~~~est Known so~;ce of C. ont;~ination I ft. direction type Well disinfected upon completion? L;.J Yes CI No I. . I Pump 0 Not Installed Date Installed --- I I Mfr name I ----1 Model HP 0 Vplts I ....ARKS. ELEVATION. SOURCE OF DATA, ""- . ..... Drnp Pipe Longlh fl Capeoi1y g.p_m I 172-8-7 Type .._ I I DAVIES 2ND BLK 2, LOT 7. Any not in use and not sealed well(s) on prop~rty? 0 Yes 0 No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this Well? 0 Yes 0 No USGS Quad: Shakopee Elevation 805 Aquifer: CJDN Alt Id: Well CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION Lie. Or Reg. No. 1 -..---.--. License Business Name Report Copy NameofDriller lOHSE. H. HE-0120S.06 (Rev. 9/96) 1\ I" _. q..'. .......,.. ..u, .................. Unique No. Q0211853 j MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH U date Date 1996/02112 1 ' WELL AND BORING RECORD p . County Name Scott J MinnesotJ Statutes Chapter 1031 Entry Date _~989/02/2~__.__ Township Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed 1 115 23 W 14 AACDAD 67 fl 60 ft. 1972/01/21 Well Name THEIS. No.RBERT Drilling Method 1 Contact's Name THEIS, NORBERT I ~~;lIing Fluid - 1 Well Hydrofractured? 0 Yes 0 No 12466 MARYSTOWN RD I I From ft. to ft. SHAKOPEE MN 55379 u__u..._._ I -- I Use Domestic 1 I Casing ,Drive Shoe? 0 Yes 0 N I HO[~ Diameter --_.-- ! 1 GEOLOGICAL MATERIAL COLO~.HARDNESS FROM TO : Casing D.iameter WEllght(lbs/ft) SOIL 0 3 4 In. .!~.... 19 ft ! .. ______.____. J SAND 3 24 I . l I CLAY _.__...~:~=:~-_-24---- 3~= . . . I . SAND 38 67 ____.. ..'''_ ___~..:._.._............ I 1 Screen Y I Open Hole From fUo _ ft. I Make Type I . , ..._, Slot Len'" Set ,m'n. _ I I _~_.~_... 5 _.0 ft. to ft __ i _~~c Water Level 20 ft. from Land ~Urface Date 1978/08/14 I 1 PUMPING LEVEL (below lands urface) . . I ft. after hrs. pumping g.p.m. I --,~~._....- ~--'. -.. I WellHead Completion 1 I PiIless adapter mfr Model I Casing Protection 0 12 in. above grade I !-_O At-grade(Environmental Wells~nd Borings ONLY) I I ......n. '",.~ell.n W,", "",<>led? 0 y" LJ No ., I I .1 ; I I.n - ~- . 1 ! Nearest Known Source of Contamination 1 ft. direction type \ ,i Well disinfected upon completion? 0 Yes 0 No I I Pump U Not Installed Date Installed Y Mfr name . _ ..,......_.._...._....--1 Model HP 0.5 Volts Ii Drop Pipe Length ft. Capacity g.p.m : Type i --- ....- .1 Any not in use and not sealed well(s) on property? 0 Yes 0 No I I"wa~ a variance granted from the MDH f~r this Well? 0 Yes 0 No ..--... USGS Quad: Shakopee Elevation 875 i ._- Aquifer: QBAA AIt Id: j Well CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION Uc. Or Reg. No. 40174 1..- -_. License Business Name . Report Copy Name of Driller HE-01?05-06 (Rev. 9/96) I I u..':'. . .' ,. ......... .. ... Unique No. 00451975 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Update Date 1994/01/09 I WELL AND BORING RECORD -.- County Name Scott Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031 Entry Date 1994101/09 - -~..-~ ---- Township Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection' Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed I 115 23 W 14 AA 300 ft. 300 ft. 1989109/18 -~-- ,- Well Name HUIS. LARRY Driliing Method -- Contact's Name HUIS. LARRY Drilling Fluid \ Well Hydrofractured? 0 Yes ONo 1 12226 MARYSTOWN RD I . From ft. to ft. SHAKOPEE MN 55379 -1 Use .-_. 1 -- Domestic - -. 1 1 Casing Drive Shoe? DYes ON HolE! Diameter ) j , ....,,-- [ I 1 I i I I I I 1 1 -------,_.__.._,~ ] I i I j L............_... l I Open Hole .:rom I ! Screen ft. to ft. I I: i I Make Type I 1 , l. I. i. -. ! i i i Static ~ater Level 190 ft...from ,~and surlace Date 1989/04/18 I I. ! PUMPING LEVEL (below land surface) I It after hrs. pumping g.~:". i Well Head Completion ----".-.- 1 I Pm'" adapl<nk . Mod" Casing Protection 0 12 in. above grade I 0 At-grade(Environmental Wells and BoringsONL Y) I I Grouting Information Well grouted? ~Yes o No l i i I I 1 i ; i ! i I , ........ .-.....----..- - }---- , 1 j Nearest Known Source of Contamination I 75 ft. .direction W type I BYD 1~~I_,disinfected upon completion? ~_,Yes .0 No 1 I Pump D Not Installed Date Installed I Mfr name I Model HP Volts I -- ~.,._. ,0' j I, Drop Pipe Length ft. Capacity g.p.m I I Type . I .- .-..'#-' I Any not in use and not sealed well(s; on property? DYes ONo I I. _a_.________......~..._ 1 Was a variance grant!'ld from the MDH for this Well? DYes DNo I I USGS Quad: Shakopee Elevation -_._-~_........_..- ,-..-- i Well CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION Uc. Or Reg. No. 70350 I AqUifer: Alt Id: I 1 License Business Name I Report Cop .1 Name of Driller ! HE-01205-06 (Rev. 9/96) I I .'. I 1 ., 1 1 _om . ....... .. ...... Unique No. 00518198 MINNESOTA OEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Update Date 1993/06109 1 WELL AND BORING RECORD County Name Scott __.L_._u Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031 Entry Oate 1993/06/09 ...- Township Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed I 115 23 W 14 ADD 260 ft. 260 ft. 1992/10/26 Well Name KROHN, GERHARD/ELEANOR Drilling Method .,a._ I Contact's Name KROHN,GERHARD/ELEANo.R I Drilling Fiuid I Well Hydrofractured? DYes 0 No 12440 MARYSTOWN RD From ft. to ft. SHAKOPEE MN ! c'-l Domestic I Use _. ...--.-.- 1 I . Drive Shoe? DYes [J N Hole Diameter I Casmg I I - , 1 I _L___ i I ! 1 i ! I Screen I Open Hole From ft. to ft. I 1 { Make Type 1 - Static Water Le\lel 153 ft. from Land surface Date 1992/10/26 I ! __ I.. PUMPING LEVEL (below land surface) i , hrs. ..pumplng I ft. after g.p.m. I ! i Well Head Completion I 1 Pitless adapter mfr Model Casing Protection D 12 in. above grade o At-grade(Environmental Wells and BoringS o.NL Y) 1 Grouting Information Well grouted? b{] Yes o No I .... ..~- '~"-"'----"-'- I Nearest Known Source of Contamlnat.lon 85 ft. directiqn NE type SDF Well disinfected upon completion? DYes D No - I. Pump o Not Installed Date Installed Mfr name Model HP Volts _,.,a.. --..-.-' 1 Drop Pipe Length ft. Capacity g.p.m Type ........~.- Any not in use and not sealed well(s) on property? DYes ONe I - Was a variance granted from the MDH for this Well? 0 Yes UNo USGS Quad: Shakopee Elevation _"_~N~"'___'_ Aguifer: Altld: Well CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION Lie. Or Reg. No. 40174 I License Business Name Report Co y Name of Driller HE-01205-06 (Rev. 9/96} 1 1...'.......-.......... Unique No. 00570136 M1t1INESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH U date Date 1998/07/29 WELL AND BORING RECORD I P 1 County Name Scott _"..'_ I M;n".~~!!!..~~s ':haPt:r 1031 ___.__._ I Entry Date 1998/07/29 I Township Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection ! Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed 1 115 23 W 14 I 340 ft. 340 ft. 1996/12/02 Well Name LA~OUR. DON I Drillln~ Method .._ --.....- ...___.._... Contact's Name LATOUR, DON Drilling Fluid \ Well Hydrofractured? 0 Yes 0 No 1 1910 130TH 5T From ft. to ft. SHAKOPEE MN 55379 .._.... 1 -..- -~..__._.-'-. Use Domestic 1-~aSing Drive SI1~~;'" 0 Y~-' Ij N Hole Diameter ...... 1 I. I Screen .- I .-~pen Hole From ft. to ft. 1 Make -" Type I. [...-.- I Static Water Level 232 ft. from Land surface . Date 1996111122 Ii PUMPING LEVEL (below land surface) --...-.'- ---. . I . . ft. after hrs. pumping g.p.m. 1--..-.--,.....-.----.....--...........-.-. i Well Head Completion 1 Pitless adapter mfr Model Casing Protection 0 12 in. above grade D At-grade(Environmental Wells and Borings o.NL Y) I G",,,",. Info......... w;;. grouted? Ii{I "eo 0 No I. ........----..... . . I. Nearest Known Source of Contamination 150 ft. direction N type SDF Well disinfected upon co.mpletion? 0 Yes ONo -- ~.- I. Pump 0 Not Installed Date Installed . ( Mfr name I Model HP Volts -- ,-- 1 Drop Pipe Length ft. Capacity g.p.m Type . Any not in use and not ~;~~;~ell(s) on prop~~~? 0 Yes 0 No ! 1 .- Was a variance granted from the MDH for this W~;I? 0 Yes 0 No -- I USGS Quad: Shakopee Elevation . -. I Aquifer: Alt Id: Well CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION Lie. Or Reg. No. 27~59 I 1 -.- License Business Name 'I .. Report Copy Name-~fDriller . . I HE-0120S-06 (Rev. 9/96) ! I 1 I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX D Traffic Study I I I I I I I I I I I ~ CONSULTING G RO UP, I NC.. I l'mnSfXl'rtatlDl.1 . I'..:i\'il- Structural. Envlrth"ll11L'1lta! . Pbnning II Trame- und:scaj:W:.' Archltttture" Parking · RlghtniWay 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., Senior Traffic Engineer I DATE: March 27, 2006 SUBJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY FOR THE P ROPOSFD BLUFFS AT MARYSTOWN RESIDENTIAL I DEVELOPMENT I INTRODUCTION We have completed a traffic study for the proposed Bluffs at Marystown Residential I development, located west of Marystown Road and north l30th Street in the City of Shakopee (see Figure 1: Project Location). The pUrpose of this study is to determine the traffic impacts on the adjacent roadway system related to the development of this site. This traffic study includes I a.m. and p.m. peak hour operations analysis for existing and year 2015 no build and build conditions. I EXISTING CONDITIONS To determine how traffic is currently operating in the study area, traffic operations for existing I a.m. and p.m. peak hour conditions were analyzed at the following key intersections: . Marystown Road (COtnlty Road 15) and Vierling Drive I . Marystown Road (County Road 15) and TH 169 North Ramps . Marystown Road (County Road 15) and TH 169 Seuth Ramps . Marystown Road (County Road 15) and 17th Avenue I . Marystown Read (County Road 15) and 128th Street West . Marystown Road (County Road 15) and 130th Street West (County Road 78) . Zumbro Avenue (County Road 73) and 130th Street West (County Road 78) I . Old Brick Yard Road (County Road 69) and 130th Street West (County Road 78) . Old Brick Yard Road (County Road 69) and TH 169 I One Carlsen Parkway North, Suite 150, Minneapelis, MN 55447-4443 Telephone (763) 475-0010 + Fax (763) 475-2429 +http:/ /www.srfconsulting.com I .4.... 'C'......,,,' 1")..................."..,"".;....., t:'..............l...,..u...... ------------------- tl"/ :'"" ~ ~ vJ '- l.f. .~~.~,"otJ:.' ~]< {I q\7~ '1 ,f'y j! '.la..,..,.,.::,.,,!;.' / ~.. ~ '4 ;. ~) 'f "Hi .*/'" ',."&IJ i /' .~..~ ~, j '<J 1 ) <.<..<<~, ',. ~'.."<'t. ~, /' ~ ,1;, r~ '~:t; i ' :. ..~ :I VN""{rl~; !:.t.:;: , '\ ~ __ ~. )- -) ~. ,~l~. fi'Y.-.c Ie ~~~. ~~ "4'""':0~tl ",/ tkQJ.ai(\ .~i~4t<~ '~JQ, ~ ~i~,,< 'L:f' _.<" eE" ~~~~ '., ,.;:..."r'~;9 :!J ~hafl .. ~r^ .'3'.. 7. ~~' "--..._~, _f"" is ~.~j:~. .'~ ~. 1 ~ :DK2~11, :".,;;;~ .. r. . . "flz~ < ,"" . ...;\:/",..1. _,~. .. ' '.~ .. ~~ ,"'~d%:<,~., ~- .'i-~ ,~"t~ '\fi,~ ... ~.. ~ ~ J"""""'.'1'. "'.'''kfIT''cc",\" ~r....,.... 4.,.....~..... .r"".. ....."'-. ....... P.LI ....?'i( ( ~1" "\:~~"~t~ '" ~ ~.. ~/~.t~~1i'';J... 1 ~\l' ~:lj ... .. It-'P .\Ct .... ~ ~ 1:~~ 'i ~ f.~.~.;:. 4).. ".<.~... t. f... ....... ~. ., ~. ~1 " q::t~, .. " . .ar" & .~ ,,"'.,.,;.... ....,,,.,. .1...I...~'Jt'dl~....c~~~~.~....... ..... ~ r\L;~-~" "' . F .i t:"\it .)J., ~ _ . .."'Jtj ;:i "~"C<?, "~"",,;,, .'~ ..: . 'r %. ..,,,. ~:+ ~m.. ..., 1,,::=:;,. '~A~,~4'P r" , ~i4ft AJ e E "" .'; m ..... \ . ... ,:;/~. ... 'TI:C. 69 < 13.1! l . --! .,' I .' .. < .. .<~ .. :':W;:': T. 1.. ... . '1 '\ "" . ... ..1l..kl.1. ....... ' ~. i....' l' "".. . ...< . -~W, -. -~~ ~~;;/'~o /; r.~fl~']jFr~~.J!~~_.~ '~ '-:j Il~ " ~L*lIt.'.~.~.."~.~......:.~I.- A.;-~. . ~.~if~.2~. ....~ ....""'.''4'#...- 1I\.l '. 101 'iD' 'z'f~ ".",d "9:t _~~~. j~~,);S~~ ~k :)f(P. 'I'"" Urn 1f'. .... J!}}!?Mt~. ... '"it .W'E1, -c.. ~.#itli_ ~ . ~<; ~~\X3_" . c:... ",,/'\. """,,,~~~rJ;,;r...~.~...J~. >>...... k t'.. .~ 169 .)k'-.~ ='"'"1.. ~~*><, 416L ~ ~..~ . ..... ..~~ t= . . . r:Ylf' <'''7~ci....<~.- ..~.. .... \ '1 '';J-,J: .. ,_~.,,' /. ~ . *,flp .7:J -- ~;:-~}!;[] 0 t2.... ""....,. ~ I' '"" la .. I 1& I. . ",,' "'n=,.'~ .J,.. /', i)r-' ~ \Ilew Rd.. "'.~ J '..--,- IJ-~M { 133rdg''''l~J. ....18.,''''...~. ;g ~ ,~'-l~,",r"'j f. 'I..,f'j ~.. . ~. [; J'~' 0 .... '.;. ,.",;a: . ... ~r~' 7.. \ .... ..~ .~.. 73 .. -{ " <.;. +.:~ .>:.-4 ;:; '\ '1') .'~ ~ ~.~l. ~~ :::;::..... st!>IN. ~plw.k~~ -..ib!I~"';, ~~ MeI~fiamq .8. ~)d:l~:, l 1.!'~'C.Hri.rtA,J] a~~f.. ) . _ t .. ,t:l /$1 'fl. .;.-: '>-y<'''''1$JI:' C:" it' ~l;!!;:'r: );; . " \. ~ ~ rr a 1rz:%fJih ~ .. ....~. .~ J . PROJECT LOCATION 1::' 1 rI ure , . BLUFFS AT MARYSJOWN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC STUDY 9 CoNsL'!.!)"" GI<<)Vf, INC. City of Shakopee 0065653 March 2006 I I Mr. Michael Leek March 27, 2006 City of Shakopee Page 3 I Current traffic controls include signalizatien at the intersectien of Old Brick Yard RoadlTH 169. The intersection of Marystown Road/BOth Street is currently amtrolled with all-way stop control. All ether intersections have site-street stop control. The existing signal timing for the I signalized intersection was used - in the analysis. Intersectien turning movement counts for the a.m. and p.m. peak heur were cellected by SRF in February 2006. Current geometrics and peak hour traffic volumes for the key intersections are shown in Figure 2. I An operations analysis was conducted for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours at the key intersections to determine how traffic currently operates in the study area. All intersections were analyzed ming I 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 indicate~an intersection that is operating over capacity. LOS A through D are generally considered acceptable by drivers. I For. side-street stop contrelled. 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 side-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 ef 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 I indicate that all ef the key intersections are currently I operating at an overall LOS C or better during thea~m. and p.m. peak periods, with existing traffic control and geometric layout. Table 1 I Existing Peak Hour Capacity Analysis level of Service Results I INTERSECTION . Level of Service A.M. Peak . P.M. Peak Marystown Road and Vierling Drive* NB NC I Marystown Road and TH 169 North Ramps* AlA AlB Marystown Road and TH 169 South Ramps* AlA . A/A I Marystown Road and 17th Avenue* AlA A/A Marystown Road and 128th Street* AlA AlB Marystown Road and 130th Street* A/B A/B I . Zumbro A venue and BOth Street* AlA A/A Old Brick Yard Road and BOth Street* NB A/B I Okl Brick Yard Road and TH 169 C C * Indicates an unsignaIized intersection. The overall LOS is shown foliowed by the worst approach LOS I I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1f;~/ \ \ ..-" '''--r ) / .. o ~\!: ~ L f^ii~ w~~ ~ 0 OlWOl ....010 L C;; I\) J.- 18 (40) !;j. "- ~ ~.~ . 27(79) L 19 (28) U ?i o ....'w +- ~ <0 Ol 11(26) ~l' -'-, j f J~1C +-716(1490 #~ r 82 (35)..:.1 .- 0 (0) ... . _.::~~:.." ~ . . .- 9 (22) '~~~~~~~ (146) 405!f ~ tt,-. (7) 26--4 1t,-. ,. I tt ,-. (30) 34 .... .. .... (804) 1403~ I\) I\) (54) 121'-t ~ ~ ~ ~~ (3) 7. .... ~ 01 --.. _~_ _....lrr._ ~~~ ~~~ --- l ....,. 0.01" ~ ~~~ "/~.s~' ??.3?.$~~~~,~,:o~(\\\~';~~... ~" -" @/ r,rt ~ ~-~.~ G ~ # ,- 11l1> "" J ~ ~~ ~ri' / "\ #' ;//---- I Bluffs at III t< V; ~ _ I Marystown Ol-'>- L /-' "~to / Trailer Court;, I Site ,...."...... ....1\) 18(51) 17lfl...... ....... ......" ~ l. .- 11 (11) ~ ,~ ,.11_ I ~._.~ / JACKSONTQWNSHIP i-;r. I - I ~ t,-. /,t . ( y 2000 POP. 1.361 l I Trailer \ . \.r- J '. ~ _._-!.~_.m_ ST. w.. (~ -5<...... ' ~._.._~._--...-... -.-":.-.:-....-..-...-.. "'-...- ~~ ~~ - ~~ ....-'>-~ ~ <if) 2 """-I....lrr.....lrr. ~ ~ ~ 4 (11). ., ' ::J o 0 01 +78 (164) '-. \ + ,. 11 (1) -.-..-.--.--- (26) 4 + (163) 118+ .... W I\) + 5(7) (6) 7 Ol ..... .... .... ~ I\) L 22(23) Ol 01147 (148) 0(1) + r 7 (21) 5 (3) (14) 22-i + (4)0 + + LEGEND ....w (141) 126--" ~~~ (0) 0 XX (XX) = AM PEAK (PM PEAK) :9~ (28) .4 (1) 0 S = SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION 0 = SIDE-STREET STOP CONTROLLED INTERSECTION ~ EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Figure 2 . BLUFFS AT MARYSTOWN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC STUDY CONSt..!LtINC GROllt, INC. City of Shakopee 0065653 March 2006 I I Mr. Michael Leek March 27, 2006 City of Shakopee Page 5 I FUTURE 2015 NO-BUILD CONDITIONS Traffic forecasts for no-build conditions were developed fur year 2015. This scenario was I analyzed to determine future traffic operations witheut the proposed Bluffs at Marystown residential development. In order to account for background growth for year 2015 traffic forecasts, a two-percent yearly growth rate was applied to all roadways. This growth rate was I determined by reviewing historic traffic velumes on the adjacent roadways and discussing surrounding development potential with the City of Shakopee. The no-build forecast volumes. include trips generated by the proposed Countryside esidential develepment located east of I Marystown Road and north and south of 17th A venue, as well as the new Shakopee High School which is currently being built east of Marystown Ro~d 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 1.5 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 hour, which is why the p.m. peak hour trips generated for the high school are I lower then the a.m. peak heur. Trip. generation estimates for the adjacent developments are shown in Table 2. Table 2 I Trip Generation Estimates Land Use . Size Daily A.M. Pe~ P.M. Peak I Trips In Out In Out Counnyside Residential Development Single Family Homes 427 homes 3,953 77 231 249 146 I New Shako pee HighSchool (I) High School 1,600 students 2,736 800 203 210 240 I Total 6,689 877 434 459 386 (I) Trips generated for the high school are based on data from the existing Shakopee High School, which assumes that 75 to 80-per~ent of the students will drive to school (carpooling was assumed with a 1.5 average occupancy I 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 I 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 I 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 I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _.- -- \f{~wU<.. >-.....1'..- ~~ l/..u\\ ~l;ct#f,-.. ..--' // """"I.~ c~a /./ I If:' \''\ "t~'~,.c ./-'^" -\ til#~;;t~.:.--\,.,\ Ji;"[\~'Y I // / '~.- -." ............!;// I JII/ Ef)ENPRA1RI~/;;;;";;:: ,...'t~t(~,r...,~~ i,(w,,4tf,< .....-.&>:....} <:f.1\/ 1/ ~^ / ,__- ".-"--'..1 /,,'// ~~&{.001 /// ''\., " \- -l"::~:~\ li"'~ ,~i!J'\ (el k'~..' V,&l ..~~./ CHANHASSEN '- 50~ -':".-- ";j~:':i"-'" Ijx:. '\ '" g ~J.~' . .,1 #,'119;" ,~; 1 "', '~ /., ~ Q ,,. ~~ Iii!! . '" /. ~I ~'- >. ~l it' I Er~": \"'\'. "'v''''~r'': ., / .... /' :mooPOl'\ 2O;l21 _",It,.."", '~ lib' ... '''!<' I ~ ~ : . I , .!j. I i '0 7 .' '.J ii \ (ii', ", ,/' ". , 1/ ,lC too.. ) \. I { . \~~~t1t1 ..... j '.~ ..,; ./ \....~. .:~......! -''''' ~.../ C " COnlti "4~ tI.. -=:- -~ ...... . ~ L_., i~ ,\. t ~ ~i f -a..v" / / g! \1{> "7 .:7 ..T.. ~~ .' ......';-- ;:'_'_'" _ . ./)1 -1'I'~_\ 1. ~::- ~\J~"-l- ~1 ~~~~'-;.e' '(45 ..!!'~L~(~\ .~\. \'y J J'l t>";//" """ A~"" scOTT. .~",,-,- to~ '...." ~'t3 /.:~;-:,;::'''1\Ainna~6tS: .;~' _u." ~ riJ. ", 2/~~ '8<01 ik..~;rG 'M' 1 \ /, 1/ ,^ """, , . /:-;/ V.~:..~l.. ; ,f}~1 i ~ri! I ~~ w: "~~f .....,../~ ..J pJ /\ \:&/' '/ /f < / I ll$J$~;;-' ',r<---;"'- TrclfstCow1 ~~ " tii!if Yi'/.fJ~:~B t!~"'--\i)/J" I \~! €'/ rmS'; /'>:<""1//"'// j 2;; /. ',,' ..;,/..;~/ ..... _ "",.;i.,%<,~". ..:.:~~,,~I '~""-t~~>>1f- -~< I j.;r;j' JJti *?~';.fJ~:;:j?:;:ff~~~;:;::S'-1':'/ I '''..- a\i; /,.:::>. .. ~~~\....<::../ ",-<,~fl ~rc~>J.- ~;{;{:;r-Ur "....... ..... "-"1..Nc1 \" / /l.fl~// ~ <l-U r i.\0/ /...// ; _ .... ,<..........._........ ........_ _..,.*f.~r) . t~ ~H ~ ..... "'i: <0" I~_,.-t.... ! \:\.1 ~I;""" I \1~iRt.'. ~'" JJj,/ / '{\~;;-<( :{ T_c- 1 /;:::::::~:,.,,~ 4/ ',.......~~~-..1"'\'f'-'':Jf\\ \\i;.1$:."<L';\'%i' \~\!J ii~ -rili {rw- ri"\\- -- ~~ ....;'\.. / /~ ..../'>-7/ /"" l'1 ! /';>::-..-- ..~.'" /// ~v-. {~: ~f\ "( i . ..~lJ';'!'::fy.~_,\.~1, 1 .~...-.--...\ ill ' "\7-1 'l~~~\'\rl *4;(~./~~~>lI}///At/ i /;:::::,../ ;f,..~~ {f/ \'r_i-~\...\~~~:~l~~'~\~'-\M\~~...V0r: \r--- \ ~\-r----" lL~~ \\ . \~ ~ ~',1'\~~' 1;:'>/ ._ +-y.....:.e::-;/ 1~, /;~;'/ ....-;...:... _....- ..,...~~;~..f~~~:.~_~~t'~ ;-\'\\ 'AAt>_.\.~~1'~ {I_ - 11 t\. b ~...-i \\~! ~ \j ~~Qf~ 1f'; /.i~~,:( rOo /,::,:':::'~'::'-::lJI\!'\n-esPta I ",,:'-::;...::!!:<,,;.:f,, ""!. ..,., ..: ":-.\,'1\. ,t;\...;\...~~\~\:.~!\ ~-"i Ii ,\~ t \\ ~\ \:"~~ ~ \\1 ~ I /-;"'l~d'f ". //Y'/^;; :1-"~ v/.<;>.... /", V .......>>'jff.. \ .....-" \ \~j.. \ I l;.\jlUl) 5-l-"~' t <'liil L~-e.' 11 i) ~,,*.l' Q.:' ....-1.... mA \~ ~;/~i(~{<<;r/r1Jt.t//~<./~ ...~..-;.( ~;':.:~.s..'Strunks ~ ~...(/#;/;.., ~ ,,,""'\':'\~\ ':~~<"\ti;s.;.~.\. 'f' ~l ..'....j'l!..(~~f II ~-~ ,"'- '.'1((: \i~~\J "?/.J/':#.\" goy /1/(')\1\ Lake ! .(/" )1;//""'.~' li ~i~, \"",.,,,,,\,,;"1\. ,,", '. ~i!'>. ~'-_~'" r",[!-~I 1/1,.\if(," "',':\ i.f.~'f.~::::~J;r f-///r~- /// (((~~/ ''\\ I/if 1f~t:/ \ ~-\\fR ~~j:~~'l~\ \~;..-l\-;-w.t g ~! '4:~~F.t .......f..~jj -%i;:-:;: 'h tN:)t:;~~" J) /}iq ! "'11 ~ f(1/ ',,~:;..;;.}iJ //l!~Y II ;~!:l;;:.!:'" ~ .:>ilt\'. \".\ '\"'~\;\,~"'\ Y'\ -" t jl ;1 il! '\I~j~ \ ~~~i..~ ,,', "j} ,W'Jt./ ''''ffi ,-.... ;/.. #~ J/,"" ., ,. ~'~'G ~ ",.". ~j ~I .. . ...",,'* r--"'~", Jr/lf\/~~~.~\..."\~t?..-,r".. .1-~r:' ;-'---. .;>1" 'P' /,.~~~~i);~e~~!'-diiIW~1f$f.!tl<<;~TlPiW .~l ,-'~ i" _.~\, "'f: .......~(~) .. \1 ~~1.,;Y ..,.,.y.,;,f ;' '-~':-'<;:':;:2) . .....: III ~,;.,:\~ /' i ,If "~-~/Ii' ...,./ i _EN ~i i~ i ;: I,' II ~I II ": ~1 ~ I\~ i ! i ~ k \ ~ Ii Ii. tl"~~ .... " %\~ \t--'~,~"r'>..~~~\""'\(<....L. t:':~:;~/ ".\~ \~\./tj /~~, fi .1H;:?/;.HIUt~ ~-_...'. 1M t t~fM!I~'1 ~l"r--L...L,-L~ !....,..l.H~~', f- ~!r~K " /_)//\'0'~\,~\~\" ';"~~\~\'\ rjY'f; e: :~! F.-< ~~)" /~ I~;~ $-1Y)1 ~l~; I / (fJ L 1/1 ...lw-ln,'."J"",; 5010 1;-:.1.\ ~J 111$11 Iii: ;L~;I t.J! I!.~i~~ ~ , 1 r 1/...., , ''''iI,\' , ~. 1\k '- ~ I'. F.-< // " / ' . , , ,I I ' ",,-. ,~ '" .>l.. Iii,' I( ...1 I ". ~~I r#,\ "" ~tlkt\D" " /'F~':~""'. 1\;"\~\'!;~\(,!\\ '~r~~" ':: 1\:1 R /;,;",,',":, // ;l'~ 'fi0,'I-rW'I,"":I1:'liill ~r:ii ;' '. *,." 1~':('S/h k ':!., -)-.1f61"'~ ~~~~l . ~~ "'.. I . '.r<" '''., ,,",.~ '" 'I...... d,/ , #70 ~ ~l .~, "~', ~ a opee q! ' ,,,',,, )<VI ~ 0'." I / ""J",,'Y".,"r\.!.\~'\"\ UII!rJ'J rf'" \ .,- i ,I.,~ ;il~!~\, ~:t'!j'''( / -",;:n-t-J%'-oq-g,G'; ~ if'" ! ! / r:~ ~\w,\..). -;..- \ . ,. _ __~:;"~_'M-~~'':-:'~:.''''", ;/1 ,p,; \.i1fb~_,., -?",,_ ~_ tt'J':tyl U.l~_i ""'!.- ~,'~ ~" .. It. ',..f~ If,..... ~~ IAgl ti l- i / 1r:;i?t\ ~ l,,; }Jf'::'>":--, -- "'~':,::..< ..jif ..f!:. / 77 ) r*- ./l..' ~I ~: f~<}j \,.] I e1 !I ' > >,-~ .t: V~" Lt~~p "''7 ~;.J -l,t'\~li' I I.~~:'r t ,,:r ):1 \\,)1 __\ \ ~ (I; \ .....:::..~ ,. e/ / / Y if. Y, I' ~j' ~, il J"Ji~I~ '. I! $~ <</:'("l.'}~ ~ ~: "" ~ f' ..,./ l{,'!" ~ _ LIl':.l:L' .. I $ .,./~Y-V i'. ~._.._.-\~\ 15% v // (Me,,)' <, ~"".L:""-</......,;;;.!. ljI'/~'~'~G.!/\;1!!~"7f~~::!7J;' '-,~ ",g >.....--- j?//,A" "~', / l~~ ~~t:' ).~% i -- 1..'jl.'-M 1~.wia:rC - ""lilt). ,&!~,,,,,~!<;f<?} till' ~N F~l $J~/ II '~~~ 0 ;., " . '!f f)~~~:1:.~ ;'.1;;,.,,'" ~ ""'''';'''''1 d'~~~.:~ .'::;"f!I.;' J:~.4'\ [~~, //~. - .~,,,,,;5!~ '".. '/ / '\~ ~; / (!9; n~ I<"-;'~"t:.. 'tr ";-(;~4 lli \ '''''; ~~....-1<~ .... _$?- --: ,.....;: .......J tIT, ...~.<:<<l.":~~"'f..~<=;,:::..." '" / I . "",",'~',,.. /j-~ _' 'II """-.. "'" & ,f7" :\X :lr'~- ,:. . ..,,, """,,,,,'.'l\"P: - ../i/'/ - . ,;;{)' I 7'/ ~ Chaska '1' '\"", ~)<I,t!r . ..,$.p I lit' "L-t~""""~"__' - .-P:t".:!: - "~~ ~ ~,\ ".( f..-f-- ..~7S". "\,,;;1;- ,If- -.----->>rr -- "'-- ....--1- :t'h ff ~1 ii \ "'''i'~f''..~;:......... J''f'"'''''''' fi1ti N I--...t~., 1C'(l1 '\' '!f~'" ..,:<:<"/.0 .:: .. I / ;-, ."?Y " ,/ ! ,'I';, ~I'" " ~r~::" '" I ;' .l\':'!' "'"' i, li!K ' ,/ ~ j/ I 'fi \--~:/ L ~'I ,,. r I l' "'" tr , rrh' / /. ,-.,." /1/, ~ ... ::f"J....- flY ,: ,1 WI ,< ~ -r~ll" - ?t //)' //// ~J l-":::'~ /(//'\ r ~ I IU/~"""4J. W~'lf; !/I /1\. /1 \)(1.. .l /,L/'...i I .. ., ~i 650/0. '~1~frf.~~ ~1'):;:3 '4p.. "''''' .. I * i . 1(. m~~''''''''. /.' _ .:/;;:F ,; "_ . -' --'f~~ 1~! I 5't.~ ffi.- <<-. 'l--!l~, /// :.~,.... . -:/ :If ., ,../. . , i .' '! ... (:! ~x ,f';. /.',P/f . ,... '\~ I. ., i! i~~) SIIAKOPEE! .."'", ......;../ /~WI. .. -. f_: . ......- . . 'Wi ' !'(- .! . . ~'" .......::::;!.::;:/..fff/I /...........-...--"-0. _., /~KSONTOWl>lSH!P! ~.'I I: ~~._. i 2000_.2fl,56il i t=1~.... ..-....-.............::::::>:::".... . Giffor<;l;;;?7 '/" '1.", Gu /'. 2OOOl'OP. 1001 '., ! I: H.' """""""". I' 1 ., ,... .-.....-...-- ....- t..ak~1 '-" Tmilill' 'YX' I,. ..........."'" . I I ." --;9:::::;-;........-.-........... ~.., v? / . . ,!. lit... \. -.. I i 1~ 'f'~~..~._.J I' ~~~. '...,.. .. ~~L~+-fl& ,'/, . '.^:""',...j-.0..~7 // .CWl ';'.~. I 1.......-......,-.... -""-"'- _I I~",,'. ...-... f ~...!'" * /);/ ",A; '''.'''//i f i. ,t;,;:'C1) SIT E i - '-'-..;;l.- I ~~... I !t_ ......~.........., ,// //,,/ w /1 I '" Jf ". I . , A.", 4/'. '$ ... .p) I rf Iff 7' ~. if if/If '. 1 I '7, ~ i.-~, ~- I 4:'.-'" ~:,'" \,,if tl(!!$~~-....._-- ... ~..........--~~....'O".".,7.~,.""~-'~.-t-.- 'i.?_m~~ 11'- .'., " -...~:; \~~ - j' O.--.._~L~~i:!~""L~.- ..+..~..~l:.--~.m(jj':l.-t~,~..i --..........', 1/ ' . .50/0' !f jj, ~../.t;r. )/0 i ~ 'lJ "'<:":':':::::~"""'~::.. h' --".. I( 1~ .. ~I ..1 . - U I( L p.. 1. ~1i;/" \ '. '. .'. '~. .........._....._...................1........................__~m......_~...._j/.;. I ~ th N t TH 169) ,.~ ","'1-iJ.",- I .... /'~...,. "'<:~~~~';;..... \.. 'it: ~i..~ff.~;.wm M '{jY : au . 0 1 ':::~~_'A.t;..,,_ r.........- .:&].7' T)- ,'~,,'. 1 :: ~"'I.. .........................1 , , " ' ~l I ~ .<>/ ""',' \ i!! 'J! ' I .. . , , V"'/ifr .<,~. If/.~ I ... , i'~ 'ii\.!-: . '~, 1 if! i I i I f' "', . "\\ \\ III ~...~ f{j i I 'I .." \l\\ j \\ (J&1f!! 1 i I . ! . RESIDENTIAL DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION 1::'3 rl ure . BLUFFS AT MARYSTOWN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC STUDY 9 CoN$ULTINC GROll'. INC. City of Shakopee 0065653 March 2006 ------------------- ,'-i-- _H' , I ! I _ . I w_ i 'R)Cj~ I\) ~ ~ (II .. 22(49)' ~ i: 115(255) co 0 w.ex> ~ 13(32) 0 I\) (II L 0 (1) i}" 4i r 101 (45)' .Jii~ r 76 (179) t~ 1t (II ww I\) wo 0)..... w 5 (5) (II 0 (II + 5 (3) ..... . . + 5 (5) Bluffs at ~OU~~~Slde ~ -t :t (II Mary~town 5 _~_ S~ ~~~ ~~ ~ iC }: 1:(183) 1 t~ ..... ex> ..... co ex> /',,"< ..~~~::::~~~~....:::-~::....._...... . ~ i I\) ~ W r ,,@ oi o (,J1 ~ . !i,~! ....... -to._ ~ 1 (IImw I ~ ! I .s ~ ~ ..... . 6 (9) ,Sf:...... ..... ................_......".'.._ .., 1M. , ., ~w L 29 (35) .,00 + ' ." ....,_.............~. . .~ ~ ,~ ~ 0 (1) , ~...L'g 1lR00l(W\\.'F.M M. !"m!/ co+,m co 179(180) + ~'~I~ 3...,................-'.j r 6 (4) LEGEND ., I (27) 30 ~ + (5) 0 + xx lXX) = AM PEAK (PM PEAK) ; ~+ S = SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION I (II (II (172) 154 t w ~ (0) 0 . co o = SIDE-STREET STOP CONTROLLED i C;; C;; (34) 5 co w t (1) 0 0 m m INTERSECTION ! ~ ~ * = NEW INTERSECTION I - = p,ROPOSED ROADWAY I lU ! Miii 2015 NO BUILD PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Fi ure 4 ~ BLUFFS AT MARYSTOWN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC STUDY 9 CO"'Ut11NC CHOUt, IN'" City of Shakopee 0065653 March 2006 I I Mr. Michael. Leek March 27,2006 Cityof Shakopee Page 8 I For purposes of this analysis, access improvements are consistent with the development of a future TH 41 river crossing. As part of the TH 41 river crossing project, an interchange will be built atTH 169/0ld Brick Yard Road as wellas a south frontage road that starts at the west leg I of the MarystownRoad/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 I TH 169/0ld 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 I are side-street stop controlled. The interchange is assumed to be similar to the Marystown Road/TH 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 I Yard Road/New Frontage Road are assumed to be one-lane approaches. The hue 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. I 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 ' I 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. I Table 3 2015 No-Build Peak Hour Capacity Analysis level of Service Results I Level of Service " INTERSECTION A.M. Peak ",. P.M. Peak I Marystown Road and Vierling Drive* AlC AlC Marystown Road and TH 169 North Ramps* AlB AlC I Marystown Road and TH 169 South Ramps and New AlC AlC Frontage Road* Marystown Road and 17th A venue * . AlB AlB I Marystown Road and 128th Street* AIB AlB -c- BIB BIB Marystown Road and "BOth Street* I Zumbro A venue and BOth Street* AlA AlA Old Brick Yard Road and BOth Street* AlB AlB Old Brick Yard Road and New Frontage Road* AlA AlA I Old Brick Yard Road" and TH 169 South Ramps* AIB AIB Old Brick Yard Road and TH 169 North Ramps* B/C AIB I * Indicates an unsignalized intersection. The overall LOS is shown followed by the worst approach LOS I I I I Mr. Michael Leek March 27,2006 City of Shakopee Page 9 I PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed development is to be constructed in the northwest quadrant of MarystownRoad I and 130th Street The site is cuITently 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 I Scenario Two and represents the worst case scenario. The proposed development will consist predominantly of residential homes, with some neighborho()d retail, office and an elementary school. The proposed development is planned to be constructed in phases by the year 2015. I Figure 5 displays the proposed site plan. In addition, it was assumed .that the Countryside residential development and New Shakopee I 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 I 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 I A venue will be extended from Marystown Road to Old Brick Yard Road. TRAFFIC FORECASTS I 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 I 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. I Table 4 Trip Generation Estimates I Land Use Size Daily A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Trips In Out In Out Blufft at Malystown Development . I 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 I Office 22,500 sq. ft. 423 50 7 18 86 Elementary School 600 students 774 139 113 76 92 I Subtotal 9,933 335 ' 494 583 522 Bruggeman Residential Development Single Family Homes 750 units 6,637 134 401 414 243 I Total from 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 I I I I I . SITE PLAN I BLUFFS AT MARYSTOWN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC STUDY Figure 5 CONSl.i1.1JNG(;Rf:nw. fN<":. City of Shakopee 0065653 I March 2006 I I Mr. Michael Leek March 27, 2006 City of Shakopee Page 11 I Traffic forecasts were developed for year. 20 15 (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 1 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-buildanalysis 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 Avenue intersection are assumed to be I one-lane approaches. Table 5 2015 Build Peak Hour Capacity Analysis I level of Service Results INTERSECTION Level of Service , I A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Marystown Road' arid Vierling Drive* AID AID I . Marystown Road and TH 169 North Ramps* BID (B) F/F (B) Marystown Road andTH 169 South Ramps* F/F (B) F/F (A) Marystown Road and 17th A venue * F/F (B) F/F(B) I Marystown 'Road and 128th Street* AlC AID Marystown Road and 130th'Street* C/C cm I Zumbro Avenue and 130th Street* AIB AlB Old Brick Yard Road and 130th Street* AIB AlC , Old Brick Yard Road and 17th A venue* AlA AlA I Old Brick Yard Road and. Frontage Road* AlB AlB Old Brick Yard Road and TH 169 South Ramps* AlB A/B I Old Brick Yard Road and TH 169 North Ramps* B/C AlB * Indicates an unsignaJized 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 I I I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - l-"l"-'C.:.., ~~.9 i j ..... I\) Rl ~ 115 (255) , I\)"l me.> o I\) C11 ,L 0 (1) w..... m~1\) 4i .{}.- .Jii~ r239 (621) (4)0 + ~tt~ (0) 0 I\) (1) 0 0 ~ :::J 'R3_ /:::':~~ -'- +9~ _w, (XlW ~11!< (llCO..... + 12 Bluffs at 5 ~ Marystown 2-t ..... Site .....co 6 (II ~.~ -.....- .....(11..... ~'~~ 1~ w ml\) ~coco t+ '...V'!:......".'t..-'.-......" ...,\........"" ~- "l 'f ..... w_ t3~t3 ..........- wm..... "le.> I, m"-l~ "l.....(II I mOl (II e.>oo ~ ::;: ~ 6 (9) Isr. ~N ~ + 25 (38) -u; -0:; ~ 33 (45) ~~ilg'....'.. (II..... en L241 (228) (II"l + o 0(11 229 (212) "l(llO 0(1) . .~ + 25 (13) +r + . 6 (4) LEGENO ., (40) 8 + (130) 120 ~ (120)103 + + XX~) = AM PEAK (PM PEAK) = SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION (214)149 + I\) ~ ~ .....~ (221) 215 t (0) 0 I'V :8E1 . OC> 0. = SIDE-STREET STOP CONTROLLED (7) 9 0 (Xl (47) 21 (9) 7 '~ ~ en INTERSE.CTION - I\) * = NEW INTERSECTION ~~-::;: J ~~~ - = NEW ROADWAY ,". m. Hi -.", ..-' .-_...-................,.../ . 2015 BUILD PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Figure 6 BLUFFS AT MARYSTOWN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC STUDY CONSULtING GRf.)lJP, INC. City of Shakopee 0065653 March 2006 I I Mr. Michael Leek March 27, 2006 City of Shakopee Page 13 I 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 A venue for both peak hours, and Marystown Road/TH 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 Marvstown Road/TH 169 North Ramps . Installation of a traffic signal. Traffic volume for the westbound left-turn 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-tum 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 c Marvstown Road/TH 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-turn 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 I . 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 I Marystown Road/TH 169 South Ramps/New Frontage Road to the north, to avoid the delay. . It is recommended that the geometrics for the new west leg include a left-turn lane I and a shared through~right-tum 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 I Marystown Road. I I I I Mr. Michael Leek March 27, 2006 City of Shakopee Page 14 I SYSTEM CONTEXT AND SITE ACCESS The extension of 17th A venue from Marystown Road to Old Brick Yard Road was reviewed to I 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 CSAH42. CSAH 42 is approximately one mile south of 17th Avenue 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 ofCSAH 78) and CSAH 16 from CSAH 83to 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 BOth Street by year 2015. However, if this land does develop, there may be a need to upgrade I Marystown Road and Old Brick Yard Road to four-lane sectio11'l. Preservation of right':of.way for four-lane sectio11'l 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, I}Oth 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. I ~ c) The driveway to the proposed elementary school is located on an internal roadway approximately 200 feet from l30th Street. There is a potential for traffic queuing extending onto l30th Street due to the short distance. It is recommended that the I driveway to the elementary school be located to increase the distance from the I I ------------------- ) " ~. . .f'. .- ~"N - - '- L~ o ~J101 r"'"' .. -,~. ''\ ~ ~ ," ^ 69~ ~ .\-" T . ~ "'" tl.w.I ' _..... ... ::I 17) .~......, .. 101 iA J f h 'f l1l>JlC~t ~ 15 _ U. II ~~ -=:J ~~~40 "\ ~, \.f=1 L I}..ci I c:....i \ ~ M ", ~ ~:1i """,te ~...... '- ~ rl....II^'uf'1, ~, Il~ .... J?1~ 2-<J" '''~~''''''M~~' ,,{~_-~~ff~ ~ .~ I 7891 r _ -=-hl . ~ ;.-1- V .'; rf' It;j~ . '1=--' U~ J::L-. k f3 v.... - y'- ll~ ~ , 6~ .I-~L-~"tgn ,,~.o~ ~ ~) UI~\ ,11~ >,y JACKSON f'E"r'--':: ~ _~ I( _ _ . I "I ~~ 70C . T .?r ,'1 II: .IIrt i d 'iJ-~..L I r ~. . . ~ 17 J -.l.. Ii-, ~ .......,_. ~a~ .i'i:;~ti 1 ~H~ __" 'rj~ \-,,' -\-' 1~3) =~~.fIif. 118 ~ .- _. ~ 42 42) OUISVILLE ~~. '.--Y' t'\. E?:'- 4..~'\. 11) JC9'~ - /. .C. \-11, ~~ _. DAtt~ ~~ . C.OUNTY ROADS. r:" 7 '. '. rI ure . B~UFFS AT MARYSTOWN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC STUDY g CosseLT'"'' CHo.;..INC, City of Shakopee 0065653 March 2006 I I Mr. Michael Leek March 27, 2006 City of Shakopee Page 16 I driveway to 130th 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 I route will see increased traffic if areas to the south and west develop along TH 169. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS I Based on the analysis, the following conclusions and recommendation are offered for your consideration: I 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 I 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 I layout and traffic control. 3) Under 2015 build conditions, all key intersections are expected to continue to operate at an I 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 0 f MarystowIi , Road/TH 169 South Ramps and N.(arystown Road/17th Avenue for both peak hours, and I Marystown Road/TH 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 I intersection improvements are recommended: a) Marvstown Road/TH 169 North Ramps I 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 I 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 I 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 I phasing I I I I Mr. Michael Leek March 27,2006 City of Shakopee Page 17 I b) Marvstown Road/TH 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 doesnot allow for gaps for side-street traffic, which experience significant delay. 0 In conjunction with a riew 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 lime. 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) Marvstown 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 .1 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 Road/TH I 169 South Ramps/New 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 geometrics 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 l30th Street by year 2015. However, if this land does develop, there may be a need I to upgrade Marystown Road and Old Brick Yilfd 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 requited. I 6) Site access on 130th 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-o ff areas be I separated. I I I I Mr. Michael Leek March 27,2006 City of Shakopee Page 18 I 8) The driveway to the proposed elementary school is located on an internal roadway approximately 200 feet from. 130th street. There is a potential for traffic queuing extending onto l30th 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 Avenue 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 mcreased 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 17th Avenue and CSAH16 suggest that I 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 I I I I I I I