Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.a. Draft AUAR Process Update for Kelley TrustCITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 15, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) process update AGENDA SECTION:- - Dept. Reports PREPARED BY: Rick Pearson, City Planner AGENDA r .. Al 5 ATTACHMENTS: Draft AUAR and Responses Agency questions; APPROVED BY: Agency Correspondence; Anticipated timetable of meetings relating to the planning process of the Kelley Trust property. SUMMARY Sherri Buss of Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates (BRAA) will be present to provide the Council with a summary of the issues resulting from the AUAR process. This process has been underway since late last summer. Comments have been received from: Minn. DNR; Dakota County Soil & Water Conservation District; Metropolitan Council and Minn. DOT. Westwood Professional Services (the consulting engineer for the developer), BRAA, Brett Weiss of WSB and city staff have been preparing responses to the agency comments /questions. The next step in the process is to send the responses to the agencies who will have ten days to comment. The plan is to have the final AUAR document revised for Council action on March 7, 2000. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action is requested at this time. CITY COUNCIL ACTION February 15, 2000 TO: Rosemount AUAR (Kelley Trust Property) Reviewers FROM: Sherri Buss, (651) 604 -4758 SUBJECT: Final Draft, Rosemount AUAR Attached for your review is the Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan. This Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan serve as an addendum to the draft AUAR which was distributed to you for review on December 16, 1999. The entire draft AUAR is incorporated into this Final AUAR by reference, and all information in the Draft AUAR is assumed to be complete and accurate unless specifically modified in this document. Within the Final AUAR, we have included your comments and our responses. Where necessary, we have incorporated recommended changes to the Mitigation Plan. The Final AUAR also includes a summary of AUAR respondents, comment letters, additions and changes to the AUAR text and updated Figures. The City of Rosemount will consider this Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan on March 7, 2000. We appreciate your valuable input throughout the Rosemount AUAR process. If you have any questions, please contact me or Rick Pearson, City Planner, at (651) 322- 2052. PROJECT TITLE Kelley Trust Property Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) PROJECT PROPOSER Contact Person Address Phone Fax E -mail RGU Richard Pearson, City Planner City of Rosemount 2875 145 Street West Rosemount, Minnesota 55068 -4997 (651) 322 -2052 (651) 423 -5203 rick.pearson6a,c i.rosemount.mn.us Contact Person Richard Pearson, City Planner City of Rosemount Address 2875 145 Street West Rosemount, Minnesota 55068 -4997 Phone (651) 322 -2052 Fax (651) 423 -5203 E -mail rick .pearson(n�ci.rosemount.mn.us 2 Table of Contents Introduction Comment Letters Received Response to Comments Appendices Appendix A -- Kelley Trust Property AUAR Mitigation Plan Appendix B -- Revised Figures, Maps, and Text Appendix C -- AUAR Comment Letters Appendix D -- Public Meeting Notices INTRODUCTION The Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review for the Kelley Trust Property, Rosemount, Minnesota, was prepared by the City of Rosemount and submitted to the Environmental Quality Board and commenting agencies in accordance with EQB Rules on December 16, 1999. The required 30 -day comment period ended on January 26, 2000. Comments were received from four agencies. The Cities of Rosemount and Apple Valley (includes part of the project area) held public meetings regarding the proposed development on February 8 and February 2, respectively, to receive additional comments. This Final AUAR documents the comments received and offers responses and explanations as appropriate. The entire Draft AUAR is incorporated into this Final AUAR by reference and all information in the Draft AUAR is assumed to be complete and accurate unless specifically modified in this document. The Final AUAR identifies comment letters received, summarizes comments and responses, and includes copies of all comment letters submitted. Also included in this Final AUAR is the Final Mitigation Plan. This Final Mitigation Plan incorporates changes in language and content based on comments received for the Draft AUAR Mitigation Plan. The Final Mitigation Plan is found in Appendix A. The Rosemount City Council will formally consider this Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan for adoption on March 7, 2000. 4 COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED Comment letters were received from the following agencies. Responses to comments from each of these reviewers can be found starting on the indicated page number. All comment letters are included in Appendix C in the order shown here. Agency Date Received Page Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 1/26/2000 Metropolitan Council 2/1/2000 Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District 1/25/2000 Minnesota Department of Transportation 2/7/2000 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Responses to comments are organized around each comment letter to insure that responses specifically address each reviewer's concerns. To clarify what comment is being addressed, the page and paragraph of each letter that correspond to the comment precede the quote. If the comment is editorial or advisory, we have acknowledged the comment and any necessary correction(s) to be made to the AUAR document. For comments that are substantive, we have replied and where necessary, referenced appropriate sections of the Draft AUAR. Revisions to Tables, Figures and text are included in Appendix B. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Comments 1. Pagel, Paragraph 2 "Figure 5 -3 PUD Concept Plan, does not illustrate units located on the Apple Valley portion of the site." Response: A current Concept Plan which includes the 56 units located on the Apple Valley portion of the site is included in Appendix B of this document. Thank you for noting this omission in the Draft AUAR. 2. Pagel, Paragraph 3 "Item 6, Description -The project description describes housing densities after construction. What would be the overall housing density with wetland areas deducted ?" Response: The Draft AUAR notes that the AUAR area is proposed to contain an overall net density of 2.6 units to the acre, based on a land area of 465 net acres (gross acreage of the site is 535 acres). Forty -two acres of wetlands have been identified on the site. If the 42 acres are subtracted from 465 developable acres, 423 acres remain, giving an average density of 2.9 units per acre. 3. Page 1, Paragraph 4 "Item 11, Fisheries Resources — In the past, the DNR has considered using Birger Pond for game fish rearing, and would consider it again if the opportunity arose. After development, local angling demand might develop for angling on the property. Providing this opportunity may not be physically possible or ecologically sound." Response: This informational comment will be added to Item 11 in the Final AUAR. 4. Page 1, Paragraph 5 and 6 "Item 12, Physical Impacts on Water Resources — The AUAR states that "Final site plans and grading plans will identify the wetlands that will be affected and degree of impact." Plans should also indicate how impacts will be avoided or maintained below levels established in the City's Wetland Management Plan. We recommend that buffers around wetlands be clearly delineated and marked with corner markers or monuments at lot corners to make them visible and to aid enforcement of the buffer requirements." Response: The developer and City agree to implement these recommendations. The statement, "Site plans will indicate methods that will be used to avoid impacts to wetlands and meet the requirements of the City's Wetland Management Plan. Buffers around wetlands will be clearly delineated with corner markers or monuments at lot corners to make them visible and to aid enforcement of the buffer requirements," will be added to the Final AUAR. "The City has a Protected Waters permit pending for a pumped outlet from Birger Pond. The DNR expects to be able to issue the permit shortly." Response: This informational statement will be added to the Final AUAR under Item 12. 5. Page 1, Paragraph 7 "Item 14, Water - Related Land Use Management Districts — The west portion of the site, located in Apple Valley, lies within the shoreland district of Farquar Lake. Development within the shoreland district (1000 feet from Farquar Lake) must comply with Apple Valley's shoreland ordinance. There is no shoreland district in the Rosemount portion of the project." Response: We will add the information in this paragraph to the Final AUAR under Item 14. A statement will be included as follows: "The west portion of the site, located in Apple Valley, lies within the Shoreland District of Farquar Lake. Development within the shoreland district (1000 feet from Farquar Lake) will comply with Apple Valley's Shoreland Ordinance. There is no Shoreland District in the Rosemount portion of the project." 6. Page 2, Paragraph 1 "Item 17, Erosion and Sedimentation — The majority of the site contains highly erodible soils, and steep slopes are numerous. Development of, and strict adherence to, a detailed erosion control plan is critical for protection of the wetland resources on the site. We encourage the developer to work closely with the Dakota County SWCD to develop an erosion control plan." Response: The draft AUAR identifies the areas of steep slopes and highly erodible soils on the Kelley Trust site. The Mitigation Plan includes measures to prevent or minimize erosion and sedimentation on the site, and indicates that the developer will implement the MPCA's Best Management Practices (BMP's) as the guidelines for urban erosion and sediment control on the site. The developer will work closely with the Cities and Dakota County SWCD to develop an erosion control plan for the site. 7. Page 2, Paragraph 2 "Item 18, Water Quality, Surface Water Runoff – We encourage the city and the developer to investigate using drought- resistant turf where possible, and to encourage use of phosphorus -free fertilizer to protect water quality." Response: We will add this statement to the Mitigation Plan for this item: "The City and the developer will investigate using drought - resistant turf where possible, and will encourage residents to use phosphorus -free fertilizer to protect water quality." 8. Page 2, Paragraph 3 "Item 30, Cumulative Impacts —While the AUAR is a tool for reviewing cumulative impacts of multiple projects in a defined area, it is no better than an EAW for evaluating cumulative effects of activities adjacent or outside the study area. The DNR recommends RGUs not limit cumulative effects analysis to the AUAR boundary. Response: Thank you for this informational comment. The Draft AUAR has analyzed effects of development activities outside the study area where applicable, for example traffic and noise impacts outside the study area, and storm water impacts where storm water will flow outside the study area (Birger Pond). 9 Metropolitan Council Comments 1. Page 1, Paragraph 3 and 4 "The description of the project on page four says that there will be a total of 64.9 net acres of multiple - family housing at a density of 4.8 units per acre ... and 323.8 net acres of single - family "attached" units at a net density of 2.6 units per acre ... and an overall area of 465 net acres and an overall net density of 2.5 units per acre. The numbers do not add up. If the project proposes to build a total of 1,209 dwelling units on 465 net acres of land, the net density of the entire project is 2.6 units per net acre. The AUAR on page three says that there will be 360 multiple - family units of which 50 will be built in Apple Valley. If there are 64.9 net acres developed for 360 multiple - family units, the net density would be 5.5 units per acre. If there were 323.8 net acres developed for 849 single - family units, the net density would be 2.6 units per acre. These numbers total 1,209 units on 388.7 net acres, a net density of 3.1 units per acre. However this net acreage is different from the 465 net acres also mentioned on page four. If the net density of the entire project is 2.6 units per acre, this is less than the minimum three units per net acre urban density recommended by the Council." Response: Densitv calculations. The draft AUAR correctly states that there is a total of 1,209 units, broken down into 360 multiple family attached units and 849 single family detached lots. Page 3 of the text goes onto explain that 1,153 units will be located in the City of Rosemount, with the remaining 56 being located in the City of Apple Valley. Of these 56 units, the text states that 50 are to be townhouse units and 6 are to be single - family units. The information is all currently accurate. The density calculations that are provided on page 4 of the text, however, were not based on a total of 1,209 units, but rather, only on 1,153 units within the Rosemount portion of the project, and the net acreage used by those units. The total number of units and density calculations should reflect the 1,209 total units. The Text on page 4 should therefore be updated to reflect the Apple Valley units and acreage, as follows: "The 360 multiple family attached units are proposed to be located in the southeastern and western portions of the AUAR area, comprising an approximate total of 100 acres of land, and containing a net density of 3.6 units per acre. The 849 single - family detached units would be located throughout the remainder of the site, comprising an approximate total of 329.8 acres, and a net density of 2.6 dwelling units per acre. The AUAR area is proposed to contain an overall net density of 2.8 units to the acre, based on a land area of 429.8 net acres." Council Recommendations. The 2020 Rosemount Comprehensive Plan (accepted by the Metropolitan Council on January 27, 2000) includes the project area as a part of 866.46 10 acres designated as transition residential. This land use category has lower overall density expectations resulting from development constraints such as protected wetlands, stands of significant trees, and steep slopes. Concentration and transfer of density is - -- allowed through the planned unit development process. For example, approximately 23 acres of the project will be developed at ten dwelling units per acre. The city's overall density is consistent with the Council's recommendation for three units per acre. No change in the project or AUAR is needed to meet the Council's recommendations. 2. Page 2, Paragraph 1 "The AUAR mentions that the City of Rosemount will need an approved Tier II Sewer Plan prior to completing this project. Tier II sewer plans are required elements of community comprehensive plan updates. Comprehensive plan updates need to be submitted to the Council for review for all communities that plan to alter, expand, or improve their sewage disposal system. The Cities of Apple Valley and Rosemount will need to have approved Tier II Sewer Plans before any additions or alterations can be initiated for the proposed development." Response: The Metropolitan Council recently approved Rosemount's 2020 Comprehensive Plan. The Council is currently reviewing Apple Valley's Plan. MCES will review the Sewer elements of the 2020 Comprehensive Plans upon adoption by the cities. Tier II comprehensive sewer plans are required if the city has plans to alter, expand or improve its sewer disposal system. No changes to the cities' Waste Water Treatment Systems are anticipated to be required to serve the project area. Therefore, no change is required to the proposed project or Draft AUAR to meet Council policies. 3. Page 2, Paragraph 2 "Item 8: Permits and Approvals Required - -The AUAR states that the City is the Local Governmental Unit (LGU) for the Wetland Conservation Act. As both Rosemount and Apple Valley are involved in permitting the project, each is probably the LGU under the Wetland Conservation Act for their respective proposed development areas. In any case, the developer should work with the cities, the Vermillion River Watershed Management Organizations (VRWMO), the Department of Natural Resource (DNR), and possibly the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) to assure that the intent of the Wetland Conservation Act is upheld. All wetland loss should be avoided if possible. Where wetland loss is unavoidable, proper mitigation is required." Response: The Draft AUAR (Item 8) will be modified to indicate that both Rosemount and Apple Valley are LGU's for the project in their respective proposed development areas. 11 The Mitigation Plan (Goal 4) states that "the developer will assure no net loss of these (wetland) resources by avoiding and minimizing wetland impacts when feasible, and mitigating for unavoidable impacts ... The developer shall folloNv the requirements of the City of Rosemount and City of Apple Valley Wetland Management Plans and applicable state and federal regulations to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate for impacts to wetlands that result from development. The developer will work with the Cities, VRMWO, DNR, U.S. Army COE, and other permitting agencies to implement this goal. 4. Page 2, Paragraph 3 "Item 10: Cover Types —This section indicates that the size of impervious surface will increase from three to 147 acres. Of the total 580 -acre site, 25 percent will be impervious, 51 percent will be lawn, landscaping and parks, 17 percent will be brush /grassland and wooded /forest and seven percent will be wetland and watercourses. The impervious percentage will increase from less than one percent to over 25 percent. The developer should work with the tNvo cities, the VRWMO, and the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) to design and construct the best erosion control and stormwater management practices for the project area. Storm water management practices may include things such as detention basins, infiltration basins, filter strips, rainwater gardens, and vegetated swales, while erosion control measures may include things such as hay bales, silt fence and check dams." Response: Goals 5, 7, and 8 of the Mitigation Plan indicate that the developer is committed to working with the Dakota SWCD, VRWMO, and the two cities to minimize erosion and sedimentation and impacts on surface waters as the area is developed. The protection strategies detailed under these goals indicate that the developer will implement the MPCA's Best Management Practices as well as strategies such as detention basins, infiltration basins, filter strips, rainwater gardens, vegetated s and other practices identified in the Council's comments to meet the identified goal. 5. Page 2, Paragraph 4 "Item 10: Cover Types - -The AUAR does a good job of evaluating the woodland areas and identifying which areas are the high, low, and moderate protection areas. The developer should continue to work with the cities to determine the actions needed to protect the high priority protection areas. The developer should work with the communities, the SWCD, and the DNR to determine the appropriate mitigation measures for woodlands lost during development." Response: Goal 1 of the Mitigation Plan details the developer's intent to protect the high priority woodland areas on the site. The developer will work with the communities, the SWCD, 12 and the DNR to determine appropriate mitigation measures for woodlands lost during development, and has indicated that it will complete and implement a tree preservation plan as required in the cities' Tree Preservation Ordinances. - 6. Page 2, Paragraph 5 "Item 10: Cover Types - -The city of Rosemount has completed a wetland function and value assessment. The developer should continue to work with the two communities, the SWCD, the VRWMO, and the DNR to assure high priority wetlands are protected and impacts to lower priority wetlands are properly mitigated." Response: Goals 4, 5, 7, and 8 of the Mitigation Plan indicate that the developer will implement the requirements of the cities' Wetland Management and Surface Water Management Plans to assure no net loss of wetlands and protect the quality of wetlands on the site as development occurs. The developer will work with the two communities, the SWCD, the VRWMO, and the DNR to implement these goals. 7. Page 3, Paragraph 1 "Item 11: Fish, Wildlife, and Sensitive Resources - -The DNR Natural Heritage Program database indicated that there were three known occurrences of Blanding's turtles, a state threatened species, in the vicinity of the project. To minimize impacts on the turtles, the developer should work with the DNR to develop a management program. Typically, we would recommend that at a minimum, workers be informed of the presence of Blanding's turtles in the area." Response: The following statement will be added to the Mitigation Plan, Section 3.0, Goal 6, #5: "The developer will work with the Minnesota DNR to develop a management program for identification of Blanding's turtles on the site. At a minimum, workers will be informed of the presence of Blanding's turtles in the area, and provided pictures and information that assist in identification of the turtles." 8. Page 3, Paragraph 2 "Item 12: Physical Impacts on Water Resources —It is anticipated that future development of the site will impact some of the on -site wetlands and their buffer areas. Final site plans and grading plans will identify the wetlands that will be affected and the degree of impact. The developer should agree to work with the cities, the DNR, the VRWMO, and the SWCD to find the best solutions to wetland impacts. Since the citywide assessment of wetland function and value has been made, the expectation of Council staff is that wetlands identified for preservation 13 should be avoided entirely. By approving this AUAR, we are assuming that this issue is not closed. We reserve the right to question wetland impacts and mitigation discussions that may arise in the future through our review of DNR protected water and COE permits." Response: Goals 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the Mitigation Plan detail the strategies the developer will use to protect wetland resources in the area to assure no net loss of these resources, and follow the requirements of the Cities' Wetland Management plans. The developer will work with the Cities, the DNR, the VRWMO, the Dakota SWCD, and other permitting and reviewing agencies to implement these strategies and meet the goals stated in the Mitigation Plan. 9. Page 3, Paragraph 3 and 4 "Item 17: Erosion and Sedimentation —The AUAR indicates that over 800,000 cubic yards of soil will be moved and graded for the proposed project. There are many areas on the site that have slopes greater than 12 percent. Most of the project area is classified as having soils that are highly erodible or potentially highly erodible. These two facts cause a significant amount of concern. The developer will need to make the extra effort to ensure that proper erosion control measures are in place before any dirt is moved. It most likely will not be enough to use just the typical erosion control measures such as hay bales and silt fence at this site. The developer should work with the cities, the VRWMO, and the SWCD to determine the most effective best management practices to use at this site. The developer should obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction permit for this site. Erosion and sedimentation control practices must comply with the Minnesota Pollution control Agency's urban "best management practices ", titled Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas or an equivalent set of standards for erosion control. The developer will need to work with the appropriate regulatory agencies to prepare a suitable erosion control management plan for the site. Typically any site that plans to disturb more than five acres of soil should have some type of temporary sediment basins or suitable trapping devices." Response: Goal 7 of the Mitigation Plan identifies the strategies the developer will use to meet the goal to minimize erosion and sedimentation on the site, and impacts on surface water, as development occurs. The strategies indicate that the developer will implement the MPCA's Best Management Practices as the guidelines for urban erosion and sediment control, as required in the cities' Surface Water Management Plans. The Mitigation Plan strategies indicate that the developer will work with the cities, the VRWMO, and the Dakota SWCD to determine and implement the most effective best management practices 14 to use at this site. The developer will obtain the NPDES construction permit as required for this site, and the Protection Strategies listed under Goal 7 of the Mitigation Plan indicate that the developer will create sediment basins during construction as part of its - erosion and sedimentation control strategies. 10. Page 4, Paragraph 1 "Item 18: Water Quality- Surface Water Runoff —The AUAR discusses the need to lower the ordinary high water level (OHWL) for Birger Pond. The city of Rosemount has worked with the DNR and VRWMO to develop a management plan for this basin. Council staff is concerned about this basin and the increased runoff that will be discharged to the basin as development occurs. The developer should work very closely to monitor changes in the pond levels to make sure that the proposed solutions are actually working. The proposed pond outlet will discharge to Lakeville and ultimately to the Vermillion River. There is a flooding problem for the downstream communities along the Vermillion River. This makes it even more important that the propoed development and discharges to Birger Pond are carefully managed." Response: In the development of the outlet control for Birger Pond, the entire development area contributing to Birger Pond was examined and evaluated for fully developed conditions. This analysis included a fully developed Kelley Trust property at a density greater than what is currently proposed. Because the outlet out of Birger Pond is at a relatively slow rate, the Birger Pond ponding area will hold a 100 -year storm with no outlet. The City will continue to monitor ponding levels to make sure that the pond is operating within design parameters. While we agree that the ultimate pond outlet for this area will be through the City of Lakeville and to the Vermillion River, there are no plans at this time or for the immediate future to complete an outlet to Lakeville. At this time the runoff will be maintained within Shallon Pond located within the City of Rosemount. We do not anticipate any flooding problems for downstream communities at this time and the future outlet will be designed in a manner that will minimize downstream distrubances to the Vermillion River. 11. Page 4, Paragraph 2 "Item 18: Water Quality- Surface Water Runoff —The AUAR also states that ponds are proposed as part of the project. To be consistent with the Council's Interim Strategy for Nonpoint Source Pollution and to maximize pollutant removal efficiencies, all wet detention ponds should be designed according to NURP or similar criteria for wet detention basins." Response: 15 Goal 8, Strategy # 5 indicates that NURP standards will be required for ponds at a minimum. This standard is required by the cities in their Surface Water Management Plans, and will be implemented by the developer. ` 16 Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District 1. Pagel, Paragraph 3 ` "Item 10: Cover Types: Mitigative Measures for Natural Communities — Identify and protect infiltration areas on the site. Determine which wetlands are hydrologically maintained by surficial groundwater and where the infiltration areas for this surficial groundwater originates. Protect these areas from development or mitigate the impacts by strategically locating infiltration BMP's." Response: Items 17 and 20 identify the soil types on the site, and indicate that the majority of soil types indicated on the site by the Dakota County Soil Survey exhibit moderate infiltration rates. In general, the majority of soils are silty loams mixed with sandy loams. Silty loams have low -to- moderate infiltration rates, while sandy loams have moderate to high infiltration rates. Based on the soils identified on the site, the developer has indicated that it will identify soils appropriate for use of infiltration BMP's, that it will use bioretention methods where appropriate to store and infiltrate storm water, and minimize impervious surfaces on the site (Goal 5, strategies 3 and 4). The City's Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan included a functional assessment of wetlands, including groundwater recharge and discharge characteristics of the wetlands in the project area. The developer will work with City staff to implement the recommendations of this plan to protect the quality of wetlands in the development area (as identified in Goals 4, 5, 7, and 8 and their accompanying strategies in the Mitigation Plan). 2. Page 1, Paragraph 4 "Item 11: Fish, Wildlife and Sensitive Resources, Goal 6 —The SWCD commends these efforts. To clarify the third strategy listed under this goal define (1) corridor and (2) the developer's acceptance of effective greenway /wildlife corridor development. Specifically: where would a 300 -foot wide, naturally vegetated corridor fit on the proposed site plan? It appears the proposed greenways may provide recreational opportunities (e.g. trails) but would not create a viable multi - species wildlife corridor. Based on preliminary assessments conducted as a part of a LMCR project currently underway in Dakota County, the site is an important link between the undeveloped areas east of Hwy 3 and Lebanon Hills and may also be an important link in a potential greenway connecting the North Branch of the Vermillion river to Lebanon Hills (via Long and Farquar Lakes)." Communication from SWCD on Feb. 2, 2000, following request for information on County Greenwa sy Plan: 17 "The information you are requesting is being gathered as part of the Dakota County LCMR Project: Protecting Farmlands and Natural Areas. Preliminary assessments to focus efforts such as land cover mapping have identified the area south of Lebanon Hills as a potential corridor connection. Unfortunately, the land cover mapping has not been completed and the Dakota County Farmland and Natural Area protection play: has not been developed... With regards to the 300' corridor width, that is a suggested width based on the literature (Staufer and Best, 1980; Schaefer and Brown, 1992; and others)." Response: There are several issues to address in this comment regarding a potential wildlife corridor on the site: Corridors in Dakota County. Rosemount City staff have discussed wildlife corridor issues with staff from the Minnesota DNR Natural Heritage Program. The DNR has identified a corridor along the Mississippi River as the significant wildlife corridor within the city. No corridor has been identified by the DNR on or near the Kelley Trust Site. It is clear from the SWCD communication of February 2, 2000, that the County is in very preliminary stages of mapping farmlands and natural areas in the County, and has identified the general area south of Lebanon Hills Park as a potential corridor. No specific information has been provided about the type (recreational, habitat, or other type) or significance of this corridor, which species are significant for corridor planning in this area, or which areas within this general area south of Lebanon Hills Park offer the best corridor connections. No data or science -based analysis from natural resources agencies are available that identify a wildlife corridor within the Kelley Trust Property, or indicate the need for such a corridor. Characteristics of wildlife habitat areas and corridors. The scientific literature in the field of Landscape Ecology suggests that a variety of kinds of wildlife habitat areas are important in the landscape. These include "patches" of protected habitat as well as "corridor" areas between them (Landscape Ecology, Forman and Godron, 1986). "Corridors" are routes or conduits for movement. Many types of corridors have wildlife habitat value — including narrow strip corridors along hedgerows and fences, wider environmental resource corridors along streams and ridgetops, and planted corridors along shelterbelts and roadways. Each type of corridor has benefits for particular wildlife species. Strip corridors such as hedgerows have been found to be particularly significant for bird species, while wider corridors are needed for larger mammal species. Corridors with streams and interconnected water features are important to amphibians and many other species. The scientific literature suggests that wide corridors, such as the 300' corridor suggested by the SWCD comment, usually follow natural landscape connections such as streams and ridgetops. Such corridors are natural movement areas for many species, and offer 18 habitat elements (water, food, cover) that make these corridors useful as habitat. (See literature review in Best Development Practices, Ewing, 1996, and discussion about corridor types in Forman and Godron.) - Options for wildlife corridors were reviewed as a part of the analysis completed for the Draft AUAR. No such wide, natural landscape corridor is available on the Kelley Trust Property site. No stream corridor is available on the site. A ridgeline exists to the north of the site, in the area occupied by larger -lot residential areas. This area may offer a significant habitat corridor, depending on the species of concern, and could be considered by Dakota County as it develops its corridor plan and implementation strategies. Habitat corridor identified on the Kelley Trust Site. A corridor that could facilitate animal movement from north to south is visible within the site, and could be enhanced by plantings. This corridor connects wetlands and ponds at the north end of the site (near Shannon Parkway), along the east side of the elementary school property, to the ponds directly south. A "bird sanctuary" with appropriate plantings is planned for the senior housing area just south of the elementary school. The developer will work with the City to modify planting plans in this area to enhance its use as a corridor for wildlife movement within the site. The County may investigate options for continuation of the corridor outside the Kelley Trust Property, and work with private landowners in adjacent areas to protect any identified connecting areas. The Kelley Trust site and surrounding areas are already fragmented by existing developed areas and major roadways. Additional analysis by the County is needed to identify potential viable corridors and species of concern in the area south of Lebanon Hills. Protection of siQnficant wildlife habitat resources on the site. The high quality wildlife habitat areas remaining on the Kelley Trust site are the oak woodlands in the north - central and northwest portions of the site, and the wetlands scattered through the central portion of the site. These are relatively large patches of diverse, high quality oak woodlands, and small, high quality wetlands. They are the only high quality natural areas remaining on the site, which has had most of its natural community areas heavily altered by agricultural uses. Therefore, the site plan proposes protection and restoration of these communities, and establishment of line -type corridors among them to provide connections for the animal species using the site. The wildlife species currently using the site are species common to urban and agricultural areas. No endangered or threatened species, or species of concern have been identified on the site. Future corridor planning efforts. The County's natural areas planning efforts should identify high - quality habitat patches, such as the woodlands on the Kelley Trust property, as well as potential wildlife travel corridors of a variety of types, to meet the needs of a variety of wildlife species. These may include significant natural corridors, such as the Vermillion River and Mississippi River, that offer good possibilities for the establishment of wide, protected corridors, as well as narrow "line" corridors along roadways and fence rows. These efforts should be based on identification of species of concern and their 19 critical habitats (see discussion in Forman and Godron, as well as Landscape Linkages and Biodiversity, Hudson, 1991). When the County has completed its inventory and mapping of habitat and corridor areas, it should.identify mechanisms for protection of these areas, such as the use of conservation easements, fee title purchase of significant properties, transfer of development rights, etc. A good model for this effort is the completed Greenway Plan for Washington County, Minnesota, which includes a variety of mechanisms for protection of the significant greenways for habitat and recreation that have been identified in the County. The County will then be able to work with private landowners to permanently protect significant habitat areas. In summary: T he Minnesota DNR and Dakota County's natural areas planning efforts have not identified a major wildlife movement corridor on the Kelley Trust property site. No significant natural corridor such as a stream or ridge line exists on the site. The site has been highly altered and fragmented by agricultural uses, surrounding residential development, and existing roadways. Wide corridor connections to habitat areas off-site are not readily apparent. The analysis completed for the AUAR identified the significant habitat patches remaining on the site, and potential "line" corridors for wildlife movement among these areas. The high quality habitat areas are proposed for protection and restoration in the Mitigation Plan (Goals 4,5 and 6). The developer and city will work together to increase the habitat value of a north -south corridor on the site, immediately east of the elementary school. As the County completes its corridor analysis and planning efforts, it may identify a significant wildlife movement corridor in the vicinity of the Kelley Trust site, or additional important habitat patches in the area and opportunities for line corridor connections to those on the Kelley Trust site. It should identify mechanisms for protection and enhancement of these areas, and work cooperatively with landowners to establish permanent protection of areas identified as significant in the county-wide plan. 3. Page 2, Paragraph 1 "Item 12: Physical Impacts on Water Resources —The SWCD anticipates working very closely with the Developer and Cities once a WCA Wetland Replacement Plan is submitted to ensure full sequencing is followed and that wetland impacts are avoided and minimized to the extent possible. Based on preliminary discussions, the SWCD assumes only minimal amounts of wetland impacts are anticipated. Response: The developer has indicated commitment to following the Cities' Wetland Management Plans and applicable state and federal regulations to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate for impacts to wetlands resulting from the development (Goal 4). The developer will work closely with the Cities and the SWCD to implement the strategies identified for this goal. 20 4. Page 2, Paragraph 2 "Goal 8: Protect and maintain the quality of surface water flows to wetlands — Define the BMP's the developer will consider to use on this site to "Protect and maintain the quality of surface water flows to wetlands." Traditional BMP's alone may not be adequate to effectively protect the site's resources. Silt fence at the toe of graded slopes does not suffice. Comprehensive management of the site's stormwater runoff, in conjunction with BMP's to address runoff rate and volume, is needed. See comments below regarding erosion and sedimentation." Response: Goals 5, 7 and 8 of the Mitigation Plan detail the strategies the developer will use to maintain the quality of surface flows to wetlands and minimize erosion and sedimentation. The developer will use the MPCA Best Management Practices (BMP's) for urban areas, as required by the Cities' Surface Water Management Plans, as a guide, and has indicated that nontraditional practices such as infiltration basins, sand filters, and other bioretention methods will be used on the site where soils are suitable. The developer will work closely with the Cities and the SWCD on issues regarding erosion and sedimentation. 5. Page 2, Paragraph 3 "Item 13: Water Use — Clarify if temporary dewatering for construction activities will be needed. If temporary dewatering is needed, clearly define the BMP's that will be used to treat the discharge of the dewatering pumps." Response: Based on the information available to date, the developer anticipates no temporary dewatering for utilities installation on the site. If perched water conditions are encountered, and dewatering is needed, water «ill be directed to a temporary sump with a rock filter, and any overflow will be directed to a permanent overflow swale. 6. Page 2, Paragraph 4 -6 "Item 17: Erosion and Sedimentation —The soils on the site create conditions susceptible to erosion. Proper BMP selection, installation and maintenance is critical on this site. The SWCD requests the opportunity to review and comment on preliminary grading plans as they are submitted to Rosemount and Apple Valley." Response: The Cities will be reviewing construction plans for conformance with local rules and regulations. The preliminary grading plan will not address erosion details to the extent 21 required in final plans. Notes regarding the use of BMP's will be integrated into the preliminary grading plan. The preliminary and final plans as approved by the Cities will be submitted to the SWCD for comment prior to the start of construction. 7. Page 2, Paragraph 7 "Item 18: Water Quality: Surface Water Runoff —As stated in the AUAR, the site is currently isolated and the long -term proposal is to pump water from the site across a watershed divide and into the North Creek of the Vermillion river subwatershed. Areas along North Creek and the Vermillion river are experiencing increased flooding and downstream storm water impacts should be quantified. A substantial amount of imperviousness will be created and the impact of the increased runoff volumes on downstream waters and surficial groundwater tables must be determined. This level of assessment is warranted because, as state in State Code Chaper 4410.3610, Subp. 4 `the content and format of an AUAR must be similar to that of an EAW, but must provide for a level of analysis comparable to that of an EIS."' Response The City has worked with the Minnesota DNR to develop management plan for Birger Pond. In the development of the outlet control for Birger Pond, the entire deveopment area contributing to Birger Pond was examined and evaluated for fully developed conditions. This analysis included a fully developed Kelley Trust Property at a density greater than what is currently proposed for this site. Because the outlet out of Birger Pond is at a relatively slow rate, the Birger Pond ponding area will hold a 100 -year event storm with no outlet. The City will continue to monitor ponding levels to make sure that the pond is operating within design parameters. While we agree that the ultimate pond outlet for this area will be through the City of Lakewille and to the Vermillions River, there are no plans at this time or for the immediate future to complete an outlet to Lakeville. At this time the runoff will be maintained within Shannon Pond located within the City of Rosemount. We do not anticipate any flooding problems for downstream communities at this time and the future outlet will be designed in a manner that will minimize downstream disturbances to the Vermillion River. As noted in the DNR comments on the Draft AUAR, "The City has a Protected Waters permit pending for a pumped outlet from Birger Pond. The DNR expects to be able to issue the permit shortly." 8. Page 2, Paragraph 8 "Goal 8: Protect and maintain the quality of surface waters —The SWCD commends the strategy to use bioretention methods to store and infiltrate (and evapotranspirate) stormwater and minimize runoff. Please clarify the extent these innovative BMP's will be utilized. We suggest undertaking a thorough assessment of the site's runoff and determining specifically what BMPs will minimize the post- 22 development curve number (to reduce runoff volume) and maximize the time of concentration (to reduce peak discharge rates) on the site ... (Deleted section includes lists of references on Low Impact Development.) The Dakota SWCD may be able provide financial incentives to support incorporation of LID concepts into the development plans. Please contact our office for more information." Response: Goal 8 of the Mitigation Plan includes strategies to use bioretention methods on the site. The developer will complete the assessment of site runoff, and will determine areas where these strategies may be effectively used, based on soils and other site conditions. These strategies will be incorporated in the development plans as these move to greater detail. Thank you for the information regarding financial incentives. The developer and Cities will work with the Dakota SWCD on surface water and erosion /sedimentation issues on the site. 9. Page 2, Paragraph 8 Miscellaneous Comments: This section lists four typographical errors found in the text of the Draft AUAR. Response: These errors will be corrected in the Final AUAR document. Thank you. 23 Minnesota Department of Transportation Comments Page 1 -2. all paragraphs ` "The Mn/DOT has no issue with extending Connemara Trail to TH3 provided: • The Dodd Boulevard connection to the south must be eliminated; • Mn/DOT review the construction plans for the connection if an when it is madeThat when Connemara Trail is extended to connect with TH3 a northbound left turn land and a southbound right turn lane be constructed on TH3. Turn signal counts will need to be analyzed to determine whether a signal may be warranted. The construction of the turn lanes and signal installation would be the responsibility of the city. Trip rates documented in the draft AUAR do not match our projections using the ITE Trip Generation manual. We estimated 10,000 as compared to the AUAR that states 8,550 trips. This extension of Connemara trail to TH3 will also require an access permit. Connemara Trail is Municipal State Aid (MSA) Route 104. Dodd Road is MSA Route113 and Shannon Parkway MSA 106. Therefore, the City must review any changes to its Municipal State Aid system so that the City stays within its system limitation.s Also any work on an MSA route must meet State Aid rules and policies. Response: Trip rates used in the Draft AUAR. As stated in the paragraph preceding Table 22.2 of the Draft AUAR, the trip rates utilized were those contained and used in the Dakota County 20 -year traffic projection model. We used these to be consistent with future volume projects in Dakota County. Using ITE trip rates would provide an estimate of 10,000 vehicles per day, which is 1,450 more trips than the Dakota County projection model would predict. We believe the Dakota County values to be viable. However, using the ITE trip rates, an additional 1,450 trips, spread over the project approach/departure routes, will not cause any problems with regard to roadway capacity. No additional mitigation would be required using the ITE trip rates for trips generated. CITY WILL PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL RESPONSE TO THIS COMMENT 24 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 -40 10 ` January 26, 2000 Richard Pearson, City Planner City of Rosemount 2875 145' Street West Rosemount, MN 55058 -4997 Re: Rosemount Kelley Trust Property Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Dear Mr. Pearson: The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the Draft AUAR for the proposed development of the Rosemount Kelley Trust Property. Generally the AUAR is complete and the information provided is accurate. We offer the following comments for your consideration in preparing the Final AUAR document. Figure 5 -3, PUD Concept Plan, does not illustrate units located on the Apple Valley portion of the site. Item 6, Description - The project description describes housing densities after construction. What would be the overall housing density with wetland areas deducted? Item 11, Fisheries Resources - In the past, the DNR has considered using Birger Pond for gamefish rearing, and would consider it again if the opportunity arose. After development, local angling demand might develop for angling on the property. Providing this opportunity may not be physically possible or ecologically sound. Item 12, Physical Impacts on Water Resources - The AUAR states that "Final site plans and grading plans will identify the wetlands that will be affected and degree of impact." Plans should also indicate how impacts will be avoided or maintained below levels established in the City's Wetland Management Plan. We recommend that buffers around wetlands be clearly delineated and marked with corner markers or monuments at lot corners to make them visible and to aid enforcement of the buffer requirements. The City has a Protected Waters permit pending for a pumped outlet from Birger Pond. The DNR expects to be able to issue the permit shortly. Iteml4, Water- Related Land Use Management Districts - The west portion of the site, located in Apple Valley, lies within the shoreland district of Farquar Lake. Development within the DNR Information: 651- 296 -6157 • 1- 888 -646 -6367 • TTY: 651- 296 -5484 • 1 -800- 657 -3929 An Equal Opportunity Employer W* Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a Who Values Diversity 'Q Minimum of 10% Post - Consumer Waste Richard Pearson 1!26/00 Page 2 shoreland district (1000 feet from Farquar Lake) must comply with Apple Valley's shoreland ordinance. There is no shoreland district in the Rosemount portion of the project. Item 17, Erosion and Sedimentation - The majority of the site contains highly erodible soils, and steep slopes are numerous. Development of, and strict adherence to, a detailed erosion control plan is critical for protection of the wetland resources on the site. We encourage the developer to work closely with the Dakota County SWCD to develop an erosion control plan. Item 18, Water Quality, Surface Water Runoff - We encourage the city and the developer to investigate using drought- resistant turf where possible, and to encourage use of phosphorus -free fertilizer to protect water quality. Item 30, Cumulative Impacts - While the AUAR is a tool for reviewing cumulative impacts of multiple projects in a defined area, it is no better than an EAW for evaluating cumulative effects of activities adjacent or outside the study area. The DNR recommends RGUs not limit cumulative effects analysis to the AUAR boundary. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. We look forward to receiving the Final AUAR, including your responses to these comments, pursuant to Minnesota Rules part 4410.3610, subpart 5. Please contact Bill Johnson, of my staff, at (651)296 -9229 with any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, Thomas W. Balcom, Supervisor Environmental Planning and Review Section Office of Management and Budget Services (651)296 -4796 c: Kathleen Wallace Wayne Barstad Con Christianson Joe Oschwald Jon Larsen, EQB Russ Peterson, USFWS #990250 -02 AUAR.wpd DAKOTA COUNTY SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Dakota County Extension and Conservation Center 4100 220th Street West, Suite 102 Farmington, MN 55024 Phone: (651) 480 -7777 FAX: (651) 480 -7775 January 25, 2000 City of Rosemount Ref.: 99 -ROS -001 Attn: Mr. Richard Pearson, City Planner 2875 145 Street West Rosemount, MN .55068 -4997 RE: KELLY PROPERTY ALTAR Dear Mr. Pearson: The Dakota Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) has reviewed the Kelly Property AUAR. The proposed project entails 1,209 multi- and single - family units on approximately 535 acres. The SWCD's review revolves around four primary topics: soil erosion and sedimentation control, stormwater, greenways, and wildlife habitat. The Kelly Trust Property contains a unique mixture of woodlands, wetlands, and rolling topography. The site is also positioned near other high quality natural areas, further increasing its local and regional significance. Accordingly, the level of effort to protect the site's natural resources should reflect the site's unique natural features and its importance as a greenway connection. Our comments and suggestions reflect this position and are respectfully submitted for your review and consideration: Note: Goal numbers are referenced from Appendix B of the document. Item 10: Cover Types: Mitigative Measures for Natural Communities Goal 5: Protect and Maintain the quality of surface water flows to wetlands Identify and protect infiltration areas on the site. Determine which wetlands are hydrologically maintained by surficial groundwater and where the infiltration areas for this surficial groundwater originates. Protect these areas from development or mitigate the impacts by strategically locating infiltration BMPs. Item 11: Fish, Wildlife, and Sensitive Resources Goal 6: Protect the remaining high quality habitat areas ... The SWCD commends these efforts. To clarify the third strategy listed under this goal define (1) corridor and (2) the developer's acceptance of effective greenway /wildlife corridor development. Specifically, where would a 300 - foot -wide, naturally vegetated corridor fit on the proposed site plan? It appears the proposed greenways may provide recreational opportunities (eg trails) but would not create a viable multi- species wildlife corridor. Based on preliminary assessments conducted as part of a LCMR project currently underway in Dakota County, the site is an important link between the undeveloped areas east of Hwy 3 and Lebanon Hills and may also be an important link in a potential greenway connecting the North Branch of the Vermillion River to Lebanon Hills (via Long and Farquar Lakes). AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Kelly Property AUAR Dakota SWCD Comments Item 12: Physical Impacts on Water Resources The SWCD anticipates working very closely with the Developer and Cities once a WCA Wetland Replacement Plan is submitted to ensure full sequencing is followed and that wetland impacts are avoided and minimized to the extent possible. Based on preliminary discussions, the SWCD assumes only minimal amounts of wetland impacts are anticipated. Goal 8: Protect and maintain the quality of surface water flows to wetlands. Define the BMPs the developer will consider to use on this site to "Protect and maintain the quality of surface water flows to wetlands." Traditional BMPs alone may not be adequate to effectively protect the site's resources. Silt fence at the toe of graded slopes does not suffice. Comprehensive management of the site's stormwater runoff, in conjunction with BMPs to address runoff rate and volume, is needed. See comments below regarding erosion and sedimentation. Item 13: Water Use Clarify if temporary dewatering for construction activities will be needed. If temporary dewatering is needed, clearly define the BMPs that will be used to treat the discharge of the dewatering pumps. Item 17: Erosion and Sedimentation The soils and slopes on the site create conditions very susceptible to erosion. Proper BMP selection, installation, and maintenance is critical on this site. Goal 7: Minimize erosion and sedimentation ... Construction phasing will play a central role in minimizing erosion on this site. The site should not be mass graded. Further, grading plans should be developed to (1) follow the contours of the site, thereby minimizing the need for mass soil transfers, and (2) minimize the amount of disturbed land that will be exposed at one time. The SWCD requests the opportunity to review and comment on preliminary grading plans as they are submitted to Rosemount and Apple Valley. Item 18: Water Quality — Surface Water Runoff As stated in the AUAR, the site is currently isolated and the long -term proposal is to pump water from the site across a watershed divide and into the North Creek of the Vermillion River subwatershed. Areas along North Creek and the Vermillion River are experiencing increased flooding and downstream stormwater impacts should be quantified. A substantial amount of imperviousness will be created and the impact of the increased runoff volumes on downstream waters and surficial groundwater tables must be determined. This level of assessment is warranted because, as stated in State Code Chapter 4410.3610, Subp. 4 "the content and format [of an AUAR] must be similar to that of an EAW, but must provide for a level of analysis comparable to that of an EIS . . ." Goal 8: Protect and Maintain the quality of surface waters ... The SWCD commends the strategy to use bioretention methods to store and infiltrate [and evapotranspirate — a very important component that should not be overlooked] stormwater and Kelly Property AUAR Dakota SWCD Comments minimize runoff. Please clarify the extent these innovative BMPs will be utilized. We suggest undertaking a thorough assessment of the site's runoff and determining specifically what BMPs will minimize the post - development curve number (to reduce runoff volume) and maximize the time of concentration (to reduce peak discharge rates) on the site. Strategically applying these concepts is called the Low Impact Development (LID) approach. The LID approach includes minimizing impervious areas and maximizing on -site water storage and use. Example LID BMPs include road width reductions, shared driveways, grassed waterways in place of storm sewers, recessed parking lot islands, and many others. Refer to the following resources for more information about the LID approach: Better Site Design:, A Handbook for Changing Development Rules in Your Community, Center for Watershed Protection, 1998. Conservation Design for Stornnvater Management, Delaware DNR, 1997. Low - Impact Design Manual, Prince George's County Government Department of Environmental Resources, Maryland, 1997. The Dakota SWCD may be able to provide financial incentives to support incorporation of LID concepts into the development plans. Please contact our office for more information. Appendix B. Mitigation Plan 3.0 Wildlife and Sensitive Resources Goal 6, Protection Strategy 2, Implementation Timeframe: Parks and trail areas should be identified and reviewed with stakeholders long before the final plats are submitted to the cities. These areas must be proposed and reviewed prior to preliminary plat review. Goal 6, Protection Strategy 4, Implementation Timeframe: Habitat protection areas should be identified and reviewed with stakeholders long before the final plats are submitted to the cities. These areas must be proposed and reviewed prior to preliminary plat review. 4.0 Erosion and Sedimentation Goal 7, Protection Strategies 1 -5: Please submit the proposed grading and erosion control plans to the Dakota SWCD for review and comment prior to preliminary plat approval. Define the amount of the security for performance of obligations regarding erosion and sedimentation control — for a site such as this, $2,000 to 3,000 /acre is suggested. 5.0 Surface Water Quality Goal 8, Protection Strategies 1 -8, Implementation Timeframe: Identify strategies to implement these plans prior to preliminary plat approval. The incorporation of bioretention infiltration, and other LID BMPs requires that stormwater management be an equally import design consideration as road alignments and lot configuratio The final plat stage is much too late. Miscellaneous comments 1. Figure 5 -6. The area adjacent to Birger Pond is incorrectly identified as Agriculture. 2. Number the Goals throughout the document for ease of reference. Kelly Property AUAR Dakota SWCD Comments 3. Item 8: Permits and Approvals Required: A DNR Water Appropriation Permit may also be required. 4. Item 10: There is a typographical error. Wetland type should be noted as Circular 39 and not Circular 390. Thank you for the opportunity to review this AUAR. Call me at (651) 480 -7779 if you have questions or comments. Respectfully, Jay Riggs, Urban Conservationist, CPESC cc: Pat Lynch, MDNR Jay Michels, MPCA Vermillion River Watershed Management Organization Judy Sventek, Metropolitan Council AAAAA Metropolitan Council AA Working for the Region, Planning for the Future January 26, 2000 Richard Pearson, City Planner City of Rosemount 2875-145 th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997 RE: Kelley Trust Property Alternative Urban AreaNvide Review (AUAR) — Rosemount and Apple Valley Metropolitan Councii Districts 15 and 16 (Carolyn Rodriguez and John Conzemius) Referral File No. 18137 -1 Dear Mr. Pearson: Metropolitan Council staff has conducted a review of the Kelley Trust Property AUAR to determine its adequacy and accuracy in addressing regional concerns. The staff review has concluded that the AUAR is complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns and raises no major issues of consistency with Council policies. However, staff provides the following technical comments for your consideration: The proposed development project involves the construction of 1,209 dwelling units, including 360 multiple- family attached units and 849 single- family detached lots on 585 gross acres of land. Fifty acres of the project area are within the city of Apple Valley. Item 6 —Description The description of the project on page four says that there will be a total of 64.9 net acres of multiple- family housing at a density of 4.8 units per acre. ..and 323.8 net acres of single - family "attached" units at a net density of 2.6 1ir_its ner acre... and an overall area of 465 net acres and a overall net density of 2.5 units per acre. The numbers do not add up. If the project proposes to build a total of 1,209 dwelling units on 465 net acres of land, the net density of the entire project is 2.6 units per net acre. The AUAR on page three says that there will be 360 multiple - family units of which 50 will be built in Apple Valley. If there are 64.9 net acres developed for 360 multiple - family units, the net density would be 5.5 units per acre. If there were 323.8 net acres developed for 849 single- family units, the net density would be 2.6 units per acre. These numbers total 1,209 units on 388.7 net acres, a net density of 3.1 units per acre. However, this net acreage is different from the 465 net acres also mentioned on page four. If the net density of the entire project is 2.6 units per acre, this is less than the minimum three units per net acre urban density recommended by the Council. 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 -1626 (651) 602 -1000 Fax 602 -1550 TDD /TIY 291 -0904 Metro Info Line 602 -1888 An Equal Opportunity Employer Richard Pearson January 26, 2000 Page 2 Item 8 — Permits and Approvals Required The AUAR mentions that the city of Rosemount will need an approved Tier II SeNver Plan prior to completing this project. Tier II sewer plans are required elements of community comprehensive plan updates. Comprehensive plan updates need to be submitted to the Council for review for all communities that plan to alter, expand, or improve their sewage disposal system. The cities of Apple Valley and Rosemount will need to have approved Tier II Sewer Plans before any additions or alterations can be initiated for the proposed development. The AUAR states that the city is the Local Governmental Unit (LGU) for the Wetland Conservation Act. As both Rosemount and Apple Valley are involved in permitting the project, each is probably the LGU under the Wetland Conservation Act for their respective proposed development areas. In any case, the developer should work with the cities, the Vermillion River Watershed Management Organization (VRWMO), the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and possibly the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) to assure the intent of the Wetland Conservation Act is upheld. All wetland loss should be avoided if possible. Where wetland loss is unavoidable, proper mitigation is required. Item 10 — Cover Types This section indicates that the size of impervious surface will increase from three to 147 acres. Of the total 580 -acre site, 25 percent will be impervious, 51 percent will be lawn, landscaping and parks, 17 percent will be brush/grassland and wooded/forest and seven percent will be wetland and watercourses. The impervious percentage will increase from less than one percent to over 25 percent. The developer should work with the t«vo cities, the VRWMO, and the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) to design and constnict the best erosion control and storm —water management practices for the project area. Stormwater management practices may include things such as detention basins, infiltration basins, filter strips, rainwater gardens, and vegetated swales while erosion control measures may include things such as hay bales, silt fence and check dams. The AUAR does a good job of evaluating the woodland areas and identifying which areas are the high, low and moderate protection areas. The developer should continue to work with the cities to determine the actions needed to protect the high priority protection areas. The developer should work with the communities, the SWCD, and the DNR to determine the appropriate mitigation measures for woodlands lost during development. The city of Rosemount has completed a wetland function and value assessment. The developer should continue to work with the two communities, the SWCD, the VRWMO, Richard Pearson January 26, 2000 Page 3 and the DNR to assure high priority wetlands are protected and impacts to lower priority wetlands are properly mitigated. Item 11— Fish, Wildlife, and Sensitive Resources The DNR Natural Heritage Program database indicated that there were three known occurrences of Blanding's turtles, a state threatened species, in the vicinity of the project. To minimize'impacts on the turtles, the developer should work with the DNR to develop a management program. Typically, we would recommend that at a minimum, workers be informed of the presence of Blanding's turtles in the area. Item 12 — Physical Impacts on Water Resources It is anticipated that future development of the site will impact some of the on -site wetlands and their buffer areas. Final site plans and grading plans will identify the wetlands that will be affected and the degree of impact. The developer should agree to work with the cities, the DNR, the VRWMO, and the SWCD to find the best solutions to wetland impacts. Since the citywide assessment of wetland function and value has been made, the expectation of Council staff is that wetlands identified for preservation should be avoided entirely. By approving this AUAR, we are assuming that this issue is not closed. We reserve the right to question wetland impacts and mitigation discussions that may arise in the future through our review of DNR protected waters and COE permits. Item 17 —Erosion and Sedimentation The AUAR indicates that over 800,000 cubic yards of soil will be moved and graded for the proposed project. There are many areas on the site that have slopes greater than 12 percent. Most of the project area is classified as having soils that are highly erodible or potentially highly erodible. These two facts cause a significant amount of concern. The developer will need to make the extra effort to ensure that proper erosion control measures are in place before any dirt is moved. It most likely will not be enough to use just the typical erosion control measures such as hay bales and silt fence at this site. The developer should work with the cities, the VRWMO, and the SWCD to determine the most effective best management practices to use at this site. The developer should obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction permit for this site. Erosion and sedimentation control practices must comply with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's urban "best management practices," titled Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas or an equivalent set of standards for erosion control. The developer will need to work with the appropriate regulatory agencies to prepare a suitable erosion control management plan for this site. Richard Pearson January 26, 2000 Page 4 Typically any site that plans to disturb more than five acres of soil should have some type of temporary sediment basins or suitable trapping devices. Item 18 - Water Quality - Surface Water Runoff The AUAR discusses the need to lower the ordinary high water level (OHWL) for Birger Pond. The city of Rosemount has worked with the DNR and the VRWMO to develop a management plan for this basin. Council staff is concerned about this basin and the increased runoff that will be discharged to the basin as development occurs. The developer should work very closely to monitor changes in the pond levels to make sure that the proposed solutions are actually working. The proposed pond outlet will discharge to Lakeville and ultimately to the Vermillion River. There is a flooding problem for the downstream communities along the Vermillion River. This makes it even more important that the proposed development and discharges to Birger Pond are carefully managed. The AUAR also states that ponds are proposed as part of the project. To be consistent with the Council's Interim Strategy for Nonpoint Source Pollution and to maximize pollutant removal efficiencies, all wet detention ponds should be designed according to NURP or similar criteria for wet detention basins. This will conclude the Council's review of the AUAR. The Council will take no formal action on the AUAR. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact James Uttley, AICP, principal reviewer, at 651- 602 -1361. Sincerely, Helen Boyer, Director Environmental Services Division cc: Carolyn Rodriguez, Metropolitan Council District 15 John Conzemius, Metropolitan Council District 16 Keith Buttleman, Director, MCES Environmental Planning and Evaluation Department Thomas McElveen, Director, Community Development Division Eli Cooper, Director, MCCD Planning and Growth Management Department Judy Sventek, MCES Watershed Coordinator Linda Milashius, Referrals Coordinator James Uttley, AICP, Planning and Gro Management Department V:\ library\ commundv \referraiMetters \001etters \RU 181371.doc �NNESp Minnesota Department of Transportation of , s �g Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road 132 Roseville, MN 55113 February 1, 2000 City of Rosemount Attn: Richard Pearson 2875 —145 Street, West Rosemount, Minnesota 55068 Dear Richard Pearson: SUBJECT: Draft AUAR - Kelley Trust Property Minnesota Department of Transportation Review #AUAR99 -004 Rosemount, Dakota County C.S. 1921 The Minnesota Department of Transportation has reviewed the draft AUAR for the Kelley Trust Property. We apologize for the delay in responding. We recommend consideration of the following comments prior to further development: • Mn/DOT has no issue with extending Connemara Trail to TH3 provided: ✓ The Dodd Boulevard connection to the south must be eliminated. ✓ Mn/DOT review the construction plans for the connection if and when it is made. Please direct any questions regarding these issues to Paul Czech in our Transportation Planning section at (651) 582 -1771. ✓ That when Connemara Trail is extended to connect with TH3 a northbound left turn lane and a southbound right turn lane be constructed on TH3. Turn signal counts will need to be analyzed to determine whether a signal may be warranted. The construction of the turn lanes and signal installation would be the responsibility of the city. Please contact Wayne Lemaniak in our Traffic section at (651) 634 -2147 if you have any questions regarding these issues. Trip rates documented in the draft AUAR do not match our projections using the ITE Trip Generation manual. We estimated 10,000 as compared to the AUAR that states 8,550 trips. An equal opportunity employer City of Rosemount February 1, 2000 Page 2 - • This extension of Connemara Trail to TH3 will also require an access permit. Please contact Keith VanWagner in our Permits section at (651) 582 -1443 for the appropriate forms and requirements. Connemara Trail is Municipal State Aid (MSA) Route 104. Dodd Road is MSA Route 113 and Shannon Parkway MSA 106. Therefore, the City must review any changes to its Municipal State Aid system so that the City stays within its system limitations. Also, any work on a MSA route must meet State Aid rules and policies. Any questions regarding these State Aid rules and policies may be directed to Tom Leibli in our State Aid section at (651) 582 -1372. If you have any additional questions regarding this review please contact me at (651) 582 -1468. Sincerely, ,-�q. Avrn CYG'► Sharon Anderson Transportation Planner / Local Government Liaison Cc: Sherri Buss - Bonestroo & Associates MEMORANDUM TO: Interested Parties FROM: Rick Pearson DATE: February 4, 2000 RE: Timetable for Kelley Trust Development Reviews The following represents the anticipated sequence of meetings concerning the review and actions regarding the Kelley Trust development. Please note that Final Plat approvals will be required for each phase of the development and will be a separate series of Planning Commission and Council meetings. Final Plats do not require public hearings. AUAR & Preliminary Plat Review Schedule Feb. 8, 2000 Open house with Planning Commission concerning AUAR draft document Feb. 15 Council discussion of issues and responses to agency comments. Council repeals moratorium Feb. 21 Ten day "objection period" starts after publication in EQB Monitor. Feb.22 Preliminary Plat/ PUD Final Development Plan Application anticipated Feb. 28 Parks and Recreation Committee review and discussion March 2 Neighborhood Meetings by developer Mar. 7 Council action accepting AUAR Mar 15 Joint Council/Commission workshop regarding Preliminary Plat. Mara 27 Possible follow -up meeting with Park and Recreation Committee Mar. 28 Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat / PUD Final Development Plan with the Planning Commission. April 11 Possible follow -up meeting date with Planning Commission April 18 Council Review (and action) of Preliminary Plat / PUD Final Development Plan � Draft AtiAR Kelley Trust Property Alternative Urban Areawide ' Review (AUAR) Rosemount, Minnesota ■ December, 1999 File No. 424 -99 -102 Bonestroo Rosene 0 Anderlik & i Associates Engineers & Architects Rosemount Kelley Trust Property Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) ' Table of Contents ' Question Number (corresponding to EAW Form) ' 1 . 2. Project Title ............................................................. ............................... Proposer .................................................................. ............................... I 1 3 . RGU ........................................................................ ............................... 1 4. 5 . Reason for EAW Preparation .................................. ............................... Project Location ...................................................... ............................... 2 2 ' 6 . 7. 8. Description ............................................................... ..............................3 Project Magnitude Data .......................................... ............................... Permits and Approvals Required ............................ ............................... 6 7 9 . Land Use ................................................................. ............................... 7 ' 10. 11. Cover Types ............................................................ ............................... Fish, Wildlife and Sensitive Resources .................. ............................... 8 16 12. Physical Impacts on Water Resources .................... ............................... 18 13. Water Use ................................................................ ............................... 20 ' 14. Water - Related Land Use Management Districts .... ............................... 21 15 . Water Surface Use .................................................. ............................... ?2 16 . Soils ........................................................................ ............................... ?2 ' 17. Erosion and Sedimentation ..................................... ............................... 22 18. Water Quality - Surface Water Runoff .................. ............................... 26 ' 19. Water Quality - Wastewaters ................................. ............................... 26 20. Groundwater - Potential for Contamination ........... ............................... 27 ' 21. 22. Solid Wastes; Hazardous Wastes; Storage Tank .... ............................... Traffic 29 23. Vehicle - Related Air Emissions ............................... ............................... 45 24. 25 . Stationary Source Air Emissions ............................ ............................... Dust, Odors, Noise .................................................. ............................... 46 46 26. Sensitive Resources ................................................ ............................... 50 ' 27. 28. Adverse Visual Impacts .......................................... ............................... Compatibility with Plans ........................................ ............................... 51 52 29. Impact on Infrastructure and Public Services ......... ............................... 54 30. 31. 32. Related Developments; Cumulative Impacts .......... ............................... Other Potential Environmental Impacts .................. ............................... Summary of Issues .................................................. ............................... 55 55 56 i Rosemount Kelley Trust Property Alternative Urban Areawide Review 1 J fl List of Figures Figure Number 5.1. Location Map .................................................... ............................... : Appendices Project Location ................................................ ............................... 5.3. Appendix A — City Resolution 2 Appendix B — Mitigation Plan ' Appendix C — Wetland Delineations Summary 5.5. Appendix D — Natural Heritage Information 2 Appendix E — Park/Open Space Acreage Summary Future Land Use ................................................ ............................... Appendix F — Well Closure 10.1. Appendix G — Historic Sites 8 Appendix H — Traffic Calming ' Appendix I — Traffic Noise and Air Assessment 1 J fl List of Figures Figure Number 5.1. Location Map .................................................... ............................... : 5.2. Project Location ................................................ ............................... 5.3. Concept Master Plan ......................................... ............................... 2 5.4. Zoning ................................................................ ..............................2 5.5. Current Land Use ........................ ............................... 2 5.6. Future Land Use ................................................ ............................... 2 10.1. Land Cover Types ............................................. ............................... 8 16.1. Soils .................................................................. ............................... �? 17.1. Steep Slopes 17.2. Highly Erodible Soils ........................................ ............................... 23 18.1. SWMP Area ...................................................... ............................... 24 22 -1. Study Area and Roadway System ..................... ............................... 33 22 -2. Existing Lanes /Traffic Control ......................... ............................... 34 22 -3. Roadway Functional Classification .................. ............................... 35 22 -4. Existing Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes ........................... 37 22 -5. Development Generated Daily Trips ................ ............................... 39 22 -6. Development Generated A.M. Peak Hour Volumes ........................ 40 22 -7. Development Generated P.M. Peak Hour Volumes ........................ 41 22 -8. Year 2020 Average Daily Traffic ..................... ............................... 42 ii Rosemount Keller Trust Property Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) List of Tables Table Number 8 .1. Required Permits .................................................. ............................... 7 21.1. Solid Waste Generation ....................................... ............................... 30 21.2. Recycling ............................................................. ............................... 31 22.1. Development Concept Land Uses ........................ ............................... 32 22.2. Kelley Trust Property — Development Traffic Volume Estimates...... 36 22.3. Roadway Volume /Capacity Comparisons ........... ............................... 43 ff Rosemount Kellev Trust Property AUAR December 14, 1999 Rosemount Kelley Trust Property Alternative Urban Area vide Review (AUAR) Note to Reviewers Comments on this Alternative Urban Areawide Review(AUAR) should be submitted to the City of Rosemount (see item 3) during the 30 -day comment period following notice in the EOB Monitor similar to the process for an EA TV. Contact the Cin� or the EQB to learn when the comment period ends. Continents should address the accuracy and completeness of the information, and potential impacts that may warrant further investigation. Since the AUAR substitutes for an EIS, there is no need to comment on the need for an EIS. Project Title City of Rosemount Kelley Trust Property Proposer City of Rosemount Contact Person Richard Pearson, City Planner Address 2875 145` Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997 Phone (651) 423 -4411 Fax (651) 423 -5203 Email address rick.pearson a ci.rosemottnt.mn.us RGU z. ' City of Rosemount 1 Richard Pearson, City Planner 1 2875 145` Street West Rosemount, MN 55058 -4997 Phone (651) 423 -4411 Fax (651) 423 -5203 Email address rick .pearson(ruci.rosemount.mn.us Rosemount Kelley Trust Property Alternative Urban Area vide Review (AUAR) Note to Reviewers Comments on this Alternative Urban Areawide Review(AUAR) should be submitted to the City of Rosemount (see item 3) during the 30 -day comment period following notice in the EOB Monitor similar to the process for an EA TV. Contact the Cin� or the EQB to learn when the comment period ends. Continents should address the accuracy and completeness of the information, and potential impacts that may warrant further investigation. Since the AUAR substitutes for an EIS, there is no need to comment on the need for an EIS. Project Title City of Rosemount Kelley Trust Property Proposer City of Rosemount Contact Person Richard Pearson, City Planner Address 2875 145` Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997 Phone (651) 423 -4411 Fax (651) 423 -5203 Email address rick.pearson a ci.rosemottnt.mn.us RGU City of Rosemount Contact Person Richard Pearson, City Planner Address 2875 145` Street West Rosemount, MN 55058 -4997 Phone (651) 423 -4411 Fax (651) 423 -5203 Email address rick .pearson(ruci.rosemount.mn.us I Rosemount Kellev Trust Propertv AUAR December 14, 1999 ' 4. Reason for EA TV Preparation (technically not applicable to an AUAR) S. Project Location ' Sections (all or portion): Sections 17, 18, 19, 20 of Range 19W and Section 24 of Range 20W of Township 115N County: Dakota City /Township: Cities of Rosemount and Apple Valley ' Attach copies of each of the following to the EA W.• a. Copy(ies) of USGS 7.5 minute, 1 :24:000 scale map (photocopy is OK) indicating the project boundaries; ' b. Maps of the following: 1) a map clearly depicting the boundaries of the AUAR and any subdistricts used in the AUAR analysis 2) land use and planning and zoning maps as required in con junction with items 9 and 28; and ' 3) a cover type map as required by item 11. Additional maps may be included throughout the document wherever maps are useful for displaying the relevant information. The maps listed below are included at the appropriate section of this document: ' • Figure 5 -1. Project Location: A map indicating the project location and its regional context. ' • Figure 5 -2. Project Boundaries: A map depicting the project boundary of the Kelley Trust Property. • Figure 5 -3. P.U.D. Concept Plan: A drawing depicting the types of units included ' in the proposed development and their distribution on the site. • Figure 5 -4. Existing Zoning: A map showing current zoning in and around the Kelley Trust Property. ' 0 Figure 5 -5. Existing Land Use: A map showing current land use in and around the Kelley Trust Property. • Figure 5 -6. Proposed Land Use: A map showing proposed land use in and around ' the Kelley Trust Property. Additional maps are provided throughout the document as needed to display relevant information. I Rosemount Kellev Trust Property AUAR December 14, 1999 6 . Description For each major development scenario covered in the AUAR, a description should ' include at least the following: a. anticipated types and intensity (density) of residential and commercial /warehouse /light industrial development throughout the AUAR area: ' The AUAR will analyze one development scenario, the P.U.D. Concept Plan submitted to the City of Rosemount in April, 1998. ' The proposed development plan includes 1, 209 dwelling units, consisting of both Single - Family Detached and Multi- Family Attached dwelling units. A majority of the dwelling units (1,153) are proposed to be located within the City of Rosemount. It is proposed that 50 townhouse units and 6 single- family units will be located within the City of Apple Valley. Several different housing types and corresponding zoning districts will be ' proposed as part of the project: Multifamily Attached Units Typical Width Number in Plan Distinctive Twinhomes 60' 48 ' Village Townhomes 28 -32' 82 Coach Townhomes 24 -32' 80 ' Apple Valley Townhomes 50 Senior Housing N.A. 100 TOTAL 360 I Siule Fa Detached Lots Tvvical Width Number in Plan Ll 3 Estate 95 -125' 89 ' Apple Valley Single Family 6 Classic Suburban 80 -90' 232 Classic Custom Graded 80 -90' 23 ' Traditional 60 -85' 297 Cottage Home Cluster 75' 166 Lifestyle Villa 55' 36 ' TOTAL 849 PUD TOTAL UNITS 1209 ' The Concept Plan and distribution of units is illustrated on Figure 5 -3. Ll 3 d` A N011d0M v10tos 1 Oa)la31VM 3WAN33a0 1 Hdl� Hd10CNV� _ _ T I—� 0" T _ SrDn00 N01dMVN NOld �`'4 NOOa 7usvO 03W3 3 M3N 3Xr7 ar030 vh3DN 3Nm T3 d 38 Ar3wie J j ^ � tow N❑ I ', 13XaVn IA7N I 3NKld 37138 NOlONinar! ON3aMY1 'is NVOaor Nom na3 A1Nnoo iloos ,f a3Na J vM 3nrM NVFQaW 3tgdn3 I �� 11031!0 aed ON�.ds X33.0 ONUS No mwa3l �� fj�'•n xooONYH 531x' = oosnNra! NVs ea DanenvH 5DN'.1.5'S11 3TxrSen01 a3DM N N A ^ aowd 31ddr � � No1N3e r,Na3 oNnoA 1 377vsNane 301AIS L N3801WO 3NO0100 � 000M80N osXOVr �.• 5 "' ' vOia3nv « i A1Nnoo Vlorva XWn130 I 310x0 30V11G S1H013H 3A0.0 a3nNl Nrltr r+oloNmoole I l VXSM10 ALNnOO L'3ALIVO 1 XaVd VINDDVM V1vd :15 : f I 31aNad N3G NM013XV1 VINOOVM N305r✓J S1H013H N351' .O I..I.I1A j "Md NSllNns ( a3AVW AN"N30 M N 1 1ardM3N S v100X fltivdaN M3UM018 I . ,ty ) NC1lY I nos -Invd \\ . G Ie is / ` VNg3 0 a H ,iIIDVlMOB 1$� /t1n8000M 1S IS 1 / •' 05'38 zlan 'LS I MXdOH N3. -d330 4 M I I I � SnOdV3NNIN 9 rd � J.T ell (' NM01a31VM OOOMOM I r IMd INNS 10)) SInO'1 is "N013NMn T � ��H V1SIa13NNn NMO1a31vM/ _ �; oNrlls3Yr7 r Nnoo .l3swva r onoao u /�_7T 11A 3)Irl ONO NICU59 3 — OWNXWVM N30100 11 1 Xn35Da C,,� Mvid 31d " 3T \ \ \\ 1S Hind'{A1d 3 1 111n 1 3d �30N30N3d30N1 .i.a VHI03r1 s ��a3trNCT11 jv' SrXH 0113x0 NaN 1Nra0 I ,� a31N30 A31D1a31 NA A1Nn0o NId3NN3H {1$ V1 3X S I 0.03X00. ai1VMl1 t y 311H �� ' XaVd NAIXOOaB M3N h•� M3VUGHS sdNnO. 03550 3AOeO 3'1d" NVk1O.WOO 013UN33a0 �? ALNnOO N010NIHSVY SN'd 3'1011 rroNOION1X31 a310NVH AVM CynH *5 31wa3u1b i 3Nm8 � NndnVMO I sa30Da 501dV. NOOO 537K1 r , �WWW 11 �� Ij 00001wv0 NVss, 1�•ff 3X1 153.03 -•~ SnONYS r3N 3Xn 153x0_ ! ` �•s., .--^.— I 3XV1 nvH 113n00nv � 1 1.� _ Snenm00 1 A35MVa / I A1Nnoo VNONV 1 �r 1 3AOa0 WO 1 saane 13.1138 — 1 1 000MNn i ti SiONaa_ 1S ' 13H138 � � — ZC':667Zti ✓�V100 .,66i b3EC -00 - MO'IOMZC:66t7Z7 ViOS3NNIW '1NnOW3S02j . d�J3d06d lsmji )13��Di — �jdnd 1NnOW3s0a �CS� -5 a vJ CGilSv ^ i,�G� MEN d` A N011d0M v10tos 1 Oa)la31VM 3WAN33a0 1 Hdl� Hd10CNV� _ _ T I—� 0" T _ SrDn00 N01dMVN NOld �`'4 NOOa 7usvO 03W3 3 M3N 3Xr7 ar030 vh3DN 3Nm T3 d 38 Ar3wie J j ^ � tow N❑ I ', 13XaVn IA7N I 3NKld 37138 NOlONinar! ON3aMY1 'is NVOaor Nom na3 A1Nnoo iloos ,f a3Na J vM 3nrM NVFQaW 3tgdn3 I �� 11031!0 aed ON�.ds X33.0 ONUS No mwa3l �� fj�'•n xooONYH 531x' = oosnNra! NVs ea DanenvH 5DN'.1.5'S11 3TxrSen01 a3DM N N A ^ aowd 31ddr � � No1N3e r,Na3 oNnoA 1 377vsNane 301AIS L N3801WO 3NO0100 � 000M80N osXOVr �.• 5 "' ' vOia3nv « i A1Nnoo Vlorva XWn130 I 310x0 30V11G S1H013H 3A0.0 a3nNl Nrltr r+oloNmoole I l VXSM10 ALNnOO L'3ALIVO 1 XaVd VINDDVM V1vd :15 : f I 31aNad N3G NM013XV1 VINOOVM N305r✓J S1H013H N351' .O I..I.I1A j "Md NSllNns ( a3AVW AN"N30 M N 1 1ardM3N S v100X fltivdaN M3UM018 I . ,ty ) NC1lY I nos -Invd \\ . G Ie is / ` VNg3 0 a H ,iIIDVlMOB 1$� /t1n8000M 1S IS 1 / •' 05'38 zlan 'LS I MXdOH N3. -d330 4 M I I I � SnOdV3NNIN 9 rd � J.T ell (' NM01a31VM OOOMOM I r IMd INNS 10)) SInO'1 is "N013NMn T � ��H V1SIa13NNn NMO1a31vM/ _ �; oNrlls3Yr7 r Nnoo .l3swva r onoao u /�_7T 11A 3)Irl ONO NICU59 3 — OWNXWVM N30100 11 1 Xn35Da C,,� Mvid 31d " 3T \ \ \\ 1S Hind'{A1d 3 1 111n 1 3d �30N30N3d30N1 .i.a VHI03r1 s ��a3trNCT11 jv' SrXH 0113x0 NaN 1Nra0 I ,� a31N30 A31D1a31 NA A1Nn0o NId3NN3H {1$ V1 3X S I 0.03X00. ai1VMl1 t y 311H �� ' XaVd NAIXOOaB M3N h•� M3VUGHS sdNnO. 03550 3AOeO 3'1d" NVk1O.WOO 013UN33a0 �? ALNnOO N010NIHSVY SN'd 3'1011 rroNOION1X31 a310NVH AVM CynH *5 31wa3u1b i 3Nm8 � NndnVMO I sa30Da 501dV. NOOO 537K1 r , �WWW 11 �� Ij 00001wv0 NVss, 1�•ff 3X1 153.03 -•~ SnONYS r3N 3Xn 153x0_ ! ` �•s., .--^.— I 3XV1 nvH 113n00nv � 1 1.� _ Snenm00 1 A35MVa / I A1Nnoo VNONV 1 �r 1 3AOa0 WO 1 saane 13.1138 — 1 1 000MNn i ti SiONaa_ 1S ' 13H138 � � — ZC':667Zti ✓�V100 .,66i b3EC -00 - MO'IOMZC:66t7Z7 ViOS3NNIW '1NnOW3S02j . d�J3d06d lsmji )13��Di — �jdnd 1NnOW3s0a u J PROJECT BOUNDARIES a ROSEMOUNT AUAR - KELLEY TRUST PROPERTY FIGURE 5 -2 ,nl Bonestroo �■ 7 Rosene A ssoci k s Associates Engineers 6 Architects iM24W24991MAUAR_FIGSAPR AUGUST,1999 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m E s ta t e, 16 lassl a W�l lip PIP PIP P E s ta t e, 16 lassl a W�l PIP P Developers Go. — rl Lol v m 5 —a. Kelley Tp-t4s+ +Ao"Sim T pro istp-i6tAtiov, Concept I Rosemount Kellev Trust Propern, AUAR December 14 1999 ' In Rosemount, the proposed zoning of the Estate Homes is RL- -Very Low Density Single- Family Residential District; the Classic Suburban, Classic Custom- Graded, and ' Traditional Homes is R -1- -Low Density Residential District; and the Cottage Homes and Lifestyle Villas is R -2 -- Moderate Density Residential. The Multi- Family Attached residential land use includes Twin Homes and Townhomes also to be zoned R -2; the ' Coach Homes and Senior Housing units are proposed to be zoned R- 3— Medium Density Residential. ' In Apple Valley, the Townhomes and Single- Family Homes are both proposed to be zoned Low Density Residential. ' The Multi- Family Attached units are proposed to be located in the southeastern and western portions of the AUAR area, comprising a total of 64.9 acres of land, and containing a net density of 4.8 dwelling units per acre. The Single- Family Attached units ' would be located throughout the remainder of the site, comprising a total of 323.8 acres, and a net density of 2.6 dwelling units per acre. The AUAR area is proposed to contain an overall net density of 2.5 units to the acre, based on a land area of 465 net acres. The ' highest densities in the AUAR area are proposed for the east end of the site, which is relatively flat and has few wetlands. Approximately 80 percent of the units are proposed for this area. Low density development is proposed for north and west areas of the site in deference to the steep slopes and wetlands in the area. The land uses and densities proposed in the Kelley Trust PUD are consistent with the 2020 Comprehensive Plans of the City of Rosemount and City of Apple Valley. Parks and Open Space ' The proposed Parks and Open Space land use includes areas designated as arks, .. P wetlands, ponds and open space. Approximately 23 percent of the AUAR area is ' proposed to remain as open space, including approximately 20 acres of pre- dedicated park land, 20 acres of additional park land, 30 acres of wetlands and ponds, and 76.3 acres of other open space. A list of park and open space areas proposed for the Kelley Trust Property as a part of the PUD is included in the Appendix. ' b. Infrastructure planned to serve the development (roads, sewers, water, stormwater system, etc.) Roadways intended primarily to serve the adjoining land uses within an AUAR area are normally expected to be a part of all AU,4R. More "arterial" tvpes of roadways that would cross an AUAR area are an optional inclusion in the AUAR analysis; if they are to be included, a more intensive level of review, generally including an analysis of alternatives routes, is ' necessary; �' �, �= t �� !; , �� .� �, � �� �•l;4 I : >� //l I Rosemount Kellev Ti ist Property AUAR December 14. 1999 ' Roadways. Access to the site will be provided by existing and new collector streets, including Shannon Parkway and Diamond Path Road, which currently nm through the AUAR area, and Connemara Trail, which will be extended into the site. The project also ' proposes to extend and connect existing and new local streets to provide access to individual parcels and adjacent areas. Proposed roadway connections are shown on ' Figure 5.3 and in Section 22. Traffic Analysis. The new traffic generated by the proposed development will be disseminated over many ' streets. The site is over one and one -half miles wide, and over one mile from north to south, and does not contain a single large traffic generation point. Connemara Trail, Shannon Parkway, and Diamond Path are major Collector Streets, which will serve the ' proposed development. All were designed estimating a higher density of development than what is proposed in the Concept Plan. The proposed neighborhood Collector between Diamond Path to Shannon Parkway and continuing to Connemara Trail will help ' to relieve traffic on these roadways, but with its meandering route it will not be a main Collector. Additional analysis of traffic impacts of the proposed development is included in Section 22. ' Utilities ' The proposed residential development will require the extension of existing sewer, water main, and storm water facilities. Think sanitary sewer and water services are available in Rosemount on the east side of the site. Likewise, services from Apple Valley are ' available at the western side of the site. Stormwater runoff generated by the development will be treated or infiltrated within the site; any excess stormwater will flow to Birger Pond. The City has recently completed a plan to pump excess water from Birger Pond to ' ponds south and east of County Road 42, as described in the City's Surface Water Management Plan. Wastes from the site will go to the Rosemount Treatment Plant. Analysis of utilities issues and appropriate maps are included in later sections of the ' AUAR. The Metropolitan Council's 1996 Regional Blueprint indicates that the AUAR area is ' located within the 2020 Metropolitan Urban Service Area, where full support of regional facilities is or will become available. The proposed growth and infrastructure development included in the Kelley Trust Property P.U.D. are included in the projects that the City of Rosemount has included in ' its Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). b. Information about the anticipated staging of various developments, to the ' extent known, and of the infrastructure, and how the infrastructure staging will influence the development schedule. ' The project developer anticipates a 7 -10 year build out of the site. It is anticipated that the development will begin on the west (Apple Valley) side, using existing utilities and connections. Infrastructure will be extended to various areas of the site as needed to 5 Rosemount Kelley Trust Property AUAR December 14, 1999 ' support development. The developer proposes to have construction occurring on various portions of the site simultaneously, to allow development of a variety of housing types, in ' response to market conditions. Note: the RGU must assure that the development described complies with the requirements of 4410.3610, subpart 3, and that it properly orders the AUAR and sets the description in that order as required by that section. ' The City of Rosemount and City of Apple Valley have approved comprehensive plans as required by the referenced rules. Each City's Draft 2020 Comprehensive Plan is currently under review by the Metropolitan Council, and should receive approvals before adoption ' of the final AUAR. The Rosemount City Council adopted an official resolution ordering the AUAR as required by the EQB Rules on June 1, 1999. Provide a 50 or fewer word abstract for EQB Monitor- notice: The proposed Kelley Trust Property residential development is located on approximately ' 535 acres in the City of Rosemount and 50 acres in the City of Apple Valley, both in Dakota County, of Minnesota. The development plan includes 1209 multi -and single - family units, predominantly within Rosemount, along with park land and open space. 7. Project Magnitude Data The cumulative totals of the parameters called for- should be given for each major development scenario. Number of Residential Units Unattached: 849 Attached: 360 Commercial /Industrial /Institutional Building Area (gross floor space) Indicate area of specific uses. Total square feet: 0 ' Office: 0 Manufacturing *: 0 Retail: 0 Other Industrial *: 0 Warehouse: 0 Institutional *: 0 ' Light Industrial: 0 Agricultural *: 0 Other Commercial (specify): 0 ' Building Heights *: not applicable *optional to include area for these 6 I Rosemount Kelley Trust Propern AU.9R December 14, 1999 8. Permits and Approvals Required List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals, and funding required. A list of major approvals likely to be required by the anticipated rapes of development projects should be given. This list will help orient reviewers to the idea that the AUAR process is only one piece of the regulatory framework that will protect environmental resources. The list can also serve as a starting point for the development of the implementation aspects of the mitigation plan to be developed as part of the AUAR. TABLE 8 -1 ' REQUIRED PERMITS Unit of Government Tvpe ofApplication 1 City of Rosemount & Subdivision (Plat) Approval, 9. Land Use ' Describe the current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lands. Discuss the compatibility of the project with adjacent and nearby land uses; indicate whether any potential conflicts involve environmental matters. Identify any potential environmental hazard due to past land uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage tanks. ' Item 9 is not needed for an AUAR, but can be covered by Items 20 and 28. See items 20 and 28. 1 7 City of Apple Valley Planned Unit Development (PUD)Permit, Grading Permits *, Erosion Control ' Permits *, Water Connection Permits, Building Permits, Wetland Conservation Act permits and approvals* Dakota County County Roadway Access Permits Continguous Plat Permit Metropolitan Council /Envir. Services Tier 2 Sewer Plan, Sanitary Sewer ' Extension Permit Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Air Emission Facility Permits ' Indirect Source Permit (ISP), 401 Grading Permit, 401 Water Quality Permit. NPDES Permit, Storm Water Permit, Sanitary Sewer ' Permit, Wastewater Permit Minnesota Department of Health Water Main Plan Review Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources Protected Waters Permit ' Minnesota Dept. of Transportation State Highway Access Permits U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Individual 404 Permit, Letter of Concurrence for Nationwide Permit *with input from Dakota County SWCD and Vermillion River WMO (the City is LGU) 9. Land Use ' Describe the current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lands. Discuss the compatibility of the project with adjacent and nearby land uses; indicate whether any potential conflicts involve environmental matters. Identify any potential environmental hazard due to past land uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage tanks. ' Item 9 is not needed for an AUAR, but can be covered by Items 20 and 28. See items 20 and 28. 1 7 Rosemount Kelley Tnest Property AUAR December 14, 1999 10. Cover Types The following information should be provided: a. a cover tyae map, at least at the scale of a USGS topographic map, depicting: • wetlands – identified by type (Circular 390) • watercourses — rivers, streams, creeks, ditches • lakes — identify protected water status and shoreland management classification • woodlands— identify native and old field • cropland • current development b. an "overlay" map showing anticipated development in relation to the cover types; this map should also depict any "protection areas ", existing or proposed that will preserve sensitive cover types. Separate traps for each major development scenario should generally be provided. The generalized breakdown of cover types before and after development is shown on the chart that follows. The location of cover types is shown in Figure 10 -1. COVER TYPES Cover Types Description on the Site The property currently contains four major cover types — wetlands, woodlands, grassland and agricultural fields. Grassland/pasture is the most abundant cover type. The area includes existing park areas and a relatively small amount of impervious surface. Grassland /Pasture Communities. A field evaluation of the site indicated that the pasture areas consist of common exotic pasture /meadow plant species intermixed with some native prairie species. Vegetation noted in upland areas of the pasture include quackgrass, hoary vervain, foxtail grass, smooth brome, big bluestem, little bluestem, bluegrass, butter and eggs, whorled milkweed, bergamot, common milkweed, spotted knapweed, Canada golden rod, common mullein, and St. John's wort. The pasture areas and cropland are of low native diversity; much of these areas will be converted to residential uses with the proposed development. 8 Acres Acres Be ore Ater Be ore Ater Types 1 to 7 Wetlands 42. 42. Urban/Suburban Lawn 0 255. Wooded/Forest 113. 76. Landscaping (parks) 20. 40. Brush/Grassland 318. 20 Impervious Surface 3 147. Cropland 84. 0 Other 0 0 Cover Types Description on the Site The property currently contains four major cover types — wetlands, woodlands, grassland and agricultural fields. Grassland/pasture is the most abundant cover type. The area includes existing park areas and a relatively small amount of impervious surface. Grassland /Pasture Communities. A field evaluation of the site indicated that the pasture areas consist of common exotic pasture /meadow plant species intermixed with some native prairie species. Vegetation noted in upland areas of the pasture include quackgrass, hoary vervain, foxtail grass, smooth brome, big bluestem, little bluestem, bluegrass, butter and eggs, whorled milkweed, bergamot, common milkweed, spotted knapweed, Canada golden rod, common mullein, and St. John's wort. The pasture areas and cropland are of low native diversity; much of these areas will be converted to residential uses with the proposed development. 8 Wetlands Woodlands �c r �� _ .T LAND COVER TYPES ROSEMOUNT AUAR - KELLEY TRUST PROPERTY FIGURE 10 -1 Woodlands and Wetland Boudaries provided by Westwood Professional Services Inc Bonestroo JA r� Rosene Anderk Associates Engineers & Architects r \424b42499102\AUAR_FIGS APR AUGUST,1 Rosemount Kelley Trust Property AU.4R December 14, 1999 ' Woodland Communities —East Side of the Kelley Trust Property ' Figure 10 -2 shows the woodland areas on the property and indicates their ecological quality rating, based on the health of the native plant community and its habitat value. The woodland evaluation was completed by Westwood Professional Services, at the ' request of Contractor Property Developers Company. The site was visited several times in October, 1998. The purpose of the woodland evaluation was to provide information to assist in the prioritization of woodland protection areas and identification of management ' and development alternatives. Findings and recommendations of the field survey include the following: ' The northern woodland on the east side (approximately 32 acres) contains two pockets of blow down associated with windstorm(s) damage and located in depressional areas. The tree species associated with this blow down include some oak and cherry, but are predominately boxelder and elm. Outside of the blow down, this northern woodland is the most intact oak woodland on the property. The trees are mainly oak (more than 70 %), with a small component of black cherry (less than 30 %) and some hackberry (less than 10 %). The indications that this woodland is ecologically intact include the low level of vigor in the buckthorn and the presence of successful regeneration of oak, cherry, and hackberry in the understory. Although buckthorn does dominate the composition of the ' understory (more than 70 %), it is generally suppressed to a height of less than four feet, which allows for successful forest regeneration. The suppression of buckthorn has allowed a variety of diameter classes to develop. The oak diameters in this woodland ' range from less than four inches to more than 30 inches. This woodland will likely maintain itself if left intact and major disturbances do not 1 release the buckthorn and further strain the success of tree regeneration. It is important to note, however, that there is a distinct absence of other late successional species such as basswood and maple. The integrity of this woodland relies on the preservation of the intact, closed, oak canopy. Fragmentation associated with development would jeopardize this condition, and it would be difficult to maintain the current woodland health following the establishment of housing units in this woodland There is presently some minor foot trail development within the woodland which may lend itself to additional recreational use associated with residential development of the area. The southern and eastern edges ' of this northern woodland contain significant amounts of dominant buckthorn, elm, and boxelder. The southern woodland on the east side of the Kelley Trust Property consists of widely - spaced oaks with a significant hackberry component (more than 20 %) and a black cherry component (more than 20 %) which is in poor condition. The oaks are generally low quality with small crowns, significant dieback and branch death. Diameters in the southern woodland average around 14 inches. There is an absence of the oak saplings found in the northern woodland. A majority of the cherry trees have limbs or tops that I Wetlands 0 Wetland Boundary Wetland Buffer 1� Preserve O 2 Manage I (J ) Manage II ® Utilize Woodland Management Priorities 0 High LOW Moderate NATURAL AREAS - QUALITY RANKINGS " Bonestroo ROSEMOUNT AUAR - KELLEY TRUST PROPERTY r= Ros ene erlik& FIGURE 10 -2 �'� Associates 10 Engineers& Architects Woodlands and Wetland Boudaries provided by Westwood Professional Services Inc. i\424\42499102AUAR FiGS.APR AUGUST,1999 I Rosemount Kelley Trust Property AUAR December 14. 1999 ' have been broken off and indicate the presence of rot throughout the main stem. The poor condition of the canopy has allowed an invasion of buckthorn as well as boxelder ' and some elm trees. Some oak seedlings were found (less than one foot in height), but buckthorn will likely limit their survival to a seedling stage. The only sapling oaks identified were dead, presumably from suppression by competitors with faster growth rates. Following the current trend in this woodland, it is likely that the remaining overstory oaks will gradually dieback and be replaced by openings of buckthorn and prickly ash shrubs with a tree component dominated by elm and boxelder with some hackbem This area is a lower priority for preservation based on its lower quality and need for active ' management for restoration. The higher quality trees can be identified in a tree survey and housepads positioned to preserve these trees if development is proposed in this area. The fence lines and field edges in the eastern part of the property generally consist of a mixture of trees dominated by boxelder and elm, with some cottonwood, big- toothed aspen, and oak. The shrub layer is almost exclusively buckthorn with some prickly ash. The two areas of fence line with trees of desirable species and conditions are located along Dodd Boulevard (running north to south) and along the section line (forming a link between the two large units of woodland). The fence line along Dodd Road is almost ' pure oak with diameters over 18 inches and in generally good condition. Preservation efforts in this area may include managing the trees as screening along Dodd Road but clearing out the buckthorn underneath and landscaping with shade - tolerant native plants (i.e. ironwood, nannyberry, Juneberry, blue beech, dogwood, and snowberry). The fence line linking the two woodlands contains scattered specimen oak and black cherry trees with diameters in excess of 24 inches and excellent form. The remaining fence lines 1 contain very few trees that warrant preservation. Any individual trees located within fence lines and warranting preservation will be identifiable in the tree survey results. Woodlands on the West Side of the Kelley Trust Property The western part of the property (east of Diamond Path Road, west of Shannon Parkway) ' contains three notable areas of woodland. One is associated with Shannon Parkway, the second is an oak savanna in the west - central area, and the third is a mixed woodland in the northwest corner. The oak savanna provides the greatest opportunity for high quality ' tree preservation in this area. The trees along Shannon Parkway include some aspen and a forested wetland as well as large diameter oak, which may be valued for their visual and sound screening characteristics along the roadway. The woodland in the northwest corner is mixed quality with aspen dominating the southern portions and oaks along the northern and western portions. 10 I Rosemount Kelley Trust Property .4 UAR December 14. 1999 I The woodlands along both sides of Shannon Parkway consist of degraded oak savanna with some aspen. The oaks are generally more than 24 inches in diameter and widely ' spaced with buckthorn, prickly ash and blackberry forming a thick understory. The trees provide a screen along Shannon Parkway and would be suitable for preservation as single trees, clusters or a linear feature. Trees could be retained this area to provide visual and ' sound screening along Shannon Parkway. The area of open - grown, widely- spaced oaks in the west- central region provides the best ' opportunity for preservation in the western section of this property. The area contains 100% oaks with diameters in excess of 24 inches. The oaks are in good to excellent condition with only a few signs of dieback, branch death, or limb breakage. There are only a few windthrow trees in this area. The trees are positioned on one of the steepest slopes on the site and provide a vantage point to view the lake to the southwest as well as areas outside the property boundary. These trees warrant consideration for preservation ' due to their excellent form and condition, slope stabilizing benefits, aesthetic properties, and visual impact positioning. This savanna could be managed as parkland through mowing or burning. Managing through burning would better preserve and encourage the ' successful spread of the small patches of existing prairie plants in this area. The woodland in the northwestern portion of the site is partially located within Apple ' Valley. It is of mixed composition with aspen dominating the southern edge and higher quality oaks along the northern and western edges and continuing onto adjacent property. Apple Valley staff indicated that a number of oak trees along Diamond Path are marked for removal due to the presence of oak wilt. There are wetlands and open water ponds in this area, which may limit development potential or cause certain trees to be lost. The trees are of varying diameters (8 -24 inches). The woodland's aesthetic benefits make it well- suited for single tree or cluster preservation in association with development. ' Woodland Evaluation Summary The woodlands on the Kelley Trust Property are diverse in terms of species and ' condition. There are two priority areas for woodland preservation, and the majority of the remaining wooded area has single trees or clusters of trees that are healthy and may serve valuable functions. The two woodland preservation areas are the oak savanna in ' the west - central portion of the property, and the interior region of the large oak woodland in the northeast portion of the site. The oak savanna contains large oaks (more than 24 inches to diameter), and the oak woodland contains oaks of varying diameters with ' reduced amounts of buckthorn and healthy oak, hackberry, and cherry regeneration in the understory. ' The woodlands not included in the two priority areas are generally of lower ecological quality and less sensitive to development. They contain more buckthorn of greater size, have a sparse to poorly stocked canopy, and include trees of poorer form and vigor. 1 ' 11 I Rosemount Kelley Trust Propertv AU.4R December 14, 1999 ' These woodlands have been severely degraded by natural disturbances (windstorms) and agricultural activities (grazing). Significant restoration efforts would be required to regain substantial ecological integrity in these areas. Windstorm - damaged areas lack the canopy development necessary to provide significant scenic value. In contrast, the two areas proposed for preservation consist of fairly well maintained communities with ' attractive, well - developed canopies that would be degraded if development encroaches significantly. A tree survey prior to development of the property should identify individual trees or groups of trees in this area to be protected. Other Upland Cover Types. Urban/Suburban Lawn, Landscaping, and Impervious ' Surface Cover types will increase in the Kelley Trust site under the proposed development scenario, replacing grasslands (pastures and oldfields) and cropland cover types. Most of the increases in these cover types will occur in conjunction with areas I planned for residential uses, and related land uses such as roads. Figure 5.3 (P.U.D. Concept Plan) shows the relative location of these land uses. Lakes and Wetlands. Public Water Basins and Watercourses have been identified from the DNR Protected Waters Inventory map and are shown on Figure 18 -1. Nonpublic water courses and wetlands have been identified from aerial photo interpretation, National Wetland Inventory Maps, and the City of Rosemount Comprehensive I'Vetland Management Plan (1998). The City's goal is to achieve a no- net -loss of wetlands under its Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan. Comprehensive Wetland Assessment and Management Plan. The City of Rosemount adopted a Comprehensive 6Vetland Management Plan in 1998. The City completed an inventory of all wetlands, including a functions and values assessment, indicating the quality and value of each wetland in the city. Based on this assessment wetlands have been placed in 4 classes and prioritized for management. The key elements of the management plan are requirements for a buffer zone of undisturbed vegetation around each wetland and guidelines for treatment of stormwater input to wetlands. Figure 10 -2 Natural Areas -- Quality Rankings shows the wetlands within the Kelley Trust Property and their quality rankings based on the Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan. Figure 10 -2 indicates that nine of the wetlands on the site are in the Preserve class, one is in Manage 1, ten are in Manage 2, and one is in the Utilize class. Based on the Rosemount Plan, the following is a description of the wetland classes, and the management and mitigation requirements for each: Preserve (nine wetlands) • requires a 75 -foot buffer • sediment and nutrient pretreatment required, or consider diversion of storm water 12 I Rosemount Kelley Tnrst Property AUAR December 14, 1999 ' maximum protection under state and federal law. Replacement of the wetland functions and values as assessed by the methodology in Section 8 of the City's ' plan, and replacement of the buffer in kind. Manage 1 (one wetland) ' • requires a 50 -foot buffer • sediment and nutrient pretreatment recommended • maximum protection under state and federal law. Replacement of the wetland functions and values as assessed by the methodology in Section 8 of the City's plan. I Manage 2 (ten wetlands) • requires a 30 -foot buffer • sediment treatment recommended • WCA sequencing and replacement Utilize (one wetland) • requires a 15 -foot buffer • no pretreatment of storm water • WCA sequencing and replacement flexibility Wetland Delineation on the Site. Wetland boundaries were delineated and flaaQed in the field by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. during the period of October 12 -20, 1998, using the Corps of Engineers wetlands Delineation iVanual (Envirorunental laboratory, Waterways Experiment Station, 1987). Field inspection and investigation resulted in delineation of 34 wetland basins contained partially or wholly within the property boundaries. Most of the boundary of Birger Pond was defined by locating the edge of water. All wetlands were marked in the field and located using professional land surveying methods. The former Water Resources Coordinator for the City of Rosemount reviewed this site with Westwood staff on October 19, 1998 and confirmed the accuracy of the wetland delineation. A January 11, 1999 letter from Mr. Doug Litterer, Civil Engineer for the City of Rosemount, confirmed that the delineated boundaries are acceptable for local administration of the Wetland Conservation Act. 13 t Rosemount Kelley Trust Property AUAR December 14. 1999 ' Twenty -seven of the 34 wetland basins on the site occur in Rosemount, with only 7 basins occurring in Apple Valley. There are seven different wetland types (Cowardin ' classification types 1 -7) represented on the site, with seasonally flooded basins (Type 1) the most abundant, followed by wet meadows (Type 2), and shallow open water (Type 5). Vegetation within the wetlands is variable— however, species such as reed canary grass, sedge, duckweed, and smartweed were commonly observed in many of the wetlands. Most of the wetlands are located in distinct depressions and are surrounded by pasture /meadow. Several wetlands in the northwest comer of the site are surrounded by ' oak woodland. Birger Pond was identified by locating the current edge of water on October 29 and 30, 1998. Only one area of the pond has an emergent wetland fringe. Birger Pond is artificially high due to stormwater inputs from adjacent land outside the Kelly Trust Property. The edge of Birger Pond was located in 1998, and includes a significant area ' that may not be regulated as wetland by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act and the Army Corps of Engineers. The City of Rosemount, the property owner, and the Minnesota DNR have developed an agreement establishing the normal water level of the ' pond, and allowing pumping of excess water to other ponds to the south and east, outside the Kelley Trust Property. (See Stormwater Management Discussion.) ' Description of Wetland Types within the Kelley Trust Property Type 1 Wetlands: These wetlands are seasonally flooded basins or flats. The soil is covered with water or is waterlogged during seasonal periods, but is well- drained during much of the growing season. Vegetation may vary from bottom -land hardwoods to herbaceous communities. ' Type 2 Wetlands: These are inland fresh meadows where the soil is usually without �P Y standing water during most of the growing season, but is waterlogged within at least a few inches of surface. Common vegetation includes grasses, sedges, rushes, and various broadleaved plants. ' Type 3 Wetlands: These wetlands include inland shallow fresh marshes. The soil in these wetlands is usually waterlogged early during the growing season, often covered by ' six inches or more of water. Vegetation includes grasses, bulrushes, spikerushes, and other marsh plants such as cattails, arrowheads, pickerelweeds, and smartweeds. These wetlands often border deep marshes, fill shallow lake basins, or may be seep areas on ' irrigated lands. Type 5 Wetlands: Type 5 wetlands are inland open fresh waters including shallow ' ponds and reservoirs. Water is usually less than ten feet deep, and fringed by a border of emergent wetland with similar plant species to those listed for Type 4 Wetlands. 14 Rosemount Kelley Trust Propertv AUAR December 14, 1999 ' Type 6 Wetlands: These are shrub swamps that contain vegetation such as alders, willows, and dogwoods. The soil is usually waterlogged during the growing season, and ' is often covered with as much as six inches of water. These wetlands occur mostly along sluggish streams and occasionally on flood plains. ' The Appendices includes additional tables and technical material that detail the findings of wetland delineations on the Kelley Trust Property. A discussion of wetland impacts and mitigative measures is given under item 12 (Physical Impacts) and item 18 (Water Quality /Surface Water Runoff) 1 MITIGATIVE MEASURES FOR NATURAL COMMUNITIES: The City of Rosemount has proposed goals and strategies in the Mitigation Plan to ' maintain the high quality natural communities and mitigate for losses during development on the Kelley Trust Property site. These include the following: Goal: Protect and restore the two high quality woodland areas that remain on the Kelley Trust Property. These include the oak savanna identified in the west central portion of the property, and portions of the large oak woodland in the northeast portion of the site. ' Protection and Mitigation Strategies: L 1. The developer and/or homeowner's association shall protect these areas with conservation easements or protective covenants that prohibit development, and allow only passive recreational use of these areas. ' 2. The developer and/or homeowner's association shall develop and implement P P P ' management plans that restore the quality of the native communities on these sites. ' Goal: Protect healthy individual trees and groves of trees where possible, and mitigate for any loss of trees through replanting. ' Protection and Mitigation Strategies: 1. The developer shall complete a tree preservation plan as required in the City of ' Rosemount and Apple Valley Ordinances. As a part of this plan, the developer will identify individual trees and groves of trees for protection. 2. The developer shall replace trees that are lost to development based on the requirements of the Cities' Ordinances. ' Goal: Utilize trees that are removed during development rather than burning or disposing them as waste. n 15 Preserved Trees Kelly Trust Property Rosemount, NI i nne sota - j� :- iC-1Uf 10-3 - W ObD L, NO P►ZOiECT16rl Av-�S tt ,,CES E ST" O D IN PRUfESSICN,11 5EAS'IC Trees Preserved Trees a -- .... _ ., _ I r - - - P ropoaed pl a n t l oe a ah aw' o Illu at ra to tAc anticipated character and qua otity of t r e e s s a d s h r u b s t hat be loata lied by 1 r de. elop n t team o f E a c r m o o r hr Inal ailed Dy ho meow oars. I Rosemount Kellev TrustPrope•ty AUAR December 14, 1999 II u u Protection and Mitigation Strategies: The developer shall work with the Minnesota DNR, Dakota SWCD, and other appropriate agencies to identify ways in which the trees removed during development may be put to positive use. (For example, the trees and their root balls maybe used in local stream restoration activities). Goal: Protect wetland resources in the project area to assure no net loss of these resources by avoiding and minimizing wetland impacts when feasible, and mitigating for unavoidable impacts. Protection and Mitigation Strategies: 1. The developer shall follow the requirements of the City of Rosemount and City of Apple Valley Wetland Management Plans and applicable state and federal regulations to avoid, minimize and /or mitigate for impacts to wetlands that result from development. The Cities shall allow "averaging" of buffer widths on some wetlands where this will not compromise wetland and buffer function. ( "Averaging" means that buffer widths may be reduced on one portion of a wetland, but would be enlarged on another portion of the same wetland buffer, so that the overall buffer size remains the same. "Buffer averaging" is a common provision in wetland buffer ordinances of Twin Cities Communities). Goal: Protect and maintain the quality of surface water floNvs to wetlands Protection and Mitigation Strategies: 1. The Cities shall require the use, management, and enforcement of Best Management Practices (BMP's) to control erosion and sedimentation and provide pretreatment of water discharged to wetlands during and after constriction. 2. The developer shall maintain upland areas of native Nvoodlands and grasslands, and maintain and enhance unmown buffer areas around wetlands to protect water quality and wildlife habitat. 11. Fish, Wildlife and Sensitive Resources a. Describe fish and wildlife resources on or near the site and discuss how they would be affected by the project. Describe arty measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. The description of wildlife and fish resources should be related to the habitat types depicted on the comer type maps (of item 10). Any differences in impacts between development scenarios should be highlighted in the discussion. 16 1 0 Rosemount Kellev Trust Property AUAR December 14, 1999 b. Are there any state - listed endangered, threatened, or special- concern species; rare plant communities; colonial waterbird nesting colonies; native prairie or other rare habitats; or other sensitive ecological resources on or near the site? X Yes No Fish Resources No known fishery or fish habitat resources will be affected by the proposed development. Wildlife Resources Wildlife habitat value is dependent on the composition, quality and connectivity of natural communities including woodlands, wetlands and grasslands. The highest quality natural communities remaining in the Kelley Trust Property are the higher quality woodlands and wetlands described in the preceding section on Land Cover Types. Much of the remaining land cover of the Kelley Trust Property has been altered in the past by farming and grazing. Measures that protect the diversity of these remaining high quality habitats are emphasized in the Mitigation Plan. MITIGATIVE MEASURES FOR WILDLIFE RESOURCES: Wildlife habitat value is dependent on the composition quality and connectivity of plant communities, such as woodlands and wetlands. Therefore, implementation of the strategies identified under Mitigation Measures for Natural Communities above, will also serve to protect wildlife habitat on the Kelley Trust Property as development occurs. Goal: Protect the remaining high quality habitat areas on the Kelley Trust property site as the area develops. Identify potential wildlife and recreation corridors and open space areas. Include natural community areas in these public open space areas, and use corridors to connect natural communities and protected open spaces. Protection and Mitigation Strategies: 1. The developer and Cities shall implement the strategies identified under Mitigation Measures for Natural Communities to protect the high quality wetland and upland resources and wildlife habitat that exist on the site. 2. The developer and city shall implement city park and trail plans, designing parks and trails to protect and connect natural communities and habitat areas. 3. The Cities will work with Dakota County and its Greenway planning efforts to ' identify corridors for wildlife movement between habitat areas on and off -site, and protect these corridors and buffer zones within the development or in association with recreational trail corridors. 17 I Rosemount Kelley Trust Property AUAR December 14, 1999 ' Rare, Endangered and Sensitive Resources The Minnesota DNR provided a review of its Natural Heritage Program database to ' determine if any rare plant or animal species or significant natural features are known to occur within an approximate one -mile radius of the project area. Based on this review, the DNR indicated that there are 3 know occurrences of Blanding's turtles (Enrydoidea ' blandingii), a state threatened species, in the vicinity of the project, though not within the site boundaries. The DNR noted that while there are no records of this species «ithin the project area, it is possible that turtles exist in the area if there is suitable habitat on the ' site. The DNR indicated that Blanding's turtles spend much of their time in shallow wetlands (1 -3 feet deep), but nest in open, sandy uplands up to '/z mile from the wetlands. To minimize impacts to the species, it is recommended that project design and construction activities not adversely affect water quality or natural water levels in surrounding ' wetlands. Retaining adjacent sandy uplands for nesting and providing safe travel between wetlands and uplands will further help this population to survive as habitat is fragmented. The Natural Heritage Program data summary is included in the Appendices. ' MITIGATION MEASURES FOR ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE RESOURCES: ' The mitigation plan includes strategies to protect habitat for ecologically sensitive resources that have been identify near the area proposed for development. ' Protection and Mitigation Strategies 1. The developer shall implement wetland buffer provisions of the Cities' wetland ' ordinances, to protect sandy upland habitat connected to wetlands. This shall include options for buffer averaging, as described under Mitigation INleasures for Natural Communities. ' 2. The Cities and developer shall maintain an undeveloped open space buffer on P P P P ' uplands adjacent to Birger Pond as potential Blanding's turtle habitat within the proposed City Park. ' 12. Physical Impacts on Water Resources Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration (dredging, filling, stream diversion, outfall structure, diking, impoundment) of any surface water (lake, pond, wetland, stream, drainage ditch)? X Yes _ No 18 ' Rosemount Kelley Trust Property AUAR December 14. 1999 If yes, identify the water resource to be affected and describe: the alteration, including the construction process; volumes of dredged or fill material; area ' affected; length of stream diversion; water surface area affected; timing and extent of fluctuations in water surface elevations; spoil disposal sites; and proposed mitigation to minimize impacts. ' It is anticipated that constriction of residential units and utilities on the site will impact some of the wetlands on the site and their buffer areas. Final site plans and ' grading plans will identify the wetlands that will be affected and degree of impact. MITIGATION MEASURES FOR IMPACTS ON WATER RESOURCES 1 (WETLANDS) The mitigation plan includes strategies to protect wetlands within the proposed ' development area, and mitigate for losses resulting from development activities on the site: ' Goal: Protect wetland resources in the project area to assure no net loss of these resources by avoiding and minimizing wetland impacts when feasible, and mitigating for unavoidable impacts. ' Protection and Mitigation Strategies: ' 1. The developer shall follow the requirements of the City of Rosemount and City of Apple Valley Wetland Management Plans and applicable state and federal regulations to avoid, minimize and/or mitigate for impacts to wetlands that result ' from development. The Cities shall allow "averaging" of buffer widths on some wetlands where this will not compromise wetland and buffer function. ( "Averaging" means that buffer widths may be reduced on one portion of a wetland, but would be enlarged on another portion of the same wetland buffer, so that the overall buffer size remains the same.) Goal: Protect and maintain the quality of surface water flows to wetlands Protection and Mitigation Strategies: 1. The Cities shall require the use, management, and enforcement of Best Management ' Practices (BMP's) to control erosion and sedimentation and provide pretreatment of water discharged to wetlands during and after construction. ' 2. The developer shall maintain upland areas of native woodlands and grasslands, and maintain and enhance unmown buffer areas around wetlands to protect water quality and wildlife habitat. 7 19 oz •slanal .talvm p unod uo uollvudodddv aq; fo lovdutt aqi ssnoslQ •uorlvzddodddv 2urlsrxa duv fo daqutnu 1 ?tuaad uotlniddodddv ialvm yV(g pin) •uozlvrddodddv aig fo asoddnd 'uouvdnp `(f;!juvnb 'aoinos aq; alvozpul 'sad fj ON — sad X (2uldammap 2ulpnloul) .talvnt aovftns .so punod.S fo ttollvtddodddv uv a -gnbad loafodd aqj lllAj •q Swalgodd lvuuajod dof uollvftlttu fo ztozssnoslp v qi!m 2zroly papnjoul aq pjnogs asogl fo luatussassv palrvlap a dout v 'sctollvz n tdo.tddv jvprnipul tuo.f2u111n s sad sans! jvluatuuodtnua do stro 11v1ddodddv dofvut .iof jv'lualod st adatp ft pity 'papnlout aq plltogs dons dof paou �tjo�y aqj fo luautssassv lvdauaf v `sloafodd adnl!f dq suo?lvtddodddv jvnpinzpui algtssod o1 loadsad t111,41 •passadppv aq pjnogs saodltosad dagio uo .Sutgjnsa.r slovdztr! :ittn 'paloaffv aq pinont sla tal dajvmpunodff fz ,I,aA.12 aq pjnogs slanal .talv,rtpuno.to uo slovdru? jvi11talod Ep puv uollviddodddv 1vr11 llzogv ztotivutdofuz o fzoads 'sllam dlddns dalvm mazt sa.gnba.t adv aqj f! 'molaq o pun q of loadsad gj!Al *qII 3H Jo juatujtt?daQ LIosouuijN oLp Xq pazmbaz sopoo aaauz of pauopurq put? pal>;as X11odotd oq lltm sham osogj `Juana jVgj ul •sutDaq uopotulsuoo loij? Xuadold aqj uo patalunooua aq Xuw sham pouopurgv lumpippd •saoipuaddV ;)ql ut popnlout st prooa-d SuilroS Duuog pur 11aA1 ailI jo Xdoo d •t `jsnand ut vQ1 joofoid DT uttlltm pasolo st;m glom ouo luuj pQI73oiput luautlt>?daQ juauzaD>?urW jvjuauiuoItnug XiunoD moNrG atlZ •vQn loofoid aqj uttlltm poltool Xlluouno sham,Cuv owipui jou soop Xjunoo rjoNrCj .toj xopul ilaM XjunoD s,f,an.mS lnoiDoloag EIosouuiw auj jo uoreas V •> oxe loafoid aul ut juatudolanap of asuodsa.i jnnp u ioaga.i jou op put, glmozD uotjt;lndod lt;moS of asuodsal DutoDuo s,XItD atll3o ixed v a.IE `.tanamoq `sjuauranoidcui as@gj - own snp itt palon.zasuoo aq Cla�tj Ip m .tamol ial>;m mau >? XjjruoijippV 'ZOOZ -I00Z sirOX oqj puno a UOTIVll>?Isui .ioj pauuuld Xproilt si llom mau >? `sNiom oilgnd nogj 01 sjuauzanozdurt Imuiluoo s,Xjjo atlj 3o urd r sV •sisuq Duprioz r uo sham xis Dutl>;zado Xlluouno st junouzaso 3o XIID oqj •au11 sigj Ir X1111ouj as>?zo }s mwm zo llom lt?dioiunuz lnuopippu ur jo uoijullmsui atlj a.ttnbas lou lltm niv loafoid ogljo juowdolanap lnul paj>;oiput s>?u junouzasogjo Xjio atlZ •(unaousl f1) iagwiW llama anbmy) aq; puv jlana azll fo asodnld puv uollvool atll aniff 'sllam pa111tudadun ffjsno!Aadd daq;o do , Swam mall do-4 •daqutnu jlam anbrun puv 1toRvool aq; ani2 sllam pouopuvgv doj OAT X sal; �Ella,, t fuv fo lztatuuopuvgv do tto.lvIlvlsul aril anlonul loafodd aqj ll!Al •n as(j JdIvA1 • F T I 6661 't�l daquiaoa(7 UMV A).ra o.rd 1sYJ 1101PY Junozuasod t Rosemount Kelley Trust Property AUAR December 14, 1999 ' Development of the project area will require an appropriation of groundwater, chiefly for potable water supply. The source of the supply will be the City of Rosemount's current municipal wells completed in the Jordan Aquifer. The City's current plan is to add an additional well (at a yet undetermined location) in the year 2001 to account for general population growth within the City. The new well will be Rosemount's seventh active ' well when installed. Currently, the City's wells are each capable of yields averaging 1000 gallons per minute (gpm). The most recent well installed is capable of pumping rates close to 1600 gpm. While each well may yield at least 1000 gpm, the use of each ' well is not constant, so the average daily discharge is considerably less. Currently, the wells are used on a rotating schedule, since the water demand rarely ' requires that all wells be activated at once. Until a new well is installed, development of the project area will likely only require additional pumping of the City's current wells to meet the additional demand. ' The effect of additional pumping on the groundwater system will be to lower groundwater levels in the Jordan Aquifer. The performance of the City's current wells ' indicates that the aquifer is highly permeable and able to handle the additional pumping. Therefore, while the increased pumping in the area will likely lower groundwater levels to a small degree, the aquifer is well able to provide the additional withdrawals. ' c. Will the project require connection to a public water supply? X Yes _ No If yes, identify the supply, the DNR water appropriation permit number of the supply, and the quantity to be used. Rosemount's primary source of groundwater for municipal water supply is the Jordan Aquifer system. The DNR water appropriation permit number for the supply is 766069. Any new well added in the future is expected to supply 1000 gpm on a short -term basis to ' the city. 14. Water - Related Land Use Management Districts Does any part of the project site involve a shoreland zoning district, a delineated 100 year flood plain, or a state and federally designated wild and scenic river land use district? Yes _X No If yes, identify the district and discuss the compatibility of the project with the land use restrictions of the district. Such districts should be delineated on appropriate maps and the land use restrictions applicable in those districts should be described. If any variances or deviations from these restrictions within the AUAR are envisioned, this should be discussed. 21 I Rosemount Kelley Trust Property AUAR December 14, 1999 ' 15. Water Surface Use ' Will the project change the number or type of water craft on any water body. Yes _X No ' If yes, indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss any potential overcrowding or conflicts with other users or fish and wildlife ' resources. This item need only be addressed if the AUAR area would include or adjoin recreational water bodies. 16. soils a. Approximate depth (in feet) to Groundwater: minimum _ average 100 Bedrock: minimum j0 t._ average 200 t. b. Describe the soils on the site, giving SCS classification, if known. (SCS ' interpretations and soil boring logs need not be attached.) A standard soils map covering the area should be included. ' Figure 16 -1 indicates the soils on the site. The geologic atlas indicated that the site is mainly covered by surficial deposits of till, which is composed of reddish -brown sandy ' loam. Stringers of sand and gravel may be present within this till, but generally this material is not highly permeable and does not allow high infiltration rates. The extreme eastern edge of the project area is covered with deposits of outwash, which consists mainly of sand and gravel. These materials generally allow much higher infiltration rates than till, but this area comprises less than 20% of the overall project area. The majority of the soil types indicated by the Dakota County Soil Survey to be present in the study area exhibit moderate infiltration rates. In general, the majority of soils are silty loams mixed with sandy loams. Silty loams have low -to- moderate infiltrate rates while sandy loams have moderate -to -high infiltration rates. No soils in the project area appear to have an excessively high infiltration capacity. ' 17. Erosion and Sedivnentation a. Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to be moved: acres 400 +; cubic yards 800, 000+ 22 l f Soils within Study Area SOILS ROSEMOUNT AUAR - KELLEY TRUST PROPERTY FIGURE 16 -1 Bonestroo JA An e rl + 11 Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects t: \424\424991021AUAR_FIGSAPR AUGUST,1999 150B Spencer silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 344 Quam silt loam 155C Chetek sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes 449B Crystal Lake silt loam, 1 to 8 percent slopes 155E Chetek sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes 454C Mahtomedi loamy sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes 1816 Kennebec Variant silt loam 454E Mahtomedi loamy sand, 15 to 25 percent slopes 1824 Quam silt loam, ponded 49B Antigo silt loam, 1 to 8 percent slopes 189 Auburndale silt loam 895B Kingsley - Mahtomedi- Spencer complex, 3 to 8 percent slopes 250 Kennebec silt loam 895C Kingsley - Mahtomedi- Spencer complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes ® 342B Kingsley sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 896E Kingsley - Mahtomedi complex, 15 to 25 percent slopes Water SOILS ROSEMOUNT AUAR - KELLEY TRUST PROPERTY FIGURE 16 -1 Bonestroo JA An e rl + 11 Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects t: \424\424991021AUAR_FIGSAPR AUGUST,1999 I R osemount Kelley Trust Property AUAR December 14 1999 ' b. Describe any steep slopes or highly erodable soils and identify them on the site map. Describe the erosion and sedimentation measures to be used during and ' after construction of the project. The number of acres to be graded and number of cubic yards of soil to be moved need not be given; instead, a general discussion of the likely earthmoving needs for development of the area should be given, with ' an emphasis on unusual or problem areas. In discussing mitigation measures, both the standard requirements of local ordinances and any special measures that would be added for AUAR purposes should be included. ' Steep slopes (greater than 12 percent) are indicated on Figure 17 -1. Figure 17 -2 indicates the highly erodable soils on the site. MITIGATION MEASURES FOR EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION The Mitigation Plan includes measures to prevent or minimize erosion and sedimentation as development occurs on the Kelley Trust Property site: ' Goal: Minimize erosion and sedimentation and impacts on surface water as development occurs. Protection and mitigation strategies: ' 1. The developer will identify and protect areas of existing native vegetation and minimize soil exposure to the extent possible during development. 2. The developer will use created storm water ponds as sediment basins during ' construction. 3. The developer will implement the MPCA's Best Management Practices (B-'VIP's) as the guidelines for urban erosion and sediment control, as adopted in Citv ' ordinances. The developer will work with the grading contractor to ensure that these practices are implemented. ' 4. The developer will employ city inspectors from Apple Valley, Rosemount, or the Dakota SWCD on -site, to ensure that Best Management Practices are implemented during development. ' 5. The Cities will require that the developer provide security for the performance of its obligations regarding erosion control as a requirement for grading permits. The security may consist of a bond or other security as required by city ordinances. I 23 I ►� � ., r s s-t x s i N q qg* gr �m W IPP , Ak V wig WHIL ' JIM F21VI 4 L IvIll q (��� � `-tea � - � I' Pf to ' IMF 0 IF M�WAII, A%%j 7g I INV -A ow I Ro semount Kelley Ti ist Property AUAR December 14 1999 18 . T eater Quality — Siu face {eater Runoff I a. Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after- the project. Describe methods to be used to manage andlor treat runoff. ' The existing wetlands within the Kelley Trust property are the receiving waterbodies for existing runoff. Most of these waterbodies receive direct runoff, which has not been treated by water quality ponds. Natural infiltration and biological absorption are the ' existing methods for improving water quality on the site. The wetlands on the site vary in type and quality, as discussed under Item 10. The rate and volume of surface water runoff will increase during storm events on the Kelley Trust property as additional impervious surface area is added with development. The Surface Water Management Plans for Rosemount and Apple Valley have analyzed the potential increases and adopted policies and management strategies, including use of wetlands to provide storage, creation of water quality ponds, and other management strategies. (Figure 18 -1) The Cities' storm water management policies require the following: • Provide 100 -year flood protection for all residents and structures. A freeboard of 3 feet is desirable between the established high water level and the lowest floor of an adjacent building. • Skimmers, or other outlet controls, NURP basins as a minimum, and siltation basins shall be provided in ponds located upstream of priority (Class I -IV) waterbodies and wetlands as identified in the plan. • Erosion and sediment control on all construction sites in accord with city ordinances and standards. • Use of MPCA Best Management Practices (BMP's) as the guidelines for urban erosion and sedimentation control. • Limit phosphorous levels from development areas to natural concentrations through proper sizing and design of ponds to provide for a minimum of 60 percent phosphorous removal. • In addition to providing proper ponding, new developments shall also be required to provide mitigative measures if the development results in an increase in the phosphorous concentration of downstream priority waterbodies (Class 1, II, and III). • Comply with the Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Act, and Vermillion River Watershed management plan. ' Birger Pond BP- •P514, Birger Pond (OHWL= 895.9), is proposed to have a NWL at 892.0. The City ' of Rosemount has worked with the DNR and Vermillion River WMO to develop a management plan for this basin. It is recommended that a special permit will allow the Nw'L to be set at an elevation that is two feet below the OHWL. 1 24 ■r a ■ n r n Ros emount Kelley Trust Property AUAR December 14, 1999 Birger pond has experienced elevated water levels over the last 8 -10 years due to increased runoff from watershed development and several above average years of precipitation. The only feasible outlet for this basin is to install a 10 cfs lift station and pump across the drainage divide into the City of Lakeville. This discharge rate limits the flow into the City of Lakeville and its tributary, the Vermillion River. In addition, the discharge rate, coupled with a NWL of 892.0, minimizes the flooding damage that currently exists on the adjacent property. As Lakeville is not ready to receive runoff from Rosemount for approximately five years, an intermim plan has been identified. The interim strategy is to pump Birger Pond into SPE -P2111 at a rate of 5 cfs (1/2 of its total capacity). This is based on the assumption that SPE -P2447 will not be connected to SPE- P2448. Additional assumptions are that HP -P77 (Hawkins Pond) is not pumped at the same time as Birger Pond, and the permanent outlet for pond SPE -P614 is in place. The HWL in SPE -P2111 will raise 0.6 feet: under this scenario. Full development can occur in the Birger Pond District with the interim HWL of Birger Pond rising 0.9 feet to 900.1. The drainage from Apple Valley, as proposed in their SWMP, was included in the model analyzed for Birger Pond. MITIGATIVE MEASURES FOR SURFACE WATER QUALITY The! Kelley Farm development proposes to follow the procedures and recommendations described in the Rosemount and Apple Valley Stormwater Management Plans to protect water quality, and to use some additional, innovative measures to infiltrate and manage storm water on the site. Proposed measures to protect surface water quality include the following: Goal: Protect and maintain the quality of surface waters (lakes and wetlands) within the Kelley Trust Property and downstream areas. Protection and Mitigation Strategies 1. The developer will implement the MPCA's Best Management Practices as the guidelines for erosion and sediment control. 2. The developer will implement the goals, policies, and strategies included in the Apple Valley and Rosemount Surface Water Management Plans to protect water quality. 3. The developer will use bioretention methods where appropriate on the site to store and infiltrate storm water and minimize runoff. These methods include maintaining native vegetation areas, creating wet and dry swales, infiltration basins, sand filter areas, and protection of native vegetation. 4. The developer will reduce impervious surfaces (such as street widths) where possible, and approved by the Cities, to reduce storm water runoff volumes. 25 I Ro semount Kelley Thist Property AU4R December 14. 1999 ' 5. The developer will use skimmers or other outlet controls, NURP basins as a minimum, and siltation basins on ponds located upstream of priority waterbodies and wetlands to protect water quality. ' 6. The developer will limit phosphorous levels from development areas to natural concentrations through proper sizing and design of ponds to provide for a minimum of 60 percent phosphorous removal. ' 7. The developer will implement the goals and policies of the Cities' wetland management plans to protect the water quality of wetlands in the development area. ' 8. The City of Rosemount will implement the management plan for BirQer Pond developed with the Minnesota DNR. t 19. Water Quality — Wastewaters a. Describe sources, quantities, and composition (except for normal domestic sewage) of all sanitary and industrial wastewaters produced or treated at the site. Normal domestic sewage is the only type of wastewater expected from the uses in the annexation area. The quantities and handling of the wastewater are presented in the ' Cities' Sanitary Sewer System Plans and are proposed to be fully implemented in the study area. t b. Describe any waste treatment methods to be used and give estimates of composition after treatment, or if the project involves on -site sewage si•stems, discuss the suitability of the site conditions for such systems. Identify receiving waters (including ground water) and estimate the impact of the discharge on the quality of the receiving waters. (If discharge ma affect a lake consuir - EA IV Guidelines " about whether a nutrient budget analysis is needed.) All proposed residential units will be connected with the Cities' sanitary sewer systems. ' These sanitary sewer facilities are connected to and treated at a Metropolitan regional facility, the Rosemount treatment plant. Capacity at the plant is adequate to serve the proposed development. C. If wastes will be discharged into a sewer system or pretreatment system, identf f the system and discuss the ability of the system to accept the volume and composition of the wastes. Identify any improvements, which will be necessarv. The quantities and handling of the wastewater are discussed in the City's sanitary sewer system plan. The Cities' trunk facilities are sized to handle the increase in sewage from the Kelley Trust Property P.U.D. The Metropolitan treatment facility has sufficient ' capacity to receive this additional flow as outlined in the Cities' Comprehensive Plans. I Ro semount Kellev Trust Properry AUAR December 14, 1999 ' The Cities will need to extend trunk sanitary sewer service to the Kelley Trust Property. Trunk sanitary sewer and water services are available on the east side of the site coming ' up Shannon Parkway. Services from Apple Valley will be extended to serve the western side of the site. ' 20. Groundwater -- Potential for Contamination ' a. Approximate depth (in feet) to groundtivater. 0 Hammon; 100 average ' The minimum depth presented likely represents locally perched conditions. The regional water table level appears to range from approximately 75 to 150 feet below grade. The average depth presented was derived using information ' obtained from the Dakota County Geologic Atlas (Minnesota Geological Survey, 1990). The water table elevation in the project area (850 -875 feet above sea level) was subtracted from the land elevations (950 -1 000 feet above sea level) as found on the USGS 7.5' Topographic Quadrangle. b. Describe any of the following hazards to groundwater and also identify them on the site map: sinkholes, shallow limestone formations /karst conditions; soils with high infiltration rates, abandoned or unused wells. Describe measures to avoid or minimize environmental problems due to ' any of these hazards. Depth to bedrock in the project area ranges between 50 -100 feet in the extreme Nvestem area of the development to an average of 200 feet in the remainder of the project area, as indicated in the geologic atlas. Sinkholes were not shown by the geologic atlas to be present in the vicinity of the study area. ' The geologic atlas indicated that the site is mainly covered by surfrcial deposits of till, which is composed of reddish -brown sandy loam. Stringers of sand and gravel may be present within this till, but generaWy this material is not highly permeable and does not allow high infiltration rates. The extreme eastern edge of the project area is covered with deposits of outwash, which consists mainly of sand and gravel. These materials generally ' much higher infiltration rates than till, but this area comprises less than 20 ° ,' 0 of the overall project area. The majority of the soil types indicated by the Dakota County Soil Survey to be present in the study area exhibit moderate infiltration rates. In general, the majority of soils are silty loams mixed with sandy loams. Silty loams have low -to- moderate infiltrate rates while sandy loams have moderate -to -high infiltration rates. No soils in the project area appear to have an excessively high infiltration capacity. 1 27 Rosemount Kellev Trust Propern AUAR December 14. 1999 A second plate located in the geologic atlas indicates the Prairie Du Chien - Jordan Aquifer's overall sensitivity to pollution. This is the aquifer from which the City of Rosemount obtains its water supply for municipal use. The map indicating the aquifer's sensitivity is based on several assumptions, and is used as a general gauge of the aquifer's overall susceptibility to pollution based on the travel time of pollutants from a surface source to the aquifer itself. A shorter anticipated time of travel translates into a higher sensitivity rating for aquifer. The western half of the project area is rated as Moderate to Low- Moderate in sensitivity. This means that a pollutant would likely take several years to several decades before it reached the aquifer. The eastern half of the site is also rated as Moderate in sensitivity, except for the extreme eastern area (the same area where outwash deposits are located), where the sensitivity is rated as High. High sensitivity means that a pollutant would take weeks to years to reach the aquifer. One abandoned or unused wells has been identified within the project area, #P.I.D. #34- 01910- 011 -25, Township 115, Range 19, Sectionl9. The well was closed in August, 1994. A copy of the Well and Boring Sealing Record is included in the appendix. Historically, the area does not appear to have been significantly developed. The possibility still exists that additional abandoned wells are located within the project area, however. Should an unsealed well to found during construction activities, it will need to be sealed and abandoned according to codes as required by the Minnesota Department of Health. C. Identify any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or present on the project site and identify measures to be used to prevent them from contaminating groundwater. Information was compiled through the review of government databases. Databases of existing hazardous waste generators, registered aboveground and underground storage tank sites, and known soil or groundwater contamination sites were queried by Environmental Data Resource, Incorporated (EDR) to determine whether any are located in the study area. The report by EDR, dated September 3, 1999, did not indicate the presence of any of these potential concerns within the study area. The list of "unmappable sites ", contained in the EDR report orphan site summary, was reviewed. Based on the review of local maps, these sites do not appear to be located within the study area. It is possible that USTs or ASTs for the storage of petroleum products may have been located at the farmsteads located within the study area in the past. If contamination is discovered during the course of development, the developer will be required to address the situation, according to Minnesota Pollution Control Agency rules. Neither commercial nor industrial development is planned for the study area. Thus, bulk quantities of petroleum or hazardous substances are not likely to be used, other than during construction, within the study area under the proposed development plan. 28 n 1 F Ro semount Kelley Trust Property .4 UAR December 14, 1999 21. Solid Wastes; Hazardous Wastes; Storage Tanks a. Describe the types, amounts, and compositions of solid or haardous wastes to be generated, including animal manures, sludge and ashes. Identify the method and location of disposal. For projects generating municipal solid waste indicate if there will be a source separation plan; list type(s) and how the project will be modified to allow recycling. Waste to be generated by the proposed development is anticipated to consist primarily of household waste. As is currently the case in Rosemount and Apple Valley, solid waste will be collected weekly by a licensed hauler and disposed of at a licensed landfill. Curbside collection of materials for recycling will also be available in the study area. Using statistical information provided by Dakota County and the development scenario proposed for the study area, an estimate of total municipal solid waste generated under existing conditions and at build -out was prepared. In addition, volumes of existing and predicted recycling and source separation programs were calculated. The following statistics were provided by Dakota County, or were derived using statistical information from the County, for the cities of Rosemount and Apple Valley. According to staff at Dakota County Environmental Management, it is difficult to measure waste generated and recycling activities for specific cities in the county because most cities have a large number of licensed haulers. However, two of the cities in Dakota County use only one hauler - Hastings and Farmington. Hastings is believed to fall somewhere in the middle range, in terms of recycling participation, for Dakota County cities. Therefore, statistics known to apply to this city were applied, at the recommendation of Dakota County staff, to the proposed development. For residential waste generation, a statistic from Washington County was used, as suggested b% Dakota County Staff. Persons per household: Residential waste generation: Waste generation per household: Residential recycling, curbside: Residential recycling per household Residential recycling, drop -off: I] 3.00 persons/household 2.62 lbs /person/day 7.86 lbs /day 0.09 tons /person/year 0.27 tons /year 0.02 tons /person/year Based on these statistics, calculations were performed to estimate the current waste generated and recycled within the study area under the existing land use and also to predict the waste that would be produced and recycled under the development scenario under consideration for the area. 29 Ci 1i Rosemount Kelley Trust Property AUAR December 14, 1999 Existing land uses in the study area consist of agricultural and undeveloped areas. Future land uses designated for the study area include low density residential, parkland, and open space. Commercial and industrial developments are not proposed within the study area and do not currently exist within the area. Because the property is undeveloped or has been used agriculturally, current waste generation is assumed to be minimal. Under the scenario currently proposed, approximately 1,153 dwelling units will be constructed in the Rosemount portion of the project and 56 dwelling units will be constructed in the Apple Valley portion of the development. In Rosemount, approximately two- thirds of the units will be detached; approximately one -third will be attached. In Apple Valley, 50 of the units will be attached and 6 units will be detached. Total units proposed is 1,209. Non - residential development, other than parkland, is not proposed for the study area. Therefore, for the purposes of this study, non - residential waste generation under both the existing and proposed land uses of the study area is assumed to be zero. Estimations for the total and net (after recycling) solid waste generated under the existing and proposed conditions are provided in the table below. Table 21.1 Solid Waste Generation Source Units Under Units Under Proposed Existing Development Scenario Land Use Residential 0 households 0 tons /year 1,209 1,844.7 tons /year households Non- 0 employees 0 tons /year 0 employees 0 tons /year Residential Total Waste 0 tons /year 1,844.7 tons /year Generated Net Waste 0 tons /year 1,420.3 tons /year Generated * after recycling Of the recycled residential solid waste in Rosemount and Apple Valley, it is estimated that approximately 79% is from curbside pickup, while 21 % is from drop off sites. It should be noted that items recycled at drop -off sites may come from outside the city limits. Therefore, drop -off estimates may contain a larger margin of error than the estimates generated for curbside recycling. The table below presents estimations for existing and predicted recycling. 30 1� R osemount Kelley Trust Propertv AUAR December 14, 1999 Table 21.2 Recycling Source Units Under Units Under Proposed Existing Development Scenario Land Use Residential 0 households 0 tons /year 1,209 424.4 tons /year households Non- 0 employees 0 tons /year 0 employees 0 tons /year Residential � Total 0 tons/ ear 424.4 tons/ ear b. Indicate the number, location, size, and use of any above or below g round tanks to be used for storage of petroleum products or other materials (except water). Information obtained from Environmental Data Resources, Incorporated (EDR) was used to assess the presence of registered underground and aboveground storage tanks (USTs and ASTS) and hazardous waste generators currently existing within the study area. USTS, ASTS, and hazardous waste generators were not identified within the study area. Neither commercial nor industrial development is proposed for the study area. Therefore, permanent storage tanks for petroleum and/or hazardous materials associated with these types of land uses (gas stations, manufacturing facilities, etc.) are not anticipated to be located within the study area under the proposed development plan. However, it is likely that portable storage tanks of fuel for construction vehicles and machinery may be temporarily located in various areas of the study area during constriction activities. For the purpose of minimizing impact due to potential spills, the re- fueling of vehicles and machinery will be conducted away from sensitive areas. ' 22. Traffic ' Parking spaces added _0 Existing Spaces (if project involves expansion) 0 Estimated total Average Daily Traffic (ADT) generated: J j 0 Estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated (if known) and its timing: P.M. Peak Hour: 565 trips in: 315 trips out For each affected road indicate the AD and the directional distribution of traffic with and without the project. Provide an estimate of the impact on traffic congestion on the affected roads and describe any traffic improventents, which will be necessary. 31 1 R osemount Kelley Trust Property AUAR December 14. 1999 ' The sections that follow will provide a discussion of the area roadway system, estimates of future volumes, and an analysis of the ability of the existing and proposed roadway system to accommodate the future volumes. This report and its findings are intended to serve as an aid in the decision making process with regard to the proposed roadway system for the development. The site location is shown on Figure 1. ' AREA ROADWAY SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS The roadway system within the vicinity of the Kelley Trust Property consists of the full functional ranges of principal arterial to local streets. A reconnaissance of the area roadway system was completed in order to view traffic operations and to record traffic lanes and traffic controls in the immediate site vicinity. The area roadway system is ' shown on Figure 22 -1. The available traffic lanes and intersection traffic controls are shown on Figure 22 -2. The functional classification of the roadways in the project area vicinity includes principal arterials, minor arterials, and collectors. The functional classification of area roadways, as depicted on the Dakota County plan, is shown on Figure 22 -3. TABLE 22 -1 DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT LAND USES Land Use Housin T e Number of Dwelling Units Residential Estate Homes 89 Residential Classic Suburban Classic Custom Traditional 558 Residential Cottage Homes 166 Residential Lifestyle Villas - Townhome Style 36 Residential Twinhomes 48 Residential Townhomes; Coach Homes 212 Residential Senior Housing 100 Total 1,209 Existing traffic volume data was obtained from Minnesota Department of Transportation traffic flow maps and from Dakota County and City sources. The daily traffic volume information is shown on Figure 22 -4. PF:OPOSED DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT The proposed development of the Kelley Trust Property consists of residential land uses and parks /open space areas. The residential land uses consist of a variety of single family and townhomes, plus a senior citizen category. The residential land use breakdown, as presently proposed, is provided on Table 1. The land use concept plan provides a total of 1,209 dwelling units. 32 ' EXISTING ROADWAY PROPOSED KELLEY TRUST AREA ROADWAYS FIGURE 22 -1 A Bonestroo I . Rosene STUDY AREA AND 24/42499102/42499102F2 Anderlik & Associates ' ROADWAY SYSTEM Engineers & Architects LEGEND KELLEY TRUST PROPERTY Z � Q O �i 4. L C. S.A. h �B 4L— 2L ;/cAN 0.5'E�YS l�D. 4. L Z 2L H 2L p I 2L O 2L 2L i 2L 2L —�� 4L co N, EIV SARA TH 4L H Z 4L T 140M7 ST H .Ti 4L 4L Q L 21- H 2L H Z 14Sfh ST. L EGEND 4L 2L ® ' I TRAFFIC SIGNAL H STOP SIGN 2L 2 LANE ROADWAY 4L 4 LANE ROADWAY — PROPOSED PROJECT ROADWAYS FIGURE 22 -2 EXISTING LANES /TRAFFIC CONTROL (not to scale) 2L ©I E© /424/42499102/42499102F3 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects 2L (plus center left turn lane) Source: Dakota County FIGURE 22 -3 ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION /424/42499102/42499102F4 N If i If Ar I Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects ' ✓ TR � 14011; ST. Z it L EGEND PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL (I 14Sfh Sr. �• MINOR ARTERIAL = COLLECTOR �i Source: Dakota County FIGURE 22 -3 ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION /424/42499102/42499102F4 N If i If Ar I Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects I R osemount Kellev Trust Property AUAR December 14, 1999 DEVELOPMENT GENERATED TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS This report chapter will provide data with regard to the vehicle trip estimates of the land use proposal, directional distribution assumptions of the project generated traffic, and assignment of the generated trips to the existing and assumed area roadway system. Project Generated Traffic The estimate of vehicle trips generated by the proposed land uses are prepared using land use trip rates that were utilized in preparing the Dakota County future volume projections. The vehicular trip estimates have been calculated and are contained on Table 2. I TABLE 22.2 ' KELLEY TRUST PROPERTY — DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUME ESTIMATES ' Dwelling Units The estimates of trip distribution of the traffic generated by the project development and ' the assignment of the estimated vehicle trips have been made to the area roadway system. These estimates assumed a completed development and the project roadway system completed as proposed. The project development trips are shown on Figures 6 -8. The ' trips generated on a daily basis are on Figure 22 -5. The morning peak hour volume estimates are shown on Figure 22 -6 and the afternoon peak hour estimates are on Figure 22. -7. 36 Estimated Traffic Volumes Land Use Number of Units A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Daily IN OUT IN OUT (2 -Way) Residential — SF Estates Homes 89 DU 15 45 55 25 775 Residential — SF Classic Suburban, Custom, Traditional 558 DU 90 275 305 175 4,575 Residential — SF Cottage Homes, Lifestyle Villas 202 DU 30 95 105 60 1,575 Residential — Townhome, Twin Home, Coach Home 260 DU 20 70 85 45 1,405 Senior Housing 100 DU 10 15 15 10 220 0 Totals 165 515 565 315 8,550 ' Dwelling Units The estimates of trip distribution of the traffic generated by the project development and ' the assignment of the estimated vehicle trips have been made to the area roadway system. These estimates assumed a completed development and the project roadway system completed as proposed. The project development trips are shown on Figures 6 -8. The ' trips generated on a daily basis are on Figure 22 -5. The morning peak hour volume estimates are shown on Figure 22 -6 and the afternoon peak hour estimates are on Figure 22. -7. 36 7 I� Source: 1996,1997 MnDot flow maps, county, city data FIGURE 22 -4 EXI;>TING AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES /424/42499102/42499102x5 Bonestroo c� Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects I R osemount Kellev Trust Property AUAR December 14, 1999 ' FUTURE VOLUME PROJECTIONS The future traffic volume on roadways in the area of the Kellev Trust project consist of ' existing (background) traffic, project - generated traffic, and traffic growth caused by other regional area development. Dakota County has prepared 20 -year traffic projections for roadways in the vicinity of the site. These 20 -year projections are based upon various land use assumptions throughout the county. The area of the Kelley Trust project was assumed, in the Dakota County projections, as a residential area that, overall, would have ' a density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre. The concept land use plan. as presented, contains an overall net density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre. It can be stated that the land uses assumed for the Dakota County projections are very similar to those being proposed for ' development. The 20 -year projections for the area roadway system are contained on Figure 22 -8. These volumes are average daily traffic projections. The volumes are a result of Dakota County projections plus some adjustments due to the extension of ' Connemara Trail to TH 3. ROADWAY SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ' The analysis of the area roadways within the vicinity of the project consist of an evaluation of the volumes and capacities of those roadways. Roadways that will be most ' affected by the project include the following: • Connemara Trail (140`" Street) ' 0 Shannon Parkway • Diamond Path • Pilot Knob Road • McAndrews Road The Metropolitan Council Transportation Policy Plan utilizes capacity assumptions for evaluation and development of highway alternatives. These (generalized capacity values for divided and undivided arterials are as follows: Undivided Arterial — 600 to 900 vehicles per lane per hour Divided Arterial — 700 to 1,000 vehicles per lane per hour The daily volume of traffic that can be accommodated by various types of roadway facilities depends upon numerous factors. These factors include such items as directional split of traffic during peak hours, intersecting roadway volumes, intersection turning movement patterns, roadway and intersection geometry, traffic controls, access controls, and truck/bus traffic. 38 1 �1 5 FIGURE 22 -5 JA Bonestroo 1 o Rosene DEVELOPMENT GENERATED /424/424991C2/42499102F6 Anderlik & " Associates ' DAILY TRIPS Engineers & Architects FIGURE 22 -6 DEVELOPMENT GENERATED ' A.M. PEAK HOUR VOLUMES /424/42499102/42499102F7 Bonestroo Rosene 0 Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects FIGURE 22 -7 DEVELOPMENT GENERATED ' P3 PEAK HOUR VOLUMES /424/42499102/42499102F8 Bonestroo Rosene 0 Anderlik & Asscciates Engineers & Architects r Source: Dakota County cnd St;:dy adjustments FIGURE 22 -8 caused by Connemara extension. YEAR 2020 AVERAGE /424/ 42499102/42499102F9 DAILY TRAFFIC Bonestroo J A Rosene Anderlik & Asscciates Engineers & Architects I 1 ,osentount Kellev Trust Property 4U4R December 14, 1999 ' Using typical conditions, the following suggests the daily capacity of various types of cross- sections: ' Two Lane Urban Street 8,000 to 9,000 vehicles Daily Three Lane Urban Street 14,000 to 17,000 vehicles Type Four Lane Undivided 18,000 to 20,000 vehicles ' Four Lane Divided with Turn Lanes 35,000 to 38,000 vehicles ' It should be noted that the two -lane urban street daily values do not reflect a two -lane local residential roadway, but a facility that is a collector or arterial type roadway. ' The daily volume projections for the roadways in the vicinity of the project compared to the daily planning capacity of the roadways are provided in Table 3, which follov. TABLE 22 -3 ROADWAY VOLUME /CAPACITY COMPARISONS I I The roadway capacities in the vicinity of the project will, with the exception of McAndrews Road, be sufficient to accommodate the projected volumes. McAndrews Road two -lane segment will need to be improved to four lanes sometime in the future to accommodate the expected 17,000 daily volume. The trips ' generated by the project, expected to use McAndrews Road, are approximately 400 per day, which is a minimal impact. ' Connemara Trail, between Diamond Path and TH 3 will have daily volumes estimated to range from 4,000 to 8,700 vehicles per day. This roadway segment is a four -lane undivided collector and the proposed extension to TH 3 should also be built to the same ' function and cross - section. A signal may be required in the future at this intersection when it is warranted by traffic counts. MNDOT will probably require that the current ' Dodd Boulevard access to TH3 be closed is Connemara Trail is extended to TH3. This could be an improvement, since currently TH3 intersects Dodd Road at an angle. 43 Projected Daily Daily OvftWnder R.oadwav Type Volume Capacity capacity Connemara Trail 4 Lane Collector 8,200 18,000 tinder Shannon Parkway (South of Connemara ) 4 Lane Collector 5,000 18,000 under Shannon Parkway (North of Connemara) 2 Lane Collector 4,000 8.000 Under Diamond Path (North of Connemara) Diamond Path 4 Lane Collector (with (South of Connemara ) turn lanes) 13,000 24,000 Under M:cAnderws Road 2 Lane Arterial 17,000 9,000 1 Over 4 Lane Arterial (with Pilot Knob Road rum lanes) 24.000 35,000 Under The roadway capacities in the vicinity of the project will, with the exception of McAndrews Road, be sufficient to accommodate the projected volumes. McAndrews Road two -lane segment will need to be improved to four lanes sometime in the future to accommodate the expected 17,000 daily volume. The trips ' generated by the project, expected to use McAndrews Road, are approximately 400 per day, which is a minimal impact. ' Connemara Trail, between Diamond Path and TH 3 will have daily volumes estimated to range from 4,000 to 8,700 vehicles per day. This roadway segment is a four -lane undivided collector and the proposed extension to TH 3 should also be built to the same ' function and cross - section. A signal may be required in the future at this intersection when it is warranted by traffic counts. MNDOT will probably require that the current ' Dodd Boulevard access to TH3 be closed is Connemara Trail is extended to TH3. This could be an improvement, since currently TH3 intersects Dodd Road at an angle. 43 I Rosemount Kellev Trust Property AUAR December 14. 1999 ' The segment of Diamond Path between Pilot Knob Road and CSAH 38. a collector road. laas an estimated 4,000 vehicles per day at the present time. The development will add an additional 400 daily vehicles at project build -out. The facility can handle the additional trips. Residents along this section of Diamond Path have expressed concerns about existing traffic volumes on this roadway. It is recommended that re- timing of the signals ' along Pilot Knob at Diamond Path and at CSAH 38 be considered by Dakota County to make this segment of Diamond Path less attractive as a short cut, and thereby reduce traffic volumes. ' The segment of Diamond Path from Connemara Trail to Pilot Knob is on the Dakota County system for a future 4 -lane facility, but is not in the present 5 -year plan for ' improvement. The segment is indicated as a future four -lane facility and the County will protect future right -of -way needs as projects are platted. ' , >hannon Parkway, which has a two -lane cross - section through the project area. will be able to accommodate the future volumes with this two -lane segment. ' The proposed east -west internal project road will not experience volumes that will require the roadway to have more than one traffic lane in each direction. ' Development generated trips that will use the nearby minor arterial, TH 3, and principal arterial, CSAH 42, have been included in the Dakota County projections. Therefore, no adjustment to those volumes is required. It is estimated that less than 1,000 vehicles ' generated by the project will use TH 3 and that approximately 2,000 to 2,800 daily trips will use CSAH 42. The project will not have a significant impact upon the regional roadway system. ' The primary intersection traffic control issues that will occur as development is built will consist of when, and if, signalization of the Connemara Trail all Nay stop t intersections with Diamond Path and with Shannon Parkway %will be required. These intersections will have to be monitored periodically to determine if (or when) traffic signal warrants are met. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MITIGATION FOR ' T'RAFFIC The data and analyses in this study allows for the following conclusions to be drawn: • The concept development plan will generate an estimated daily traffic volume of 8,550. ' • The surrounding area roadway system has sufficient capacity to accommodate the estimated traffic generated by the development. ' Goal: Manage automobile traffic to safely accommodate development planned for the Kelley Trust Property. 44 I R osemount Kellev Ti ist Property AUAR December 14. 1999 ' Protection and Mitigation Strategies: 1. The year 2020 volume projections by Dakota County indicate that McAndrews Road, 1 north of the site, will need to be improved from two lanes to four lanes in order to accommodate the future volumes. The project - generated traffic has a very minimal impact on McAndrews Road. 2. Connemara Trail should be extended from its present terminus just east of Shannon Parkway to connect with TH 3. This extension should be a four -lane facility. The extension should be a collector type roadway. ' 3. At some time in the future, the intersection of Diamond Path with Connemara Trial and the intersection of Shannon Parkway may warrant change in traffic control. The existing all -way stop control at both of these locations may warrant traffic signals in the future. 4. Transit service does not exist in the immediate site vicinity. Transit within the site vicinity would be beneficial and help to reduce vehicle trips. 5. Connemara Trial should be extended from its present terminus east of Shannon Parkway to TH 3. This should be a four -lane collector street. Access control should ' be given careful attention along Connemara Trail. 6. All other project roadways require two traffic lanes. Decisions as to whether parking or on- street bike lanes are required should be made during the plan approval process. ' On- street or off -road trails are desirable and should be a part of the plan. 7. Efforts to determine if transit service can be made available in the site area should be commenced. ' 8. The intersection of Diamond Path with Connemara Trail and the intersection of Connemara Trail with Shannon Parkway should be monitored periodically to determine if volumes warrant the installation of traffic signal control. 9. Re- timing of traffic signals at the intersection of Pilot Knob with Diamond Path and with CSAH 38 should be investigated with Dakota County to limit use of Diamond Path between CSAH 38 and Pilot Knob and reduce existing traffic volumes. ' 10. Potentially effective traffic calming measures that should be considered in the final design of Connemara Trail include the following: modifications in roadway curvature, landscaping, and narrowing lanes (to 11 feet). An analysis of options is ' included in Appendix H. 1 23. Vehicle- Related Air Emissions ' Provide an estimate of the effect of the project's traffic generation on air quality, including carbon monoxide levels. Discus the effect of traffic improi�ements or other mitigation measures on air quality impacts. (If the project involves 500 or ' more parking spaces, consult "EAW Guidelines" about whether a detailed air quality analysis is needed.) 45 ' R osemount Kelley Trust Propertv .4 U14 December 14, 1999 ' Carbon monoxide (CO) levels near congested intersections can cause violations of Minnesota ambient standards, which are: ' • 1 -hour average: 30 parts per million (ppm); • 8 -hour average: 9 ppm. ' A traffic study completed for this AUAR has concluded that intersections near the proposed development will remain below capacity (operating at level of service C ' or better) with the additional traffic expected to be generated by the development. The lack of congestion near intersections assumes that impacts on carbon monoxide levels from the traffic will be minimal. ' Supporting documentation for the analysis is provided in the Appendices. ' MITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR VEHICLE - RELATED AIR EMISSIONS Protection Strategies: 1. The State of Minnesota should enforce existing Air Quality Standards to regulate emissions in the development area. L74. Stationary Source Air Emissions 1 Will the project involve any stationary sources of air emissions (such as boilers or exhaust stacks)? Yes X No ' If yes, describe the sources, quantities, and composition of the emissions; the proposed air pollution control devices; the quantities and composition of the emissions after treatment; and the effects on air quality. This item is not I applicable to an AUAR. Any stationary air emission source large enough to merit environmental review requires individual review. G S. Dust, Odors, Noise Will the project generate dust, odors, or noise during construction and /or operation? X Yes _ No If yes, describe the sources, characteristics, duration, and quantities or intensity, and any proposed measures to mitigate adverse impacts. Also identify the locations of sensitive receptors in the vicinity and estimate the impacts on these receptors. 46 I R osemount Kellen Trust Property A UAR December 14. 1999 ' Motor vehicle traffic has been identified as the primary potential noise source within the study area. The traffic noise monitoring and modeling analysis for the proposed Kelly Trust PUD in the City of Rosemount has evaluated the potential for significant air quality impacts from traffic related to the proposed development. The study demonstrates the fallowing: • The noise analysis predicts that noise impacts from traffic generated by the proposed development will be 3 dBA or less at residential locations near roadways serving - the ' development. • A traffic study conducted by Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc (BRA) ' has concluded that intersections near the proposed development will remain below capacity (operating at level of service C or better) with the additional traffic expected to be generated by the development. The lack of congestion near intersections assures that impacts on carbon monoxide levels from the traffic will be minimal. A. Minnesota Noise Standards Minnesota Statutes, Section 116.07, Subd. 2a, exempt noise from city and county roads from the requirements of Minnesota noise riles unless full control of access to the road has been acquired. The standards are presented here for comparison purposes only. Minnesota Rules Chapter 7030 provide the Minnesota standards for noise. These ' standards describe the limiting levels of sound established on the basis of present knowledge for the preservation of health and welfare. These standards are designed to be consistent with sleep, speech, annoyance, and hearing conservation requirements for ' receivers within areas grouped according to land use activities. The Minnesota standards are as follows: 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM Lio L ;o Lio L; NAC -1 (Residential) 65 60 55 50 NAC -2 (Commercial) 70 65 70 65 NAC -3 (Industrial) 80 75 80 75 Lio means the sound level, which is exceeded for 10 percent of the time for a one -hour period. L;o means the sound level, which is exceeded 50 percent of the time for a one - hour period. Sound levels are expressed in dB(A). A dB(A) is a unit of sound level expressed in decibels and weighted for the purpose of determining the human response to sound. 47 I R osemount Kelley Trust Property A U. 4 R December 14. 1999 I B. Noise Monitoring Results AS part of the noise analysis study, SBP Associates, Inc. conducted noise monitoring at two locations along the major project area roadways, Diamond Path Road west of the site and Trunk Highway 3 east of the site. Monitoring locations are shown in Figure 1. The purpose of the monitoring was to identify existing noise levels and to calibrate the modeling analysis. 17 1 u Results of the monitoring are as follows: Monitoring Lio Lso Location M1 68 dBA 61.5 dBA M2 69 dBA 64 dBA A. detailed graphical representation of all monitoring results is provided in Appendix A. C. Minnoise Model The Minnoise model is a modified (modified by the Minnesota Department of Transportation) version of the Federal Highway Administration's Optima/Stamina model that is used to predict noise levels from highway projects and to assist with the development of noise barriers. D. Model Assumptions Noise level predictions were based on the following data and assumptions: • Traffic noise levels were predicted based on constant operating speeds of 50 miles per hour on South Robert Street, 45 miles per hour on Diamond Path Road, and 35 miles per hour on all other local streets. • The noise analysis was completed for the peak day time hour. • Traffic data for the study was generated by BRA and is provided in Appendix B. Peak hour traffic levels were estimated at 10 percent of average daily traffic. • The noise modeling analysis assumed that 0.8 percent of the vehicles were heavy trucks (three or more axles), and 1.4 percent of the vehicles were medium trucks (two axles, six wheels). • The analysis assumed acoustically soft ground cover between the roadway and all receiver locations (alpha = 0.5). • Atmospheric effects on noise levels were ignored. • Noise levels were predicted at 7 receiver sites, which are shown in Figure 1. 48 I R osemount Kellev Trust ProDerty AUAR December 14. 1999 ' E. Noise Receiver Locations ' Seven noise receiver locations were chosen for this analysis. The receiver locations are shown in the attached Figure 1. Receivers R1, R5, R6, and R7 are located in existing residential neighborhoods. Receivers R2, R3, and R4 are located in proposed residential areas in the new development. All receivers are located 100 feet from the centerline of the adjacent roadway. ' F. Model Results Model results for the 2020 build alternative are provided in Table 1. Table 2 presents a ' comparison of modeled 2020 noise levels at receivers in existing neighborhoods with and without the proposed development. Complete model output files are provided as Appendix C. Table 1 ' Kelly Trust Property Development 2020 Post - Development Modeled Noise Levels (dBA) Recep L I o L R1 59 51 R2 54 43 R3 52 41 R4 58 50 R5 67 60 R6 62 55 R7 60 52 Table 2 Kelly Trust Property Development ' 2020 Build and No -Build Modeled Noise Level (dBA) Comparison fl �I 49 Build No -Build . Chanae Receptor LIo I L; Lio L Llo L;o R1 59 51 57 48 +2 +3 R5 67 60 66 60 +1 <1 R6 62 55 60 52 +2 +, R7 60 52 59 50 +1 T2 49 I R osemount Kellev Trust Property .a U4R December 14, 1999 ' The largest predicted noise level increases are at Receptors R1 and R3, where predicted L 1 0 increases are 2 dBA and predicted L;o increases are 3 dBA. For comparison, if other ' factors remain constant, doubling of traffic levels results in an increased noise level of 3 dBA, or an increase of average traffic speed of 10 mph will also result in a 3 dBA increase. Variations in pavement type can cause actual post - construction noise levels that ' are several decibels lower or higher than those projected by the model. Modeled noise levels at these locations are below the Minnesota davtiine standards for ' residential areas (L10 = 65 dBA, L;o = 60 dBA). Modeled noise levels at receptor R5 are just above the Minnesota daytime standard with and without the development. ' MITIGATION MEASURES FOR DUST, ODORS AND NOISE Protection Strategies: ' 1. The developer should implement best management practices to minimize dust during and after construction of developments and infrastructure on the Kelley ' Trust Property. 2. The Cities of Rosemount and Apple Valley should regulate hours when ' construction may occur to control construction noise. The developer should construct noise berms if needed to control noise associated with road construction and construction traffic. 26. Sensitive Resources Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site: ' a. archaeological, historical, or architectural resources? Yes X No ' The Minnesota Historical Society State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) was contacted regarding the presence of archaeological, historical, or architectural resources at or in the vicinity of the study area. According to the response (see attachment) ' received from SHPO, dated November 25, 1998, archaeological properties, or those properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places are not known or suspected to be present in the study area. ' b. prime or unique farmlands? Yes X No ' C. designated parks, recreation areas, or trails? X Yes No An existing city park is included within the proposed development area, immediately east ' and south of the elementary school. The park will not be impacted by the proposed development. 50 I R osemount Kellev Tnrst Property AUAR December 14, 1999 ' Additional parks and open space are proposed in the P.U.D. concept plan. These include a city park adjacent to Birger Pond, with a connection to a proposed regional trail. d. scenic views and vistas? X Yes No The City of Rosemount and residents in the area have noted that scenic views and vistas exist in the proposed development area. Those identified include the following: 1) views fi-om Shannon Parkway looking to the north from the existing development south of the Kelley Trust property; 2) views from the highest land on the site looking toward Birger ' Pond, and 3) views from the homes to the north of the site looking toward the south. The proposed development may affect these views by removal of trees and conversion of open space to residential land uses. The proposed development will employ the following strategies to avoid, minimize or mitigate for these impacts to scenic views and vistas: MITIGATION MEASURES FOR SCENIC VIEWS AND VISTAS ' Protection and Mitigation Strategies: 1. The developer shall preserve individual trees or groups of trees, particularly along Shannon Parkway and along the northern boundary of the Kelley Trust Property, and require replanting of trees lost to development based on the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance to protect and restore views along the Parkway and from residential areas to the north. 2. The developer shall preserve and restore the oak savanna area in the west- central ' portion of the site and its view connections to Birger Pond to protect views in this area. ' e. other unique resources? Yes X No ' f. If any items are answered Yes, describe the resource and identify any impacts on the resource due to the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. ' 27. Adverse Visual Impacts Will the project create adverse visual impacts? (E.ramples include: glare from intense lights; lights visible in wilderness areas; and large visible plumes from cooling towers or exhaust stacks.) Yes X 1Vo If any non - routine visual impacts would occur from the anticipated development ' covered by the MUSA review, this should be discussed here along with appropriate mitigation. 51 ' Ro semount Kellev Trust Property AUAR December 14, 1999 ' No unusual development is expected in the Annexation Area that would create adverse visual impacts. 28. Compatibility with Plans ' Is the project subject to an adopted local comprehensive land use plan or any other applicable land use, water, or resource management plan of a local, ' regional, state or federal agency? _ Yes No ' If yes, identify the applicable plan(s), discuss the compatibility of the project with the provisions of the plan(s), and explain how any conflicts between the project and the plans) will be resolved. If no, explain. The AUAR must include a statement of certification from the RGU that its comprehensive plan complies with the requirements set out at 4410.3610, subpart 1. The AUAR document should discuss the proposed AUAR area development in ' the context of the comprehensive plan. If this has not been done as a part of the responses to items 6, 9, 19, 22, and others, if must be addressed here; a brief synopsis should b presented here if the material has been presented in detail under other items. Necessary amendments to comprehensive plan elements to ' allow for any of the development scenarios should be noted. If there are ally management plans of any other local, state, or federal agencies applicable to the AUAR area, the document must discuss the compatibility of the plan with the various development scenarios studied, with emphasis on any incompatible elements. ' The local comprehensive plans applicable to the review of the project include the City of Rosemount 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update and the Apple Valley ' Comprehensive Guide Plan — 2020 Update. The RGU certification of comprehensive plan is included in the Appendices. Both of these plans have been submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review. Completion of the reviews and ' approval are expected by early 2000. Other documents applicable to the review of the project by the local governments include their respective zoning maps and zoning ordinances. ' Rosemount 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update ' The AUAR area within the jurisdiction of Rosemount is currently designated for Transitional Residential land uses in the Rosemount 2020 Plan. This category is intended to provide unique housing opportunities in areas that are ' environmentally sensitive and are adjacent to the City's established Rural Residential areas. The Kelley Trust Property is specifically called out in the plan as a major Transitional Residential area. This land use category allows the ' clustering of housing units in areas to avoid impacts to natural features, allowing smaller lots within the clustered areas at a maximum net density of 2.4 dwelling 52 L I R osemount Kellev Trust Property AUAR December 14. 1999 units per acre for single - family detached and 5.8 for single- family attached units, while maintaining an average net density of 2.0 dwelling units per acre and a lower density along areas designated for rural development. The project meets the general intent of the land use designation, but displays some minor inconsistencies with the listed density standards. In comparison to the standards above, the project would contain a net density of single - family detached homes of 2.6 dwelling units per acre, a net density of multifamily attached homes of 4.8 dwelling units per acre. and a net density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre. The northern boundary of the AUAR area abuts land designated for Rural Residential use, and generally proposes a net density of 1.8 dwelling units per acre in this area, with certain areas along the perimeter remaining open space. It should be noted that two - thirds of the multi - family attached units are twinhomes or townhomes, and therefore meets Rosemount's Zoning Ordinance definition of Single- Family Attached dwelling units. The remaining third, however, would be senior housing units in rental or cooperative -style buildings. The 2020 Plan also provides recommendations for roadway connections, with which the proposed project is consistent. As recommended in the 2020 Plan, the project includes the extension of Connemara Road. In addition, the project includes the extension and connection of several existing local roads through the project. The 2020 Plan also recommends that bicycle and pedestrian pathways be constructed on both sides of new collector roads, and states that the City is working to establish a greemvay corridor, which would include a connection through the Kelly Trust Property. The developer has proposed a regional trail connection through the site plus trails within the development. The trails shown in the conceptual plan are acceptable to the City of Rosemount, but they have requested that the trail specifications be shown in the preliminary plat of subdivisions. The development also includes a park near the east end of Birger Pond, connecting to the proposed regional trail, as is recommended in the 2020 plan. The proposed growth and infrastructure needed to support it are included in projects identified in the City of Rosemount's current Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Apple Valley Comprehensive Guide Plan — 2020 Update The AUAR area within the jurisdiction of Apple Valley is currently designated for Low Density Residential land uses in Apple Valley's 2020 Plan. This category is designed to accommodate residential developments that range between zero and six units per acre, including single- family, two - family, multi- family and planned developments. The proposed development within Apple Valley contains 1.85 dwelling units per acre within Apple Valley, and meets the requirements of the land use category. 53 I Rosemount Kellev Trust Property .4 UAR December 14, 1999 The 2020 Plan also includes transportation recommendations. p a s, although there are no major improvements proposed for the AUAR area. The AUAR area includes two roadways within Apple Valley, the existing Diamond Path, and a new east - west collector extending into the Rosemount portion of the AUAR area. The new collector would intersect with Diamond Path on the western edge of the project area. The 2020 Plan classifies Diamond Path as a B Minor Arterial, being a roadway that supplements the metropolitan roadway system, but is primarily local ' in nature. The 2020 Plan states that it is the City's policy to constrict bituminous trails on both sides of al county roads and community collector streets, where the terrain and topography permit. The proposed east -west collector road would include a portion of a trail system, providing a connection to Diamond Path. ' The 2020 Plan also includes recommendations for the location and types of park facilities to be included with new developments. The Plan does not identify any ' future parks in the AUAR area within Apple Valley. A new park is proposed within the AUAR area in the City of Rosemount. The park would be located on the east end of Birger pond, near the Rosemount/Apple Valley corporate limits. Rosemount and Apple Valley Zoning Maps The entire project site will require rezoning. The land within the jurisdiction of Rosemount is currently zoned as either Low Density Residential or Agriculture. Depending on the residential land use category proposed for portions of this land, rezoning will be requested to the RL, R -2, and R -3 residential zoning districts. Variations from the standards of certain proposed R -1 and R -2 zoning districts will be requested through the PUD process to allow for implementation of the ' proposed development standards of the traditional homes, cottage homes, and lifestyle villas. The land within the jurisdiction of Apple Valley is currently zoned Agricultural. As part of the project, rezoning will be requested to the Low Density Residential District. 29. Impact on Infrastructure and Public Services Will new or expanded utilities, roads, or other infrastructure, or public services be required to serve the project? X Yes No If yes, describe the new or additional infrastructure /services needed. (Any infrastructure that is a "connected action " with respect to the project must be assess in this EA W,• see "EAW Guidelines "for details.) This item should first of all summarize information on physical infrastructure presented under other items (such as 6, 18, 19, and 22). 54 ' Rosemount Kellev Trust Property A UAR December 14, 1999 Other major infrastructure or public services not covered under other items should be discussed as well — this includes major social services such as schools, police, fire, etc. As noted above and in the "EA PV Guidelines, " the RGU must be ' careful to include project- associated infrastructure as an explicit part of the AUAR review if it is to be exempt from project - specific review in the future. ' The infrastructure (roads, utilities, etc.) required to serve the project are detailed under the appropriate items in this AUAR. These include Question 13 (Water Use /Water Supply), Question 18 (Surface Water Runoff), Question 19 (Wastewaters), Question 21 (Solid Wastes), Question 22 (Traffic). In summary, the proposed residential development will require the extension of existing sewer, water main, and storm water facilities. Trunk sanitary sewer and water services are available in Rosemount on the east side of the site. Likewise, services from Apple Valley are available at the western side of the site. Stormwater runoff generated by the development will be treated or infiltrated within the site; any excess stormwater will flow to Birger Pond. The City has ' recently completed a plan with regulatory agencies to pump excess water from Birger Pond to ponds south and east of County Road 42, as described in the City's Surface Water Management Plan. Wastes from the site will go to the Rosemount I Treatment Plant, which has adequate capacity to handle the anticipated wastes from the proposed development. LI Infrastructure needed to support the proposed development is included in the City of Rosemount's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The Metropolitan Council's 1996 Regional Blueprint indicates that the AUAR area is located within the 2020 Metropolitan Urban Service Area, where full support of regional facilities is or will become available. 30. Related Developments; Cumulative Impacts This item does not require a response for an AUAR since the entire AUAR process deals with cumulative impacts from related developments within the AUAR area. 31. Other Potential Environmental Impacts If the project mat• cause any adverse environmental impacts, which iti•ere not addressed by items 1 to 28, identify them here, along with any proposed mitigation. None identified. 55 I Rosemount Kellev Trust P1 "oDerty AUAR December 14, 1999 32. Summary of Issues List any impacts and issues identified above that mat• require further investigation before the project is commenced. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative measures that have been or may be considered for these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions. The Mitigation Plan that follows identifies the issues that might impact the Annexation Area and the mitigation steps to be taken. ' Mitigation Plan. The final AUAR document must include an explicit mitigation plan. At the RGU's option, a draft plan may be included in the draft AUAR document; of course, whether or not ' there is a separate item for a draft mitigation plan, proposed mitigation Hurst be addressed through the document. Mitigation measures to various impacts identified in this study are included under each item above. All of these measures are collected together as the Kelley Trust Property AUAR Mitigation Plan, attached as Appendix B. I 56 - -DEC 13 '99 10:49 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT I� Appendix A CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 1999- 0 P.P A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONCEPT RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR CONTRACTOR PROPERTY DEVELOPERS COMPANY Kelley Trust Property WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an application from Contractor Property Developers Cuiupauy for approval of a concept residential planned unit development for the Kelley Trust property located north of Country Hills, between Diamond 'Path, either side of Shannon Parkway, and west of Dodd Road in Rosemount, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, on April 27, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Concept Residential Planned Unit Development for Contractor Property Developers Company and adopted a motion to recommend approval, subject to conditions, to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on May 18 and June 1, 1999, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Concept Residential Planned Unit Development for Contractor Property Developers Company. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves the Concept Residential Planned Unit Development for Contractor Property Developers Company, subject to: 1. The development, as identified in Exhibit A, consists of 536.3 acres including land previously dedicated for Shannon Park. Considering undevelopable land for slopes and wetlands, staff is using 460 acres as a net developable acreage. Therefore, 920 units are ' allowable based upon the pending Comprehensive Guide plan policy. Of the 1,153 proposed units, 233 (20% of the total) would be considered a density bonus based on the following: (a) a mix of ten housing unit types; (b) the use of varied (custom) builders for high value /quality housing; (c) a higher- than- normal amount of common open space; and (d) a plan that appropriately transitions from higher to lower densities. ' 2. Multi- family housing will comprise 27 percent (310) of all housing units. Future zoning designations for the multi- family units will be a combination of R -2 and R -3, and the single family detached units will be a combination of RL, R -1, and R -2. Senior housing ' will be 100 units as either rental, coop or condominium. The number and density of senior housing cannot be replaced by another housing type without an amendment review process for the PUD. ' 3. Housing types and neighborhood clusters shall be utilized to reinforce a pattern of transition from urban to rural. The proposed estate housing adjacent to the rural ' residential district shall have a net density of one dwelling unit per acre over an area Ittzl ezEtztauuoZ) of fljoojp you 1nq `1uauTdolanap ' posodozd oqp of paaoouuoo aq Itegs laazlS Puz£ 13o gpnos pjut olnog PPoa (a) put `3u2utdolanap pasodosd aqp uzgltM slaazls iatllo JIt put: ItEZZ ezeuiaMOD `AU,"1gsed ' uouuegS so; zadolanaP agp glim seapt 5urule3 ogjE11 apenreAo .to zn3 JI?n', 1,11D 2q L (P) `.feAVJsed agp 3o sapts gloq uo sTm n .to/pue sglEAZapts Tim lamps Ittpuaprsaz leuuou t uEg1 zaplm pau2Tsap oq iiegs geed puo=l(j ' 01 fIIETuuana pue femjm uouuugS 01 Ittzd Em=truoD 5uipaauu f.eAgmd Pill (o) ' :a� s azd ag11t ueld pdaouoo xpjo uoiuod souiog TLuotptpesl agl JO matAaz � I o �- �ttu?I t aq1 gltm pPlenlena zatlurg oq pinogs spnpuels u21 10011s f1TZ) aTp 01 suoptot TPOIN (q) :f anuoadsaa fe�ztd psampsta oqi puu ItEZs tr.mtuauuoZ) 01$utloauuoa I . flaletutlin slaazls gSnomp se pau$tsop aq Ilutis `staumq puE soes- ap-Jno Amoduzap tpya luautdolanap Pill ro anpa OT le aleutuuai gorgta 1 autr7 ognuEQ pm PtIE'J 1PAOID (e) ' :2utnnolloj Pip opnlout bugs spztpumis uoilelzodsm.4 IEuoptpPV L •aisa ue no eoo a e daoot soul a outu mp o1 asn oq osle IIyA spmpmis P t P .t i tq 1 1 tP P P auTSaaut�ua n1t� sajnlra3 IEZtueu put `spuEllam `saasl uo iaeduJt 1staJutsnea uorleool E ur zElnatPuadzad E p E feA -Istd uouuutlS 1aastapul IIEgs 1aazl XrmslzEd i s m - Pill g ' ••aauEUrpzp luautasuu w 1 0 1EM aoEjinS agp put? `aoueurpzp uoTlen.iasasd aazl ag1 `1661 JO 10-Y uorlenzasuoD puEJpaM ' oT jo spu,?=imbaz ag1 QATT2 1ou JIEgs JEAozdde ldaauoo srtll ssaoosd ( A%QUP -d OPIMUIV uegin ammuzapld agl slzoddns fpto atu 'aznlo"sezlat put Vutsnog `slaazis jo suollrool imtuilln aqi au=91op dloq 111m ssaaoid t4oiAaz ItivauTuoXtAM agl .5 , •sadfl Suisnog ettiA Put PSM103 `ItuotltpEZ,L ag11o3 1uatuaaz -f Qna ag1 Tzt paUr pue palenleAP ' sags nj aq 1pgs spltpuEps �Ioeglas pue uorsuauiTp 10101 suotlEUM •luatuaaad Qnd aql olut paleiodioour oq o f IS li gtgxg ur pagpuapt se `sodfl Sutsnog IIe a l al dmoo JIEgs radolanap PU -spoogzogg° tau snoouoAomog anzasaad of pazmbaz ag Iletls Ouidtospml ' aAIsuelXe io/pU-C --PPn JO spools paAZaswd Suiztlpn sp- mfTojjnq ` ?zrrcnnrl PXj.r'ttp zo sadfl �utsnoq ztlruzrsstp �o aseo agp uI •satltsuap put sadfl Autsnog pagstJgElsa aqi 01 irpurts oq litgs sasn lupuaptsaz fll=j abuts utgzn ouTpsrxa 01 puaaE[pt sadfl puisnoH t ' •sasrmta3 , IE=uu zo aaeds uado TeuomppE anzasasd o1 zatp uzaglzou oq1 uo , InInorlmd `sanbtugoal zalsnlo jo asn ag1 Sutse2zour op u2nT2 oq pinogs uotlEZapisuoo tuatp ouualJe fJlueoi3iu is jo peapsut suTSo TEZm1EU aqp of luatudolanap Pip adopt of flaptudoidde Suisnoti -- ol paildde aq Iltgs sonbiugoal 2uualsnij •shun SutllaMp3o ouualsnlo ro slol asrel ' glue Pagstldut000E aq feui situ - sasn IElpuoprsaI Irma op luaae fpe s g1jo �uristsuoo v 9 - 6661 uoijnTosag E'd _iwnoW3SO6 30 JiID OS:OT 66. ET S3Q — •sp.: er,P3 `I jo aje o Iogsne `uuewja :fq papu=i i v,sk�as i � spJar,p3 :luasgE iaqui;)w — :1sutEgE pa1oA - :ioA 'BJ uz pa1oA :Aq uolloW 3lzal;D Alto `TfUA1 'N = .LSajuv AllreD v Y •lunotuoso rjo zo atll mgto agl Xq `6661 `aunt Jo tup slul Q 'A3dOQV l pot u 'luauidojanapjo spretap pasodoid Fug agl jo uojlszapjsuoo uodn pure A�acAaz ngVnj tjons uodn ltounoo a41 Aq pazmbaz aq Artu Qnd ldaouoo ag1 of sivauzpuouzy • Qnd ajgtndaoo up 3o notmoaxa ' of pue `ssaooid AIOIAal ag 1 3o saotls 1 a1uI ut pa luasoa d uopEUUOjm zagl jle put saoutueA jo lualxa ptre aaqumu ag1 `sutld luouudolanap put' sirld jrug jo spt 3iop `Uy fiv agl `odAl jo jtounoo agl Aq uoclp.topisuoo iaWn3 of loafgns st outsnog pro u; shun jo zaqumu ' puE titsuap lluzano 01 pairurtj lou 1nq Sutpnjouu `jtnozddu ldaouoo stgs •uollttlosal s pjo luaurpuzum Itounoo lnotjltA+ ssaooid nnatnaI oTjo sates nlel ut lodolanap atp Aq p2sta.tout aq 4m add Eutsnog goua ut sltun,jo tagttmu agl zou Ytsuap 11C.t2A0 agl .uatllTPN ' l l ' 'aotds uado gons jo uotloaloid uuual Suoj ut sljnsai letp xautretu t ui pagumu pup you nuTlem sr aopds ' uado alsnud jir; imp irounoo XIID oils oa.Lzmvppes suoisrnoTd axrtrr Ilrrls indnlMAlp aria, '0I •saDu;lujj 2jotgaA/uEUlsapad puu solnlEaj aduoslao4s o1 palTU.tij lou in iurpnlout ' `umojuAlop aLp of suopPuuoz) le ut Ue o XI TD auil tptM �ja oM I IEgS 32dojaAap atlj, •6 jtp 1saA� -lsua zofEUU atp zoj palajdmoo aq Iregs tnux uuoo ' 1E sndzapun I?tn E (a) puE :sluatzun 1p3aj aotpo so s l u;)wos p a if' noz p pa2uurm pup pani2sazd aq jipgs saopds uado aluAUd jjt (p) :)Iatd pooujzogg5!,;u apts -lsta tit put puod laOrg 1E SUOUE001 apnloun pjnotjs slmd otlgnd (o) `.fEAgjud tau ag �utpnjouri `szoloajloo 1pe jo sapts tpoq uo oq Ilsgs spun to/puu sjjrmPpis (q) `.oilgnd aq IIEgs i?t-�a 1saAi -lspa 101MI V (E) :ourmojjoi agl o f pollwil aq 1ou 1nq apnjoui llutjs 1p no i ddp ldoouoo •g , 9 -6661 uopnjosaU b'd iwnOW3SOZi 30 J,= TS:OT 66, ET S3Q - ' auoN •au0 iM 11 l�s PIG) si� I I .-- I I I I I I I I I I I DEC 13 '99 10:51 CITY OF ROSENOUNT' 4 In bw p som IE Z� .4 c' ��a ol 0 'G, 0 vn (v% 0 0 4 9 40 0 ii t o a ' 400 WT ., ve. La i RI ZZ 7i� P. 5 RESOLUTION 199964 -�4 An tr 4 In bw p som IE Z� .4 c' ��a ol 0 'G, 0 vn (v% 0 0 4 9 40 0 ii t o a ' 400 WT ., ve. La i RI ZZ 7i� I Appendix B. ' 1.0 Introduction Mitigation Plan — Rosemount Kelley Trust Propert` This comprehensive environmental protection plan has been prepared as a part of the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) process for the City of Rosemount — Kelley Trust Property. The proposed development area also includes a portion of the City of Apple Valley. This plan is intended to satisfy the AUAR rules that require preparation of a "mitigation plan" that specifies measures or procedures that will be used to protect the environment from potential impacts of development of the Kelley Trust Property. Finally, the plan specifies legal and financial measures and institutional arrangements that will assure that the mitigation measures recommended in the plan are implemented. The mitigation plan will be used by the Cities of Rosemount and Apple Valley to guide development of the Kelley Trust Property through the avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation of environmental impacts. The plan is not intended to modify the regulatory agencies' responsibilities for implementing their respective regulatory programs, or to create additional regulatory requirements. This mitigation plan is not intended to deprive or divest any person of any use of property or right to which they are entitled by law. Finally, the AUAR and this mitigation plan may be silent as to environmental concerns or impacts that may arise later within the context of specific development proposals, and could not be anticipated during the AUAR process. This should not be construed as a bar to requests for and commitments by the City and the project proposers to compile new and /or additional environmental impact information and analysis. The Cities of Rosemount and Apple Valley recognize that the emphasis of the AUAR is to closely examine the environmental impacts of proposed development on the Kelley Trust Property, as described in the P.U.D. plan. In additional to environmental impacts, the Cities must consider other issues as the area develops, including land use, design issues, finances, economics and transportation concerns. The Cities must balance all of these concerns along with environmental impacts through specific plan development and design review process. The Mitigation Plan is proposed based on existing conditions and existing information at the time of its writing. If new information, conditions or mitigation methods develop after the approval of this plan, the Cities may convene representative members from the natural resources agencies and organizations on the Technical Committee to consider the new information and develop new recommendations to meet the goals identified in the Mitigation Plan. Finally, this AUAR specifically identifies and analyzes the environmental impacts of development within the Kelley Trust Property area. However, actions outside the area are beyond the control of the Cities of Rosemount and Apple ' "alley, and may affect the natural resources that the Mitigation Plan protects or mitigates. The Cities are committed to try to coordinate protection of the natural resources with other agencies and organizations as listed in the Mitigation Plan. The goals and strategies included in this plan were developed with the assistance of a Technical Advisory Committee for the AUAR process. The assistance of these individuals and their organizations is gratefully acknowledged. Participants in the Technical Committee meetings included the following: I I t F� Pat Lynch, Minnesota DNR Waters Larry Westerberg, Minnesota DNR Forestry Jay Riggs, Dakota SWCD Tom Burt, Dakota County Highway Dept. Scott Peters, Minnesota DOT Eric Kilberg, MPCA Water Quality Division Judy Sventek, Metropolitan Council Patrick Peters, Metropolitan Council Rick Pearson, City of Rosemount Planning Dept. Bud Osmundson, City of Rosemount Public Works Dept. Tom Lovelace, City of Apple Valley Planning Dept. Pat Wrase, City of Apple Valley Public Works Department Dwight Jelle, Westwood Professional Services Tim Erkkila, Westwood Professional Services Ellen Berkelhamer, Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban Jerry Bourdon, Bonestroo & Associates Dan Edgerton, Bonestroo & Associates Sheldon Johnson, Bonestroo & Associates Sherri Buss, Bonestroo & Associates, facilitator 2.0 High Quality Natural Communities — Woodlands and NN"etlands The wetland and woodland inventories completed on the site have identified some high quality natural communities remaining on the Kelley Trust Property. City Wetland Management Plans have identified the functions and values of local wetlands, and specified specific strategies for protection and mitigation of losses to wetlands and their associated buffers. These communities and their quality rankings are identified on Figure 10 -2 and discussed in detail in the AUAR analysis. The goals and strategies that follow are proposed to maintain and/or restore the quality of the high quality natural communities that remain on the property as development occurs in the future. Goal 1: Protect and restore the two high quality woodland areas that remain on the Kelley Trust Property. These include the oak savanna identified in the Nvest central portion of the property, and higher - quality portions of the large oak woodland in the northeast portion of the site. 2 Protection Strategies: 1. Protect these areas with conservation easements or protective covenants that prohibit development, and allow only passive recreational use of these areas. 2. Develop and implement management plans that restore the quality of the native communities on these sites. Responsible parties: Private developer and homeowner's association Regulatory program: N/A Implementation timeframe: Conservation easements /protective covenants should be completed as development occurs. The restoration and management plan should be implemented by the homeowner's association. Goal 2: Protect healthy individual trees and groves of trees where possible, and mitigate for any loss of trees through replanting. Protection Strategies: 1. Complete a tree preservation plan as required in the Cities' Tree Preservation Ordinances. As a part of this plan, identify individual trees and groves of trees for protection. 2. Replace trees that are lost to development based on the requirements of the Cities' Tree Preservation Ordinances. Responsible parties: Private developer Regulatory program: City Tree Preservation Ordinances Implementation time frame: Tree preservation plans should be developed along with grading plans for the development. Protection and replacement should occur as the development plan is implemented. Goal 3: Utilize trees that are removed during development rather than burning or disposing them as waste. Protection Strategies: 1. Work with the Minnesota DNR, Dakota SWCD, and other appropriate agencies to identify ways in which the trees removed during development may be put to positive use. (For example, trees and root balls may be used as a part of local stream restoration activities). Responsible parties: Private Developer, Minnesota DNR, Dakota DWCD Regulatory program: N/A 3 1 Implementation time frame: Contact agencies before tree removal begins. Dispose of trees as portions of the project area are cleared for development. Goal 4: Protect wetland resources in the project area to assure no net loss of these resources by avoiding and minimizing wetland impacts when feasible, and mitigating for unavoidable impacts. Protection Strategies: 1. Follow the requirements of the City of Rosemount's Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan and Apple Valley Wetland Plan and applicable state and federal regulations to avoid, minimize and/or mitigate for impacts to wetlands that result from development. ' The Cities shall allow "averaging" of buffer widths: the total area of buffer required by the ordinances shall be required, but the width of the buffer may be narrower in some areas (to accommodate road development, for example) if it is increased in other areas of the same wetland to meet the total area required over the entire wetland. Responsible parties: Private developer, City of Rosemount (enforcement) Regulatory program: Rosemount and Apple Valley Comprehensive Wetland Management Plans, Shoreland and Floodplain Ordinances, Minnesota Wetland ' Conservation Act, Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, and Minnesota DNR Protected Waters Program. Implementation time frame: Complete analysis of wetland impacts and mitigation needs as final plat and grading plan are completed. Implement efforts to avoid or mitigate for impacts as development occurs. Goal 5: Protect and maintain the quality of surface water flows to wetlands Protection Strategies: 1. Require the use, management and enforcement of Best Management Practices ' (BMP's) to control erosion and sedimentation and provide pretreatment of water discharged to wetlands during and after construction. ' Responsible parties: Cities of Rosemount and Apple Valley, Dakota SU' CD, MPCA ' Regulatory program: Cities' Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, -NTDES Stormwater Management Program Implementation time frame: Specify BMP's to be used to grading plans, and ' implement BMP's as development occurs. 0 2. Maintain upland areas of native woodlands and grasslands, and maintain unmown buffer areas around wetlands to protect water quality and wildlife habitat. Responsible parties: Private developer, Cities of Rosemount and Apple Valley, Dakota SWCD Regulatory program: Cities' Subdivision ordinances and Wetland Plans Implemenatation time frame: Identify upland and buffer areas for protection in final plat and grading plans. Maintain these areas or mitigate for buffer zone losses as specified in City wetland plans as development occurs. 3.0 Wildlife and Sensitive Resources Wildlife habitat value is dependent on the composition, quality, and connectivity of plant communities, such as woodlands and wetlands. Therefore, implementation of the strategies identified under Section 2.0 above will also serve to protect wildlife habitat on the Kelley Trust Property. iJ C The Minnesota DNR's Natural Heritage Program database indicated that there are three known occurrences of Blanding's turtles (Emydoidea blandingii), a state threatened species in the vicinity of the project, though not within the site boundaries. The DNR noted that while there are no records of this species within the projct area, it is possible that turtles exist in the area. Goal 6. Protect the remaining high quality habitat areas on the Kelley Trust Property Site as the area develops. Identify potential wildlife and recreation corridors and open space areas. Include natural community areas in these corridors, parks and open space areas, and use corridors to connect natural communities and open space areas. Protection Strategies: 1. Implement the strategies listed under Section 2.0. Natural Communities to protect the high quality habitat areas that exist on the site. Responsible parties: See each strategy identified in 2.0 Regulatory program: See each strategy identified in 2.0 Implementation timeframe: See each strategy identified in 2.0 2. Implement city park and trail plans, designing parks and trails to protect and connect natural communities and habitat areas. Responsible parties: Private developer, Cities of Apple Valley and Rosemount Regulatory program: City Park and Trail plans and Comprehensive Plans Implementation timeframe: Identify park and trail areas in final plats. Implement development of parks and trails as development occurs. 5 1 1 J 3. Work with Dakota County and its Greenway planning efforts to identify corridors for wildlife movement between habitat areas on and off -site, and protect these corridors as buffer zones within the development or in association with recreational trail corridors. Responsible parties: Private developer, Dakota County, Cities Regulatory program: N/A Implementation timeframe: Identify corridors as part of final plat. Protect these areas as development occurs. 4. The City of Rosemount and the developer shall maintain an undeveloped open space buffer on uplands adjacent to Birger Pond and shall maintain required buffers on other wetlands in the project area as potential Blanding's turtle habitat. Responsible parties: Private developer, Cities Regulatory program: City Subdivision Ordinances, Comprehensive Wetland Management Plans, City Surface Water Management Plans. Implementation timeframe: Identify habitat protection areas as part of final plat and grading plan. Implement protection as development occurs. 4.0 Erosion and Sedimentation Goal 7. Minimize erosion and sedimentation and impacts on surface water as development occurs. Protection strategies: 1. Identify and protect areas of existing native vegetation, and minimize soil exposure during development. 2. Use created storm water ponds as sediment basins during construction. 3. Implement the MPCA Best Management Practices (BMP's) as the guidelines for urban erosion and sediment control, as adopted in City ordinances. Work with the grading contractor to ensure that these practices are implemented. 4. Employ city inspectors from Apple Valley, Rosemount or Dakota SWCD staff on site to ensure that Best Management Practices are implemented. 5. Require that the developer provide security for the performance of its obligations regarding erosion control as a part of requirements for grading permits. The security may consist of a bond or other security as required by city ordinances. Responsible parties: Private developer, Cities, Dakota SWCD Regulatory program: City Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances Implementation timeframe: Developer approach and use of BMP's should be specified in grading plan. Adoption and enforcement of BMP's should occur throughout the development process. 6 L 5.0 Surface Water Quality Goal 8: Protect and maintain the quality of surface waters (lakes and wetlands) in the Kelley Trust Property. City Wetland Management Plans have identified the quality of wetlands within the Kelley Trust Property, and noted that a number of high quality wetlands remain within the site. One large water body, Birger Pond, exists within the site, and has experienced elevated water levels during the past 8 to 10 years due to increased development in its watershed area. The Apple Valley and Rosemount Surface Water Management Plans include goals, policies and strategies for the protection of surface waters as development occurs within these cities. The Cities have worked with staff of the Natural Resource agencies to develop a management plan for Birger Pond. Protection Strategies: 1. Implement the MPCA's Best Management Practices as the guidelines for erosion and sediment control. 2. Implement the goals, policies, and strategies included in the Apple Valley and Rosemount Surface Water Management Plans to protect water quality. 3. Use bioretention methods where applicable to store and infiltrate storm water and minimize runoff. These methods include maintaining native vegetation areas, creating dry and wet swales, infiltration basins, sand filters, and related methods. 4. Reduce impervious surfaces where possible to reduce storm water runoff volumes. 5. Use skimmers or other outlet controls, NURP basins as a minimum, and siltation basins on ponds located upstream of priority waterbodies and wetlands. 6. Limit phosphorous levels from development areas to natural concentrations through proper sizing and design of ponds to provide for a minimum of 60 percent phosphorous removal. 7. Implement the goals and policies of the Cities' wetland management plans to protect the quality of wetlands in the development area. 8. Implement the management plan for Birger Pond developed by the City of Rosemount and Natural Resource agencies. Responsible parties: Private developer, City of Rosemount, City of Apple Valley, Dakota SWCD, natural resource agencies Regulatory program: City Surface Water Management Plans, Wetland Plans, City Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. Implementation timeframe: Identify strategies to implement these plans as a part of the final plat and grading plan; implement strategies as development occurs. 7 6.0 Traffic lI 1 Urban development on the Kelley Trust Property site will impact a traffic, noise and air quality. The AUAR analysis indicated that the road network of the area has been planned and sized to accommodate the proposed development, and that noise and air quality impacts are within accepted standards. The Cities of Rosemount and Apple Valley will seek to minimize impacts in these areas as appropriate to protect the health. welfare and safety of the public. Goal Manage automobile traffic to safely accommodate development planned for the Kelley Trust Property. Protection Strategies: 1. Design and construct local roads to mitigate traffic impacts while meeting natural resource protection goals and strategies included in this Plan. Responsible parties: Private developer, Cities of Rosemount and Apple Valley, Dakota County, Minnesota Department of Transportation Regulatory program: City and County Comprehensive Plans. and agency regulatory programs. Implementation timeframe: Implement as final plat is developed and as roads are constructed. 2. Enforce State Air Quality Standards to regulate air emissions in the development area. Responsible parties: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Regulatory program: Indirect Source Permit Program Implementation timeframe: Regulations are currently in effect. Enforce during site development. 3. Implement Best Management Practices to minimize dust during and after construction of developments and infrastructure on the Kelley Trust Property. Responsible parties: Cities of Rosemount and Apple Valley, Dakota County Regulatory program: Cities Subdivision Regulations and enforcement Implementation timeframe: Implement existing regulations as development occurs. 4. Regulate hours when construction may occur to control construction noise. Construct noise berms if needed to control noise associated with road construction and traffic. 8 C Responsible parties: Cities of Rosemount and Apple Valley and Dakota County Highway Department Regulatory program: City Subdivision Ordinances Implementation timeframe: Implement existing regulations as development occurs. 7.0 Scenic Views and Vistas The City of Rosemount and residents in the area have noted that scenic views and vistas exist in the Kelley Trust Property area. Those identified include the following: 1) views from Shannon Parkway looking to the north from the existing development south of the Kelley Trust Property; 2) views from the highest land on the site looking toward Birger Pond, and 3) views from the homes to the north of the site looking toward the south. Development as proposed in the Kelley Trust P.U.D. will change these views. Strategies recommended to minimize or mitigate for these changes include the following: Goal 10. Preserve scenic vistas or use plantings to restore vistas and screen development along key view corridors. Protection Strategies: 1. Preserve individual trees or groups of trees, particularly along Shannon Parkway and along the northern boundary of the Kelley Trust Property, and require replanting based on the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance to protect and restore scenic views from Shannon Parkway and existing residential areas to the north. Responsible parties: Private developer, City of Rosemount Regulatory program: City Tree Preservation Ordinance Implementation time frame: Develop a tree inventory and plan as a part of the final plat and grading plan to identify trees and groups of trees to be saved. Create and implement a planting plan that focuses on restoration of a scenic corridor and screening for properties surrounding the proposed development. 2. Preserve the oak savanna area in the west - central portion of the site and its ' connections to Birger Pond to protect views in this area. ' Responsible parties: Private developer, City of Rosemount Regulatory program: N/A Implementation time frame: Develop strategies for protection of the oak ' savanna (conservation easement, protective covenant, etc.) as the final plat is completed for the development. Implement these with the City or homeowners association as the development is implemented. ADOPTED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLANS AND REGULATIONS The Cities of Rosemount and Apple Valley have a variety of plans, ordinances and regulations in place that address environmental issues in the proposed development area. These mechanisms will be enforced and amended as indicated in the Mitigation Plan to provide a comprehensive framework and set of tols to protect the natural resources of the area as development occurs: City Comprehensive Plans Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances Grading Permits Ordinances Stormwater Management Plans and Ordinances Floodway Ordinances Wetland Management Plans Tree Preservation Ordinances Shoreland Management Ordinances Wetland Conservation Act Water Supply and Distribution Plans Comprehensive Park Plans a J Westwood Professional Services, Inc. MEMORANDUM DATE: December 29, 1998 TO: Mr. Doug Literer, City of Rosemount 2875 145th St. W., Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997 Ms. Jo Colleran, City of Apple Valley 14200 Cedar Avenue, Apple Valley, MN 55124 CC: Mr. Tom Lovelace, City of Apple Valley 14200 Cedar Avenue, Apple Valley, MN 55124 Appendix C 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 612/937 -5150 Ref: 98376 Mr. Dan Seemon, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Army Corps of Engineers Centre, 190 Fifth St. E., St. Paul, MN 55101 -1638 Mr. Homer Tompkins, CPDC 9110 83rd Ave. N., Brooklyn Park, MN 55445 Mr. Tim Erkkila, Westwood Professional Services, Inc. FROM: Ken Powell, Environmental Scientist I RE: Request for Wetland Boundary Confirmation for Wetland Delineation of Kelley Trust Property in the Cities of Rosemount and Apple Valley, Dakota County, Minnesota This letter and the attached exhibits and data forms constitute the wetland delineation report for the above referenced Kelley Trust Property (Exhibit 1). We are requesting that the City of Rosemount and the City of Apple Valley provide written confirmation that the delineated boundaries in their respective municipal boundaries and shown on the attached Wetland Boundary Map are acceptable for implementation of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, as amended. Please note that Tim Brown (formerly of the City of Rosemount) reviewed this site with Westwood on October 19, 1998 and preliminarily confirmed the accuracy of the wetland delineation. WETLAND DELINEATION METHODOLOGY Wetland boundaries were delineated and flagged in the field by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. during the period of October 12 - 20, 1998 using the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, Waterways Experiment Station, 1987). The level two routine delineation method was used in which a sampling transect was established in a representative transition zone of each identified wetland. The transect consisted of one sampling point in obvious upland and one point in obvious wetland. Soils, vegetation, and hydrology information were recorded for each point on data forms. Species dominance for vegetation measurements was based on the percent aerial or basal coverage visually estimated within a 30 -foot radius for the tree and shrub layers and a five -foot radius for the herbaceous layer within the community type sampled. Memorandum - Request for Wetland Boundary Confirmation December 29, 1998 Page 2 Each wetland was 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 Publication 79/31; Cowardin et. al. 1979). Common names for vegetation identified in this ' report and on the attached data forms generally correspond with the nomenclature used in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: North Central (Region 3) (USFWS, Reed, 1988) and/or Vascular Plants of Minnesota (University of Minnesota, Ownbey and Morley, 1991). ' Prior to delineating the wetland boundaries in the field, we reviewed National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping (1980), the Soil Survey of Dakota County, Minnesota (USDA, 1983), and DNR Protected ' Waters Inventory Mapping (Minnesota DNR, 1981). RESULTS ' Mapping The Soil Survey maps five perennial ponds on the site, seven areas of hydric soil (Quam silt loam), and seven "wet spots" within mapped non - hydric soil units (Exhibit 2). Other soil types mapped on the site include Antigo silt loam, Spencer silt loam, Chetek sandy loam, Kennebec silt loam, Otterholt silt loam, Kingsley sandy loam, Mahtomedi loamy sand, Kingsley - Mahtomedi- Spencer complex, Kingsley- ' Mahtomedi complex, and Kennebec variant silt loam. ' NWI mapping shows 34 wetlands wholly or partially on the site. Wetland types mapped include PEMC, PEMA, PEMF, PUBF, and PUBG. The DNR Protected Waters Map identifies one protected wetland (19 -224W, Birger Pond) in the southwest corner of the site. ' General Site Description The property is contains four major cover types (Exhibit 1). Pasture is the most abundant cover type followed by oak woodland, agricultural field, and oak savanna. Pasture areas were observed to consist of common pasture /meadow plant species intermixed with some native prairie plant species. Vegetation noted in upland areas of the pasture include quackgrass, hoary vervain, foxtail grass, smooth brome, big bluestem, little bluestem, bluegrass, butter and eggs, whorled milkweed, bergamot, common milkweed, spotted knapweed, Canada goldenrod, common mullein, and St. John's wort. ' The eastern part of the property contains two large woodlands as well as several linear patches of woodland associated with fence lines and field edges. The northern woodland (approx. 32 acres) contains two pockets of blow down associated with windstorm(s) damage and located in depressional ' areas. The tree species associated with this blow down include some oak and cherry but are predominantly boxelder and elm. The trees are mainly oak with a small component of black cherry and some hackberry. Buckthorn is dominant in the understory. The southern woodland consists of widely- spaced oaks with more hackberry and black cherry. The poor condition of the canopy has allowed an invasion of buckthorn as well as boxelder and some elm trees. The fence lines and field edges in the eastern part of the property generally consist of a mixture of trees dominated by boxelder and elm with ' some cottonwood, big- toothed aspen, and oak. The shrub layer is almost exclusively buckthorn with some prickly ash. 1 " Westwood Professional Services, Inc. (612) 937 -5150 Memorandum - Request for Wetland Boundary Confirmation December 29, 1998 ' Page 3 The western part of the property contains three areas of woodland. One is associated with Shannon Parkway, the second is an oak savanna in the west - central area, and the third is a mixed woodland in the northwest corner. The woodland along both sides of Shannon Parkway consists of degraded oak savanna with some aspen. The oaks are widely spaced with buckthorn, prickly ash and blackberry forming a thick understory. The area of open - grown, widely spaced oaks in the west- central region area is all large diameter oaks. The woodland in the northwest corner has aspen dominating the southern portions and oaks along the northern and western portions. ' An old farmstead is present in the southwest portion of the property adjacent to DNR Protected Wetland 19 -224W (Birger Pond). Birger Pond has an artificially high water level attributable to an influx of stormwater during the past 20 years and the lack of a natural outlet. Most of the farm buildings are partially under water. ' Wetland Delineation Field inspection and investigation resulted in delineation of 34 wetland basins contained partially or ' wholly within the property boundaries (Exhibit 3). Most of the boundary of Birger Pond was defined by locating the edge of water. All wetlands were marked in the field with pink pin flags and located using professional land surveying methods. Field data forms recording vegetation, hydrology, and soils ' information for each basin and other investigated areas (determined to be upland) are included with this report. The attached Table 1 summarizes the major characteristics of each wetland and three non - wetland sample point locations. Twenty -seven of the 34 wetland basins on the site occur in Rosemount with only basins CC, DD, FF, GG, HH, JJ, and KK occurring in Apple Valley. There are seven different Cowardin wetland types (Types 1 -7) represented on the site with seasonally flooded basins (Type 1) the most abundant followed by wet meadows (Type 2) and shallow open water (Type 5). Vegetation within the wetlands is variable, however, species such as reed canary grass, sedge, duckweed, and smartweed were ' commonly observed in many of the wetlands. Wetland boundaries primarily follow distinct topographic (Exhibit 4) and vegetation changes. Most of ' the wetlands are located in distinct depressions and are surrounded by pasture /meadow. Several wetlands in the northwest corner of the site are surrounded by oak woodland. Vegetation changes (as shown on the attached data forms) primarily involve a shift from facultative wetland and obligate wetland species in the delineated wetland to facultative upland and obligate upland species. Reed canary grass and sedge occasionally extend above the delineated boundary in some areas, but they are always mixed in with a predominance of obligate and facultative upland species. ' Birger Pond was identified by locating the current edge of water on October 29 and 30, 1998. With the exception of one area (labeled as Basin BB), there is no emergent wetland fringe surrounding this water body. Birger Pond is artificially high due to stormwater inputs from adjacent land outside the Kelly ' Trust Property. The edge of Birger Pond located in October, 1998 likely includes significant area that may not be regulated as wetland by the WCA and the Army Corps of Engineers. The City of Rosemount, the property owner, and the Minnesota DNR are currently working together to resolve the ' artificially high water level. 1 " Westwood Professional Services, Inc. (612) 937 -5150 Memorandum - Request for Wetland Boundary Confirmation December 29, 1998 Page 4 CONCLUSION Fourteen of the 34 wetlands were not identified on the NWI map. Three wetlands shown on the NWI map did not meet wetland criteria. These areas include two depressions in the southeastern pasture (sample points A and B) and a blow down area in the northern woodland that consists of oak, black cherry, boxelder, and American elm. Only 15 of the 34 wetlands delineated occur as hydric soil units hydric inclusions (i.e. wet spots), or perennial ponds on the soil survey. Please contact me at (612) 906 -7419 if you have any questions or need additional information. Otherwise please send me written confirmation that the wetland boundaries shown and described in this report (excluding Birger Pond) are acceptable for local administration of the Wetland Conservation Act. Westwood Professional Services, Inc. (612) 937 -5150 ' CPDC - Kelley Trust Property Rosemount, Minnesota ' Calculation of Wetland Area Within the City of Rosemount I Notes Basin ID Area sq.ft Circ. 39 Type Buffer Class B 1,055 N/A 4 C 34,889 1 4 D 49,834 2 3 E 7,337 1 3 F 23,377 2 3 G 32,532 2 1 H 97,883 2/3/5 1 1 12,180 2 2 1 4,150 3 3 K 4,424 2 3 L 9.829 1 3 M 5,042 1 3 N 6,403 2 1 0 1,064 1 3 P 3,695 1 3 Q 8,206 2 1 R 5,805 1 3 S 1 55,321 5/1 1 T 2,881 1 3 U 6,654 1 3 v 2,175 1 3 W 10,511 2 1 X 3,026 1 1 Y 7,117 1 1 Z 47,500 5 1 AA 119.527 5 1 BB 1,019,304 2 1 II 2.314 6 3 Total 1,584,035 The total wetland area on the Kelley Trust Property within the City of Rosemount is approximately ' 1,584,035 square feet (36.36 acres). This includes 23.4 acres within Birger Pond (Basin BB above). Most of the Birger Pond shoreline was located in the field by land surveyors rather than delineated. C This table excludes delineated wetland basins CC, DD, FF, GG, HH, JJ, and KK, which are located within the City of Apple Valley. Those wetlands encompass a total of 242,038 square feet (5.56 acres). Buffer classifications refer to City Ordinances: 1 = Preserve Management Class, 75 foot buffer required 2 = Manage I Management Class, 50 foot buffer required 3 = Manage II Management Class, 30 foot buffer required 4 = Utilize Management Class, 15 foot buffer for non -ag areas only Basin Area Circ. 39 i'NI - Soil Survey Vegetation Observed Adjacent Upland ID (sq. ft) Type mapped Classification (dominants in italics) Communit Ty e A N/A N/A Yes Chetek sandy loam reed canarygrass, smooth brome, sedge, W noddingthist/e, bul /thistle, common mullein, stinging nettle, butter n eggs, foxtail grass B 1,055 N/A Yes Chetek sandy loam, reed canarygrass, smooth brome, sedge, N/A wet spot nodding thistle, bul /thistle, common mullein, stinging nettle, butter n eggs, foxtail grass C 34,889 1 Yes Quam silt loam reedcana rass, sedge pasturelmeadow D 49,834 2 Yes Quam silt loam smartweed, reed canary grass, woo /grass, pasture /meadow sedge, Am. bugleweed, wild iris, prairie cordgrass E 7,337 1 No Quam silt loam sedge, smanweed, wool grass pasture/meadow F 23,377 2 Yes Otterholt silt loam reedcanarygrass. sedge, smanWeed, blue pasture /meadow vervain G 32,532 2 Yes Quam silt loam sedge, woo /grass, cattail, willow herb, blue pasture /meadow vervain, Am, bugleweed H 97,883 2/3/5 Yes Quam silt loam woolgmss, sedge, cattail, duckweed, Am. pasture /meadow bugleweed, willow herb, prairie cordgrass, blue vervain, spikerush, slender rush, smartweed 1 12,180 2 Yes Spencer silt loam sedge, woolgrass, reed canarygrass, blue pasture /meadow vervain, Am. bug leweed, curl dock J 4,150 3 No Spencer silt loam, duckweed, reed canarygrass, Am. elm, oak woodland wet spot clearweed, stinging nettle K 4,424 2 Yes Kingsley- cattail, woolgrass, smartweed, sedge, blue pasture/meadow Mahtomedi- Spencer vervain complex L 9,829 1 No Spencer silt loam reedcanarygrass, smartweed, nodding pasture /meadow thistle, sedge, blue vervain, curly dock M 5,042 1 Yes Kingsley- sedge, woolgrass, smartweed, bull thistle, pasture/meadow Mahtomedi- Spencer curly dock complex N 6,403 2 No Kingsley - Mahtomedi sedge, praine cordgrass, arrow leaved pasture /meadow complex tearthumb, woo /grass, meadowsweet, b/ue- bint reed rass, Am. bugleweed 0 1,064 1 No Kingsley Mahtomedi reed canarygrass, sedge, stinging nettle, pasture /meadow complex blue vervain P 3,695 1 Yes Kingsley- reedcanarygrass, woo /grass, sedge, pasture /meadow Mahtomedi- Spencer smartweed complex Q 8,206 2 Yes Kingsley- sedge, woo/grass, reed canarygrass, pasturelmeadow Mahtomedi- Spencer smartweed, water parsnip complex R 5,805 1 Yes Spencer silt loam praine cordgrass, reed canary grass, Canada pasture /meadow mannagrass, smartweed blue -joint reed g rass, water plantain. sedge S 55,321 5/1 Yes perennial pond duckweed, reedcanarygrass, splkerush, pasture /meadow sedge, cattail, Canada manna grass T 2,881 1 No Kingsley - Mahtomedi sedge, nodding thistle pasture /meadow complex U 6,654 1 No Kingsley- Mahtomedi sedge, nodding thistle pasture/meadow complex V 2,175 1 Yes Kingsley - Mahtomedi sedge, curly dock, nodding thistle, pasture /meadow complex smanWeed W 10,511 2 Yes Kingsley Mahtomedi prairie cordgrass, spikerush, woo /grass, pasturelmeadow complex sedge, smartweed, water plantain X 3,026 1 No Kingsley - Mahtomedi sedge, prairie cordgrass, smartweed pasturelmeadow complex Y 7,117 1 No Kingsley - Mahtomedi sedge, prairie cordgrass, smartweed pasture/meadow complex Z 47,500 5 Yes perennial pond sedge, reed canary grass, duckweed pasture/meadow AA 119,527 5 Yes perennial pond duckweed, cattail pasture/meadow BB 6,480 2 Yes Quam silt loam sedge, smartweed, duc'civeed pasture/meadow CC 1,042 7 No Kingsley- boxe/der, quaking aspen oak woodland Mahtomedi- Spencer complex 1 Basin Area Circ. 39 NWI- Soil Survey Vegetation Observed Adjacent Upland ID (sq. ft) Type mapped Classification dominants in italics) Communit T pe DD 8,599 3 Yes Kingsley- sottstembu /rnsh, reed canary grass, beggar- oak woodland Mahtomedi- ticks, wild iris, red -osier dogwood, arrow- So encer, wets of leaved tearthumb EE N/A N/A No Kingsley- Mahtomedi reed canary grass, nodding thistle, NIA complex wormwood, smooth brome, bull thistle, yarrow, bergamot, curly dock, sedge, common mullein FF 4,482 3 No Mahtomedi loamy spikerush, sedge, reedcanaiygrass, pasturelmeadow sand Canada manna grass, willow herb, water p arsnip, meadowsweet GG 118,377 5/2 Yes perennial pond duckweed, reed canary grass, sedge, pasture /meadow boneset, willow, bluegrass HH 2,250 1 No Kingsley - Mahtomedi sedge, curly dock pasture/meadow complex II 2,314 6 No Kennebec variant willow, reedcanarygrass, smartweed, willow pasturelmeadow silt loam herb JJ 67,230 5 Yes Quam silt loam reedOndlyg(ass, wild ids, praise oak woodland cord grass, sed e, boneset KK 40,058 4 Yes Kingsley- Mahtomedi sedge, reed canarygrass, beggar-ticks, oak woodland complex, wet spot duckweed, impatiens, cattail, willow herb, water plantain, smartweed, water parsnip, wild iris Total 813,249 Kelley Trust Property Historical Water Elevations and Acreages for Birger Pond (DNR Protected Wetland 19 -224W) NW 1/4 Sec. 19, T115N, R19W, City of Rosemount, NE 1/4 Sec. 24, T115, R20W, City of Apple Valley, Dakota County, MN Date Water Elevations Acreage Source of Water Source of Size /Boundary Method of Size Notes Elevations Mapping Estimation 1967 East lobe = 888.3 unknown 1" = 200' scale topography 1" =200' scale Aerial Planimeter by Westwood Driveway & building site not flooded. West lobe = 887.3 from City of Apple Valley Photography at 1" =200' scale Pond composed of 3 separate lobes. via Merila & Associates East = 7.8 ac.; West = 3.4 ac.; North (no water) = 0.5 ac. Apr. -May, about same as 11.7 Merila & Associates based 1" =200' scale Aerial Planimeter by Westwood Driveway & building site not flooded. 1977 1967 on 1" =200' scale Aerial Photography at 1" =200' scale Pond composed of 3 separate lobes. Photography East = 7.8 ac.; West = 3.4 ac.; North (no water) = 0.5 ac. Aug., 1979 unknown 16 Not applicable DNR Protected Waters Planimeter by DNR from Type 4 Wetland Inventory Aerial Photography May, 1985 + 892 20.9 Merila & Associates based 1" =200' scale Aerial Planimeter by Westwood Most of driveway & edge of building on 1" =200' scale Aerial Photography at 1" =200' scale site flooded. Separate N. lobe = 2.1 Photography ac. April, 1990 + 891 20.0 Merila & Associates based 1" =200' scale Aerial Planimeter by Westwood Most of driveway above water. on 1" =200' scale Aerial Photography at 1" =200' scale Separate N. lobe = 1.9 ac. Photography May 24, 1994 Water el. = 897.46 unknown DNR OHWL Report Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Highest noted (slain) = 898.2 OHWL = 895.9 April 1996 + 897 29.5 Merila & Associates based 1" =200' scale Aerial Planimeter by Westwood Majority of driveway & building site on 1" =200' scale Aerial Photography at 1" =200' scale flooded. Small (0.3 ac.) island. Photography Separate N. lobe = 3.1 ac. 1997 -98 NWL = 892 30.3 City of Rosemount City of Rosemount Planimeter by Westwood Similar to 1996. Island = 0.3 ac. HWL = 896.6 Welland Inventory Wetland Inventory at 1" =200' scale Separate N. lobe = 3.3 ac. OHWL = 895.9 Oct. 29 -30, 899.6 32.8 Field Survey by Westwood Field Survey of Planimeter by Westwood N. lobe not separate. Assumed 0.3 1998 Approximate Water Edge at 1" =200' scale ac. Island. Planimeter followed by Westwood 1997 -98 mapping in 2 locations w/ total edge of - 730' where limited survey shots cut off waters' edge. Note: The City of Rosemount has filed an application for a DNR Protected Waters Permit to establish an outlet from Birger Pond at an elevation of 890.0. Under this application, the OHWL would be similar to the outlet elevation, and the HWL would be 899.2. The City has pumped water from Birger Pond to two smaller, isolated wetlands within the Kelley Trust Property on two known occasions to maintain the Birger Pond water elevation below 900.0. W Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Ref: 98376 December 1, 1998 (612) 937 -5150 ROSEMOUNT Everything's Coming Up Rosemount!! JAN 12 1999 Mr. Ken Powell, Environmental Scientist Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: Wetland Delineation Report Kelly Trust Property WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY HALL 2875 — 145th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997 Phone: 651- 423 -4411 Hearing Impaired 651 -423 -6219 Fax: 651 - 423 -5203 Dear Mr. Powell: The City of Rosemount Public Works /Engineering Department has reviewed the December 29, ' 1998, Wetland Delineation Report for the Kelly Trust property. The report requests that the City of Rosemount provide written confirmation that the delineated boundaries shown on the Wetland Boundary Map, Exhibit 3, are acceptable for the implementation of the Minnesota Wetland ' Conservation Act of 1991, as amended. The City does find the delineated boundaries shown on the Wetland Boundary Map, Exhibit 3, acceptable for local administration of the Wetland Conservation Act. However, as noted in the report, Tim Brown (former Water Resource Coordinator with the City) preliminarily confirmed the accuracy of the wetland delineation. The City reserves the right to request additional wetland delineation work from the Developer if future site reviews of the Kelly Property reveal errors and/or omissions in the Wetland Delineation Report. The Developer is reminded that the City's Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan designates buffer zones ranging in width from zero to 75' for wetlands on the Kelly Trust property. It appears that some wetlands on adjacent property will have buffer zones on the Kelly property. Three wetlands along the northerly boundary (City wetland no.'s 293, 531, and 532), two easterly of Birger Pond (City wetland no.'s 367 and 3 89), and one in the extreme southwesterly corner east of Shannon Parkway (City wetland no. 443, Copper Pond) may have buffer zones that extend onto the Kelly property. See the enclosed map. January 11, 1999 RECEIVED L 1 Ten of the wetlands shown on the Kelly property are also shown as possible ponding areas on the City's Storm Water Management Plan. Ponds KL -P 1508, KL -P 1486, BP -P70, and EP -P 1754 all 1 east of Shannon Parkway are depressions not shown as wetlands that may be used for ponding purposes. A 3' freeboard will be required between the 100 year high water level and the lowest floor elevations on all buildings by ponds. 1 Some runoff from the Kelly property will be directed to two DNR protected wetlands. One DNR protected wetland is Birger Pond (DNR #19 -224W) so site runoff flowing to Birger Pond will be 1 directed through NURP ponding before it discharges into Birger Pond. The other is Schwarz Pond (DNR #19 -344W) which is east of Shannon Parkway. Runoff from the southeasterly part of the Kelly property will be directed through NURP ponding before sending it to Schwarz Pond. 1 If you have any questions, I can be reached at (651)322 -2062 or (651)322 -2022. Thank you for providing the excellent information on the wetlands on the Kelly Trust Property. ! Sinc ely, ' r, l Doug Litterer, P.E. Civil Engineer 1 enclosure 1 cc: Bud Osmundson, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer 1 Homer Tompkins, CPDC Tim Erkkila, Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 1 Dan Rogness, Community Development Director 1 kellycl.wpd I December 1, 1998 Appendix' D Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, Box 25 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 -40 Phone: (651) 296-8279 Fax: (651) 296-1811 Kathryn R. Fernholz Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Prarie, MN 55344 Re: Request for Natural Heritage Information for vicinity of proposed Kelley Farms; Dakota Co.; T115N R19W S.19,20, TI 15N R20W S.24. Dear Ms. Fernholz, The Minnesota Natural Heritage database has been reviewed to determine if any rare plant or animal species or other significant natural features are known to occur within an approximate one -mile radius of the above referenced project. Based on this review, there are 3 known occurrences of rare species or natural community in the area searched (for details, see enclosed database printout and explanation of selected fields). Following are specific comments for those elements that may be impacted by the proposed project. The Blanding's turtles (Emydoidea blandingii), a state threatened species, occur in the vicinity of the project. Although we have no records from within the project area, it is possible that turtles exist in the area if there is suitable habitat on the site. For your information, I have attached 2 fact sheets about the Blanding's turtle: one from Minnesota's Endangered Flora and Fauna (1988, B. Coffin and L. Pfannmuller, editors); and the other from DNR with land use guidelines for contractors. As the fact sheets indicate, the turtles spend much of their time in shallow wetlands (1 -3 feet deep), but they nest in open, sandy uplands up to 1/2 mile from wetlands. Nesting is in June and eggs hatch in September, at which time young turtles enter wetlands where they over - winter in soft sediments. Factors believed to contribute to the decline of this species include wetland drainage and degradation, development on upland nesting areas, and possibly collection for the pet trade. In addition, because of the tendency for Blanding's turtles to travel long distances over land, they are often forced to cross roads in developed areas. Many of the records we have of Blanding's turtles are from turtles killed crossing roads. An increase in the speed or amount of vehicular traffic along roads near the construction sight may result in increased turtle mortality. To minimize impacts to the species, it is recommended that project design and construction activities not adversely affect water quality or natural water levels in surrounding wetlands. Retaining adjacent sandy uplands for nesting and providing for safe travel between wetlands and uplands will further help this population to survive in the face of continuing fragmentation of its habitat. Suggestions for implementation of these recommendations are included on the fact sheet mentioned above. Please be aware that review by the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program focuses only on rare natural features. It does not constitute review or approval by the Department of Natural Resources as a whole. Because our information is not based on a comprehensive inventory, there may be rare or DNR Information: 612 -296 -6157, 1- 800 - 766 -6000 • TTY: 612 - 296 - 548.3. 1 -800- 657 -3929 An Equal Opportunity Employer ^ Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a Who Values Diversity Za Minimum of 10 Post - Consumer Waste otherwise significant natural features in the state that are not represented in the database. A county-by- county survey of rare natural features is now underway, and has been completed for Anoka County. Our information about natural communities is, therefore, quite thorough for that county. However, because survey work for rare plants and animals is less exhaustive, and because there has not been an on -site survey of all areas of the county, ecologically significant features for which we have no records may exist on the project area. The enclosed results of the database search are provided in two formats: index and full record. To control the release of locational information which might result in the damage or destruction of a rare element, both printout formats are copyrighted. The index provides rare feature locations only to the nearest section, and may be reprinted, unaltered, in an Environmental Assessment Worksheet, municipal natural resource plan, or internal report compiled by your company for the project listed above. If you wish to reproduce the index for any other purpose, please contact me to request written permission. Copyright notice for the index should include the following disclaimer: "Copyright (year) State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources. This index may be reprinted, unaltered, in Environmental Assessment Worksheets, municipal natural resource plans, and internal reports. For any other use, written permission is required." The full- record printout includes more detailed locational information, and is for your personal use only. If you wish to reprint the full- record printouts for any purpose, please contact Karen Cieminski (651- 296 -8319) to request written permission. The Natural Heritage database is maintained by the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, a unit within the Section of Ecological Services, Department of Natural Resources. It is continually updated as new information becomes available, and is the most complete source of data on Minnesota's rare or otherwise significant species, natural communities, and other natural features. Its purpose is to foster better understanding and protection of these features. Thank you for consulting us on this matter, and for your interest in preserving Minnesota's rare natural resources. An invoice for the work completed is enclosed. You are being billed for map and database search and staff scientist review. Please forward this invoice to your Accounts Payable Department. Sincerely, Jan Steier Environmental Review Assistant encl: Database search results Natural Heritage Database Print -Outs: An explanation of Selected Fields Fact sheets: Blanding's Turtle Invoice ES #990250 M M r w = = = = M M M M = M M = = M RECORDS PRINTED - 3 DAKOTA CO. KELLEY FARMS Minnesota Natural Heritage Database T115N R19W SECTION 19,20, T115N R20W SECTION 24 16:16 Tuesday, NOVEMBER 03, 1998 1 Fl , - ment Occurience Records MnDNR, Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program Copyright 1998 State of Minnesota DNR TWP RNG PRIMARY FED MN S RANK CLASS ELEMENT and OCCURRENCE NUMBER MANAGED AREA SECTION STATUS STATUS 111 R20W 14 THR SA EMYDOIDEA BLANDINGII (BLANDINGIS TURTLE) #97 T115N R20W 23 THR SA EMYDOIDEA BLANDINGII ( BLANDINGIS TURTLE) 11490 MOELLER PARK '1115N R20W 25 THR SA EMYDOIDEA BLANDINGII (BLANDINGIS TURTLE) 11678 RECORDS PRINTED - 3 DAKOTA CO. KELLEY FARMS Minnesota Natural Heritage Database T115N R19W SECTION 19,20, T115N R20W SECTION 24 16:16 Tuesday, NOVEMBER 03, 1998 1 Element Occurrence Records MnDNR, Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program Copyright 1998 State of Minnesota DNR T115N R20W NW14 DAKOTA COUNTY, MN Element: EMYDOIDEA BLANDINGII (BLANDING'S TURTLE) 097 Last Observed Date: 18 June 1990 DNR Region: 6 State Status: THREATENED Wildlife Area: 610 EO Size: EO Rank: Current Status: Intended Status: Quad Map: ST. PAUL SW (S17C) Forestry District: 612 Site: LEBANON 14 Latitude: 44 46' 15" Long: 93 11' 16" Ownership: Owner unknown Precision: within 0.25 mile, confirmed Managed Area(s): not managed or no record Source: EVANS, M. Voucher: Verification: sight or sound rec. 1990: ONE TURTLE SEEN ALONG EDGE OF ROAD BY ENTRANCE TO MN ZOO. ABOUT 9 INCH CARAPACE. RELEASED TURTLE IN LITTLE CANADA IN FRONT OF THE CANTEBUPY SQUARE BLDG. 1986: ONE MALE TURTLE OBSERVED BY V. WONG ON 14 MAY 1 BLOCK NORTH OF THE ENTRANCE TO THE MN ZOO. MALE HAD A HOLE IN THE PLASTROM 1 -1.5 INCHES FROM TAIL. TURTLE 10 INCHES IN LENGTH. T115N R20W SE23 DAKOTA COUNTY, MN Element: EMYDOIDEA SLANDINGII (BLANDINGIS TURTLE) 0490 Last Observed Date: 25 June 1996 DNR Region: 6 State Status: THREATENED Wildlife Area: 610 EO Size: EO Rank: Current Status: Intended Status: Quad Map: ST. PAUL SW (S17C) Forestry District: 612 Site: MOELLER PARK Latitude: 44 45' 4" Long: 93 10' 56" Ownership: City Park Precision: within 0.25 mile, confirmed Managed Area(s): MOELLER PARK Source: KITTELSON,S. (DNR); WALBERT,B. (1996 TURTLE REPORT) Voucher: Verification: sight or sound rec. TURTLE FIRST OBSERVED BY WALBERT, CRAWLING IN PARKING LOT OF PARK. 2 DAYS LATER, FEMALE (10 X 7 INCHES) LOCATED IN PARK BY KITTELSON; TURTLE WEIGHED (2655.7 G) & MEASURED (26 CM LONG X 16.8 CM WIDE) AT DNR OFFICE & TAKEN BACK TO PARK & RELEASED IN THE WATER. T115N R20W SESE25 DAKOTA COUNTY, MN Element: EMYDOIDEA BLANDINGII ( BLANDINGIS TURTLE) 0678 State Status: THREATENED EO Size: EO Rank: Current Status: Intended Status: Site: APPLE VALLEY 25 Ownership: Owner unknown Managed Area(s): not managed or no record Source: SLIPKA,B.(1992 BLANDINGIS TURTLE SURVEY) 1 TURTLE OBSERVED CROSSING STREET AT 48TH AND 149TH COURT, HEADING TOWARD WETLAND AREA. Last Observed Date: 18 August 1992 DNR Region: 6 Wildlife Area: 610 Quad Map: FARMINGTON (T17B) Forestry District: 612 Latitude: 44 44' 2" Long: 93 9' 30" Precision: within 0.25 mile, confirmed Voucher: Verification: sight or sound rec J Natural Heritage Database Print -outs: An Explanation of Selected Fields The'Natural Heritage database is maintained by the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, a unit within the Section of Ecological Services, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). **Please note that the print -outs are copyrighted and may not be reproduced without permission Field Name [Full (non - abreviated) field name, if different]. Further explanation of field. _1C_ CBS Site [County Biological Survey site number]. In each county, the numbering system begins with 1. CLASS A code which classifies features by broad taxonomic group: NC = natural community; SA = special animal; SP = special plant; GP = geologic process; GT = geologic time; OT = other (e.g. colonial waterbird colonies, bat hibemacula). Ctv: [County]. Minnesota counties (ordered alphabetically) are numbered from 1 (Aitkin) to 87 (Yellow Medicine). CURRENT STATUS Present protection status, from 0 (owner is not aware of record) to 9 (dedicated as a Scientific and Natural Area). -D- DNR Region 1 =NW, 2 =NE, 3 =E Central, 4 =SW, S =SE, 6= Minneapolis /St. Paul Metro. DNR Quad: [DNR Quadrangle code]. DNR - assigned code of the U.S. Geologic Survey topographic map on which the rare feature occurs. -E- ELEMENT or Element See "Element Name (Common Name)" Element Name (Common Name) The name of the rare feature. For plant and animal species records, this field holds the scientific name, followed by the common name in parentheses; for all other elements (such as plant communities, which have no scientific name) it is solely the element name. EO RANK [Element Occurrence Rank]. An evaluation of the quality and condition of natural communities from A (highest) to D (lowest). EO Size [Element Occurrence Size]. The size in acres (often estimated) of natural communities. -F- FED STATUS [Federal Status]. Status of species under the Federal Endangered Species Law: LE= endangered, LT= threatened, C= species which have been proposed for federal listing. Federal Status See "FED STATUS" Forestry District The Minnesota DNB's Division of Forestry district number. _G_ GLOBAL RANK The abundance of an element globally, from G 1 (critically imperiled due to extreme rarity on a world- wide basis) to G5 (demonstrably secure, though perhaps rare in parts of its range). Global ranks are determined by the Conservation Science Division of The Nature Conservancy. -- INTENDED STATUS Desired protection status. See also "CURRENT STATUS." If a complete list of protection status cod`s is needed, please contact the Natural iieritage Program. -I,- LAST OBSERVED or Last Observed.Date or Last Observation: Date of the most recent record of the element at the location. Heritage Program maps. NOTE: There are various Latitude The location at which the occurrence is mapped on Natural levels of precision in the original information, but this is not reflected in the latitude/longitude data. For some of the data, particularly historical records, it was not possible to determine exactly where the original observation was made (e.g. "Fort Snelling ", or "the south shore of Lake Owasso "). Thus the latitude/longitude reflect the mapped location, and not necessarily the observation location. Legal Township, range and section numbers. Long [Longitude]. See NOTE under "Latitude" -M- MANAGED AREA or Managed Area(s) Name of the federally, state, locally, or privately managed park, forest, preserve, etc., containing the occurrence, if any. If this field is blank, the element probably occurs on private land. If "(STATUTORY BOUNDARY)" occurs after the name of a managed area, the location may be a pri vate inholdin; within the statutory boundary of a state forest or park. May Sym [Map Symbol]. 1 u J 86if r—.Aaa 61 f8-96Z,719 re urefeord gareasag our guoly pue aSeluaH PLp ro; isileioodS mainad leluawu011nu3 PLP q1u+ anssi snp ssnosip pue M zmld `sosodmd mo,( to; algeldOom 1ou si supjj 'uogras ls2nou aql 01 Muo uoumol aql Smguosap 1sa88ns QM sotoods algejaulnn ;o suogezol asloaid age unuapi 1ou suoUeoggnd leyl n ;aad any `uoseai srgl jo3 - sia,wsp 4 "uegmustp of anU!sws ale `salfrea pleq TO gons `==ds jxpo `sjoloalloo 4 uouelioldxo o1 alge2aurnn ale Sum, se gons s7ueld algenlen �lwouooa pue sp!gaio se gons snn�o�P1u� `aldurexa jog samlea; area aye 01 wJey u! llnsa� P1nao suoueool asalu ;o aSpa oux pea1dsapu% asneoaq uoueuLojn anu!suas se poi= N ismu samlea; om awos ;o suotw000"l �jii�naas ra ;eQ •laqumu anuElisrururpE airjpl!M3o uouoas s,gNQ ulosaUU1 aye :EajV ajgpj!M - laqumu Ea1p ompaalq age s! s p `sOft;) plugio aseo agi ul •tio xp Xq paaim ioqumu uoiss000p agi pup `paulEiu vw an suour!oads aligm EunuEgiaq so umasnw ay1 :layonoA paguanun alt, OL6I aloiaq opEur suogzalloo uo poseq splooal Wel •panlasgo sum 2uusau `sp10oa1 p1!g3o as :) aye m lo opEw sum uOri0aIiO3 E s alearpm CIIE[tstt g OrgM „ si C41j!gEijal3o lanai isarl`anI age •paseq si plooal agi yorgm uo uouuuuoiui aglio riirj!gp!ja1 ag1 io uouoagal y :uouuoguaA - [laqumu drgsuMol) :aml io dA .j ,,SfUVIS NW,, aaS SMMS OwIS •ojgEj sawooaq uouuuuo3Tn Cioluanm se palupdn an Seoul a ms age -1 - TL Trejd uOiiEAIasuo puu ,SJOIU ` ngsal 103 sauu ias o saomosag IEm ux l uauvludaQ m osauLnN agi Xq pasn an Xaq •srUms jr2ol u luasaadal I OU op S)fM age • „paururlalapun loin„ 103 ` „ E uanTS on aolEOS ,Ciju!oadso si uoiluuuoiu! yo!y 103 saurunuuvo3 •,Cirunururoo PLp )f= 01 ajgpjTUnu S1 uogEU110JUT alli!i salEO!pu )fM E SmMOiloi „Z„ y (suoti!pvoo luasald lapun amoas) g of (olms ayi ui U011ou uoupnlasuooio paou lsaipa.r2 m) I w ou wog aul slung - Elosauuri�i m �Cirununuoo luyi io uo!1!pvo3 puE luaixa uMOtni agi sioal;al yo adXI ioumunuoo jEmipu age of pau2!sse fuel d [lTrEg alpiS) }I N`dg S aoualln000 amiva3 a1E1 ayl3o lanlasgo 10 lolaalioo ayU :oomoS °ururold a2EivaH ipmipN ayi 10 XanlnS inisolo!g fjunoO agi Xq parrisle si auo `(ajdunxo 1o3 `awpu pasn �IiEOOi E) sisTxa Ease agi 103 auluu ou31 sari aovalm000 ayi gorgm urgi!M ran orgduroa� aql 01 slaial golgM aureu y :al!s '(„OZMN6I3N„ se pa,Cujdsip s► OZ uouoas io t /IMN PuB 6I uo1l3as30 t•; I3N otp ``�'a) uolimound inogl!M `palsTi an suouoas gioq `souupunoq uouaas sa aoualm000 E uagM •(£ uouoasia ZJI g11ou aye of slaiai CONO ` a) pag►oads si uouaas 31uy E uayM loploq aoEld u su pasn S ! .,0„ V '(ZE uouoas3o b /IMN agii VAMS agi salouap Z£MNMS uo1I3as- 1allunb -lai mb 10 uouoas- la=b isonou agi 01 uan!2 alp isow inq `(s) uouaas isalEau agi 01,Cjuo uan12 an spl000l awos [(s)raqumv uotioas] :uouoas 10 NOI1D3S - •[laqumu a2uug] :Ftyil 10 )Nd •[laqumu plooag] :# oag -g- ,PL7na 'aNQ„ aas :cfq pun -a- - aoua.un000 ayiio 11ud isalualS ayi 10 jjE 2urulmuoo uoiloas aye [uouoas S1EUn1d) :Td UOIJUDO1 agi lu sls 1asuol ov ivawaja (au0� /amosgo) O `(/4unoo isalEau ayi of Cjuo uMOir3i vago) sai2uelpEnb orydurodoi SOSn uo ajquddEurm s, uouEOoj_(ajqudduurun) X `uol2al iulaua2 agi u!gi!M sln000 = (IE1aua2) J `alive I mgi!M uMOU31= (og!oads -uou) N `allw UI uTgi!M uMO” = (pauuguooun) n `miPE1 ai!w t/I UuM UmOq = (pauuguoo) 0 :oouaun000io vollEUUOiu! IEuouuaol Jo uO!s!oald :uo!s!oald - d - •pais!I s! �!1!q!suodsal luawa�EUpw Tl1iM Co z)n ` v OL pauMO Cioiignd 103 `pauMO Cialunud so Xjoiignd si ails oqi 1aglagm solpo!pul : Tysd 1auMO payolEas Ea1E ayi u!gi!m luowoja yoga 103 asuquiup agi ui luais!xa spiooal3o iaqumu age• :Sgn000 d0 # „# 0 J0„ aaS :X381hf1N 30N32I2In000 •prooal goua saguuap! XjanbrTm `aureu luawala agi gum uopumgwoo u! `laqumu aouaim000 ayZ •[loqumN aouallnoo0) P# 00 0 - . [lung Cirununvo0 iEmiEN] •fi ON - N - aspgElpp aye Xq palouli ale inq `ElosouLn m snlEis jpoaj 0v anug go `sails oupsou p1!glaluM juruoloo put sa!irunurwoo jumlEu 103 lunjq st plag sr •anmluoo samloap 3! palsij awooaq Cew put, a1p1 inq `sniuis loom ou =NON `ulaouoo ju!oads =DdS `Pauaivalg> =gxZ `Pala2uupua =Q :MEj sa!oads pala&Epva MOSS LNIN agi lopun soioads luunup pup lut,jdio snipes juoa-1 •[smuis ulosaumiN] :Sn1d1.S N11? CAUTION ccK AC'CR3 ` ORS &0N i BLANDING'S TURTLES 1 MAY BE ENCOUNTERED IN THIS AREA 1 The unique and rare Blanding's turtle has been found in this area. Blanding's turtles are a State Threatened species and are protected under Minnesota Statute 84.095, Protection of Threatened 1 and Endangered Species. Please be careful of turtles on roads and in construction sites. Turtles should be moved offsite to the nearest wetland. Information and re on Blanding's turtles can be found on the back of this notice. Additional Informati commendations on on turtles can n obtained from the Nongame Wildlife Program, Box 7, DNR Building, 500 Lafayette Rd., St. Paul, MN 55155- 1 4007. (612) 297 -4966. ' Alone pinoys PUB spueidn lUeOe(pe wa; spuep9M bugeJedes Plone pino4spuaweOe d p elg0d se JnOluoO leJnieu yonw se y3LM J1el e a q Plnoys uleJJal ' Pauadsap io 'elglssod se leJn;eu se paBPaJp eq lou nos li e) q Plnoys 6u.deospuel PI 4 (£'F z ad�(l) spuepaM p9le186an 'MO1Ie4S . I'Ilem;eu a Aq .4o-uru leoluJayO Je4po pue uMel '�o -uru pea wo 'd.L4s iagnq P91el969A P9Palad aq pinoys spuepaM IV PMO4s sapsO4sad pue sJazllgJe; ;o ash •uo4e496an angeu L4M palela6anaJ 'Paplone aq aq pinoys seaJe papeJ0 eq pinoys uo_rso13 •apeJ6 leurfiuO o •s"el PUB spuepaM 6u14OeaJ w04 PapuanaJd 3 PawnlaJ eq Plnoys salts ug4Orj4su0O Alli4n puna6 Mol9g lsL J uaaMlaq Pue �Ieolue uses suo Pasn aq Jou pinoys sleolwe40 tsL vun� pue y P eq pinoys se url JaM0d Jepun luewe6euew uogeJ96aA wnwlulw a of Jda�l aq pinoys speoJ aoueualulew PUB ssaooe X1411 ' aRJnl alelliloe; of xoq Jo leogdrila PUB pazrs -Jano stwe4aM uaaNeq s;uewanow L J O l L eq pinoys se puepaM Bugoauuoo slJanln0 PO PUB s eunr uaeMlaq P9MOw eq lou pino saW opC] 'seaJe uo 6u 'r n- M us�q se4 eaJe ayl Jelje PanoweJ aq saoue rs e 4On4suoO ;o;no sa }.. ' pJry dead o; do pes e ; 1 Lt. 343 1eO4UO sl � q pinoys 6utoua Jlrs spuepaM Jeau 6unuoM uayM PUB sgJnO s � Pea !p ' i JOUI pea leuog;pe ay; uO sapim dell speoJ apeJ6 Molaq s 415 JJ �gunlO llnOylip 1e9J6 OA84 sapJnl s 6ul ue VC £ e le sgJnO y �b Pasn aq JsnuJ sg ll 'epeJ6 Mo a Jo p IS 'Paua ;aJd aJe edols ' i g pagJno you 'Pa4olip aq Plnoys speO6 *seuel pue sylp'm uo spJepuels lewrulw o; pde l eq pinoys speob eaJe aye ul sapJnl s 6ulpue1810 aOUassid ayl ;o paO ;ul aq pinoys sJa�{JOM sapJnJ uo slOedwi azlwlulLu dla4 01 asn puel pue wJ uo ROn�suoO 6UIW93uOO s9ullapn6 6ulM011o; 9 41 Ja .4o 9M : SNOfiVON31NW0036 sallgOuJOMe Aq �onl;s bulaq 0 3 9lgeJaulnn �uelnO4Jed We 'speoJ 6umsoJO apgm o; w4O0 lie) sapJru s 6ulpuelg ;o 6uno�t pue sl el sllnpy - spJlq iJO3epaJd pue 's�lunXs , suooOej Aa43 paualeaJy; Jo palsa ow N 'ssed of Ja6uep Jo; V pue hays P941 olu! Ilnd �(ldwls I 11 'eJ?q of ;dLugUe Jou op pue PaJeuuew plies aJe sapJnl s,6ulpuelg a�lew mw �(aL4 'usUO •se4oul b/l L 10 JaleM Puy o; � e n pueuano 6uol e ay; aneal s6upyO3ey 's uow 416u91 Ila4s a6eJane ue LAW JegopC) -A;Iea ol;sn6n iw woJ; lsau eaJe Apues uado ue ul a ewe; s le6n Jdde ;o poued luawdolenap a Je b59 a4l 0; uJniaJ pue ysnq a Jeau a q P lsau 8 41 Bulwow pe ads aJe s66a S l-g sjeuj Pl4 J(ew salewe; sBBa Buuel pu w l of dn 6uaMeao Jap lxau 9 43 4sJew ' uoowal ;e a ;el ul an4oe lsow eJe salewa3 •elosauulyq w aunty ;o aaM o 'sAeP �(uuns 'uueM uo ud 31b' ' oo u pue 1 d i(lJea w 6ugseq ulBa � "'u 3sJy 8 43 6uunp sJnOOO 6ugsaN q pue buua ;uiMJanO wa; 96Jawa slenpwpul �A�101SIH 311 a43 ul 6 uualuwuenu Aq saJnleJedwaJ Bu¢ee uJO spuod pue s9ysJew 10 swolloq APPnw Pue 6ulddeus L4 uogerOOSSe ul pun0 J1 saMesweyl l0a ;ad sapJnl s,6ulpuelg •sapJnl Palmed ' s,6ulpuel9 'elosauul ul - lep . 1 �(puenbe4 We pue sluepgeyul puod pue ysJew Apiewud aJe sal�nl Aq paJJa;aJd aJe uoge ;a6an ogenbe 3 pue swop BuuapJOq segsJew 9nrsualx3 sa uoq PnuJ s,6ulpuel9 yliM Ja;eM 6ulnow Mol 'Motleogle ys ' :1 d118b'H apJnl s 6ulpuel8 llnpe e6eJane a 416u91 1194s Jaddn null ly6leJ ;s ul sayOul 6 0; g wa; sa6uej Jo uMaq 346! e O 41 '31Oeu pue u14O M 446uq eyl sl suety plat am Oul sl o l 1 s4 P Ilews L4Lm �(eJ6 -anlq Jo uMa 1 l i P b 'MOlia�t ' 4M uogOaloJd leuo4?PPe apu�ad o; 11ays do; a q Jep aJe sa6epuadde pue peat' a41 •paualeaJy; o f GWM a43 6ullgeue pn4l lu04 ayl .Dios 43 lsulebe �(luJJy 11ays JaMOI 9 431 0 a6pe luoJ a 4� 1194s Padeys-ewop 'an PaBuly sr hays 94310 woJlog 941 'sre 4l IfOd f4 )Vel) Jo 4 a ylu� epJnl a6Jel 03 wnlp9w a s! e g Pue spuds q q.L (pa ;nw ' fl!nl s,6ulpue18 941 (4xauuiyy 01 wvae - NOI1d12IOS30 N �tvdab put a�udwe 44MKM P PftLPto u)04 PO4EPV) NOLLM6O3NI A601SIH 3311 I BLAINDING'S TURTLE 11 2 EmYdoidea blandingii (Holbrook) OFFICIAL STATUS: Threatened \ o BASIS FOR STATUS: Although formerly more widespread, the Bland - ing's turtle is now restricted to a small number of states and provinces in the Upper Midwest, stretching from Nebraska eastward to Michigan. On- tario, and Quebec. A smaller remnant population, spanning portions of a few New England states, as well as a number of scattered populations throughout the Northeast, testify to the turtle's more expanded range in earlier times. Minnesota lies on the northwest periphery of the species' range. An extensive area of sand dunes and marshes along the Mississippi River, south of the town of Kellogg, is recognized as a major concentration area for the turtle and may be one of the largest breeding populations in its entire range. Elsewhere in the state, the Blanding's turtle has a more spotty distribution, following the Mississippi and St. Croix rivers north- ward into east - central Minnesota and the Minnesota River westward into the south - central portions of the state. Two recent records from Pipestone County also confirm the species' presence in the Missouri River drainage of extreme southwestern Minnesota. As a marsh irthabitart the recent destruction of wetland habitats by drain- age and /or inundation for agricultural purposes, river channelization, and water impoundment has greatly decreased available habitat for the species. Like other turtles, the Blanding's turtle is also vulnerable to collecting as a desirable pet species (S45 for a 15 to 20 centimeter turtle); it is easily col- lected in areas where it is abundant, especially during the nesting season. The species' life history also makes this turtle particularly susceptible to human disturbances, as evidenced by a long term and intensive study of the population inhabiting the Kellogg Dunes (Pappas, personal communi- cation). Some features contributing to this susceptibility are late matura- tion, low reproductive potential (one clutch /season), long -lived adults, and high mortality of eggs and juveniles. Population and reproductive dy- namics suggest viable populations of Blanding's turtles are dependent on large numbers of animals and adequate areas of undisturbed habitat. PREFERRED HABITAT: The preferred habitat of the Blanding's turtle includes calm, shallow water, rich, aquatic vegetation and sandy uplands for nesting. Studies by Congdon et al. (1983) in Michigan and by Linck (personal communication) in Massachusetts have shown that nesting fe- males may travel considerable distances (200 to 400 meters) to a nesting area, passing enroute what appears to be suitable nesting habitat immedi- ately adjacent to the marsh in which they reside. AID TO IDENTIFICATION: Blanding's turtle is medium - sized, averag- ing 15 to 25 centimeters in length. The species' most diagnostic field char- acteristics are its smooth, domed upper shell, or carapace, and its bright yellow neck, throat, and chit:. The carapace usually appears bluish black, with numerous specks of yellow throughout. The lower shell, or plastron, is bright yellow with black patches on the outside margin. In general, the adult male can be distinguished from the female by its slightly indented plastron and longer tail. The most distinct feature of the plastron is the hinge, which allows the turtle to raise the plastron upward and provide more protection to the soft extremities that it has pulled inside the shell. For this reason the species is often referred to as a - semibox" turtle. RECOWNIEN'DATIONS: Efforts to identify, protect, and preserve pre- ferred habitats of this species should be continued, particularly where populations are locally abundant. Additional information on the species' local distribution and abundance should also be collected to allow an ac- curate assessment of its current status and to aid in protection efforts. SELECTED REFERENCES: Breckenridge 1944: Conant 1975; Con- gdon et al. 1983; Ewert 1982; Graham and Doyle 1977; McCoy 1973; Vogt 1981. Blanding's Turtle: adult viewed from above (top) and below (bottom): side view shown in silhouette. ' m1988, State of Minnesota, Vera Ming Wong / 933 }� ^cCi:rt. 9. and L. Pfartnrnuller _ � _ z:aa mac; t. cf :• <a;'.St:.l R so �.s. of Yinr_sos cress. Iaiaresp`is ,e. Westwood Professional Services, Inc. April 26, 1999 Park/Open Space Acreage Summary CONCEPT P.U.D. SUBMISSION KELLEY TRUST PROPERTY ROSEMOUNT, MN PARK/OPEN SPACE FEATURE Appendix E Birger Pond Hill/Oak Savannah Birger Pond Shoreline and Proposed Birger Pond Park Type 1 - Central Wetlands Shannon Elementary School Trail & Wetland System (North) Shannon Elementary School Trail & Wetland System (South & East) Daly Forest East Neighborhood Park Open Space Trail Link - East Regional Trail Dahlia to Carroll's Woods (5.5 Ac. plus 10.5 Ac.) Schwartz Pond Park Buffer TOTAL 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Phone: 612-937-5150 Fax: E Toll Peep 1.888- 937 -5150 Ema". aysewestwoodps.com 98376.00 APPROXLINIATE ACREAGE 9.4 26.0 13.5 8.3 7.8 29.0 2.0 1.0 0.8 1=111 9M 117.4 ± Acres Designing the Future Today ... since 1972 1 Appendix F CITY OF ROSEMOUNT Everything's Coming Up Rosemount!! November 7, 1996 Vanessa L. Olson, Environmental Specialist Dakota County Environmental Management Department 14955 Galaxie Avenue Apple Valley, MN 55124 -8579 CITY HALL _57: - 145th Street `Blest P.O. Box 510 Rosemount' M N 5506M510 Phone: 612. 423 -4411 Fax: 612 -423 -5203 Re: Well Closure on the James E. Kelley Trust Property P.I.D. #34- 01910 - 011 -25, Township 115, Range 19, Section 19 Property located east of Diamond Path Road Rosemount, Minnesota Dear Vanessa: Fj Attached is a copy of the Well Closure form which was completed by McCarthy Well Company on August 4, 1994 for the Well in question on the Kelley Trust Property. McCarthy Well was contracted by the City to close this well due to environmental concerns. The Minnesota Department of Health was contacted and provided a copy of the attached form. On the form it states that "under Dakota County directives" the Well was air lifted and cleaned prior to sealing of the Well. It appears that someone at the County was aware of this closure, but this Well and Boring Sealing Record must not have been sent to the County and we apologize if that did not happen. Please call me at 322 -2025 if you have any further questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, Bud Osmundson, P.E. City Engineer /Public Works Director cc: Timothy J. Dwyer, Kelley Trust David Swenson, Supervisor, Water & Land Management, Dakota County Kim Benson - Johnson, Minnesota Department of Health L „,,.... ELL OR BORING LOCATION MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Seating NO. H 3366 Junty Name WELL AND BORING SEALING RECORD Minnesota UnloUe No. Minnesota Statures. Chanter 1031 or'N -senes No. Townsn,o Name T— irsn No Range NO Section rto Faction ism :g.) Cate �eaiea Approximate Date wee ' or 9onngConstn.ctaa ' � u tum incal Street Address or F Numaer and C.ly ct'Ned or Spring Location J V C 7 ( S. E. cQ�,L. Q 4 0 - LA ¢ Depth Sato re Seating 1 7 ? n. Ongnat Oeom h, e.aa location of wed a opmg Sketch map of well or opting Static Water Level Accurate s ection grid with X n 1 location snowing property lines. N &M 1 /fit GQ w roads. 3na buildings. C Aocint — ate I W R - ,---- 1 -= -C;- M. Open Hole from to n OBSTRUCnoWDEBRIStFILL C: Obstruction XCebns C] Fit ROPEATY OWNER'S NAME C 1 R 0 04 Q M L e °-�- I / ' ` Q Type of debriwobstruction Single Aou,ler ❑ muivaouter h. aeaw alive lar+a sunaael CASING TYPE C] stets ❑ Plastic ❑ Tile ❑ other i � — 1 -Ad ± Screen from to M. Open Hole from to n OBSTRUCnoWDEBRIStFILL C: Obstruction XCebns C] Fit ROPEATY OWNER'S NAME C 1 R 0 04 Q M L e °-�- I / ' ` Q Type of debriwobstruction ' ” M2Wng Ad ress a different than properly address indicated aoove. _ L j / 7 C J w. Obswcnory Deans Fill removed? Yes Cl No f .5 PUMP Removed U Not Present C Other CASING HARDNESS OF! FROM TO GEOLOGICAL MATERIAL COLOR FORMATION Oiameter Oepm Set in oversize no40 Annular space mroaly grouted? If not known. noicate estimated formation ;og tram nearoy well or boring. n r `" ❑ Yes X. E: Yes 0 No C2 B i7 O �`f ' �+ - �n. from :o ft. UnKnowr .n. from to `L ❑ Yes ❑ No C Yes C: No ❑ UnKnowr In, from to ft. Cl Yes Cl No L: Yes ❑ No ❑ Uri nowr METHOD USED TO SEAL ANNULAR SPACE BETWE_N Z CASINGS. OR CASING AND BORE HOLE. No Annular Space Exists l I "�+' -- C1 Annular space grouted with trem,e pipe C ax ❑ Casing Pertaratlon/Removal gin. from to 't v Perforated C] Removed Ll.� ?�X j I r I in. from to i t ❑ Penorated ❑ Removed Type of perforator ` ❑ Other GROUTING MATERIAL R Groutingmatenal ' Cep from O to 1 7 ? `t 6 5 yards bags from to R yards bag= REMARKS. SOURCE OF DATA, DIFFICULTIES IN SEALING from to .'t. yards bag= ssGt � C from to t yards Sag- ISM r!t { /�� /'e��� UNSEALED WELLS AND BORINGS L Other unseated well or bonng on Property? ❑ Yes XNo 0 a7�rr ��s LICENSED OR REGISTERED CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION 2700 [11x7 >!�U!„ orno T @LjO06WP6GT0K ON 5342} I u� This +veil or taring was sealed n accordance with Minnesota Rules. Chapter 4775. The ,nfonmation contained ,n !inn reocrt true to the best of my knowledge. '? ,� 7 0� Contractor Business "lame Aurnoozed Represemanve SSnature H 43368 Name or Oersorealing Nei, ► _.terse :r -�egisrratron roc 8- //- � fare DAKOTA COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 14955 CALAXIE AVENUE BARRY C. SCHADE C:RECTCR (612)891 -7011 FAX(612)891 -7031 APPLE VAL'' M INNESOTA 58124 -8579 RECEIVED 8 1 / October 23, 1996 James E. Kelley Trste 425 Hamm Bldg St. Paul, MN 55 i 02 OCT 25 1996 KELLEY & G i%l' MANAGENIE.;"i RE: Order to seal the unused well located at the property located on Diamond Path Rd, Rosemount, property identification number 34- 01910- 011 -25, Township 115, Range 19, Section 19 Dear Property Manager: Our office is aware of the unused well located at the property referenced above. The well is uncovered and located in a lake. The well appears to have been under water at one time. Currently, approximately 8 inches of the casing is above the water level. According to Minnesota Statute Chapter 103I Section 301 Subdivision 1(3), a property owner must have a well or boring sealed if the well or boring is located, constricted, or maintained in a manner that its continued use or existence endangers groundwater quality or is a safety or health hazard. This well endangers the groundwater quality of Dakota County and is required to be sealed under Minnesota Statute Chapter 1031 and Dakota County Ordinance No. 114. Dakota County considers this well an imminent hazard and requires the well to be cleaned out and sealed by a Iicensed well contractor within 30 days from the date of this letter. Please contact me at (612) 891 -7010 should you have any questions. Sincerely, WATER AND LAND MANAGEMENT Vanessa L. Olson Enviro=ental Specialist C: David Swenson, Supervisor, Water and Land Management Jay Stassen, County Attorney Kim Benson - Johnson, Minnesota Department of Health Prmtea on recycled oaaer. 20S cost - consumer I* AN _C._'AL _ cMP_OYER TIMOTHY J. DWYER ATTORNEY AND COUNSELLOR AT LAW 408 SAIIYr =t STREET Sr= 425 HA BUILDING IELEP14ONE (619 222 -7463 SAINT PAUL, mDNESOTA 55102 -1187 FACE E (619 2223652 Friday 25 October 1996 Bud Osmundson City of Rosemount Rosemount City Hall 2875 145th St. West Rosemount, MN 55068 Re: Order to seal the unused well located at the property located on Diamond Path Rd, Rosemount, property identification number 34- 01910- 011 -25, Township 115, Range 19, Section 19 Dear Bud: Please find the notice that I received from Vanessa L. Olson, Environmental Specialist. I believe this is the well located in the lake that was flooded by the City of Rosemount, and I was advised that the City of Rosemount was going to seal the well. I would appreciate your calling me so we can discuss this. Very t7urs, J. Dwyer TJD:nh Enclosure xc Vanessa L. Olson Dakota County Environmental Management Department 14955 Galaxie Avenue Apple Valley, Mn 55124 -8579 ' ' STATE HI STO ATION OFFICE Appendix G MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIEGE RE November 25, 1998 NOV 3 199a WES O SERV Ms. Kathryn Fernholz pRO FESSION � ` Westwood Professional Services 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 ' RE: Development Project - T115 R19 S19 & S20; T115 R20 S24 Rosemount, Dakota County SHPO Number: 99 -0343 Dear Ms. Fernholz: ' Thank you for consulting with our office during the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the above referenced project. ' Based on our review of the project information, we conclude that there are no properties listed on the National or State Registers of Historic Places, and no known or suspected archaeological properties in the area that will be affected by this project. ' Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36CFR800, Procedures of the ' Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for the protection of historic properties. If this project is considered for federal assistance, or requires a federal permit or license, it should be submitted to our office with reference to the assisting federal agency. If such ' a review applies, additional evaluation of the farm buildings on the site may be necessary, ' Please contact us at (651)296 -5462 if you have any questions regarding our comments on this project. Sincerely, c Dennis . Gimmestad Government Programs and Compliance Officer ' I :It. :It. h1'.1.1.O(.(i 1301 11F\ \11!) \� f:�l ! �.0 \'I' �� \1 !.. )�I \ \I:�O1 \ 1. -1900 / - A.I:1110NE: h51- 291) - 1l26 I Appendix H ' TABLE I Effectiveness of Traffic Calming Measures on Vehicle Speeds Traffic Calming Measures Highly Effective Effective Slightly Effective Uncertain of Effectiveness Not Effective Street Width Adjustments: Street Narrowing X Choker X Median Island X On -Street Angled Parking X Protected Parking Bas X Traditional Traffic - Control Techniques: Vehicle Restrictions X Turn Restrictions X One-Way Streets X Variable-Speed Display Board X Trumpet Island X Marked Crosswalks X Stop Signs X Vertical or Horizontal Realignments Speed hump or bump X Traffic Circle X Chicane X Route Modifications: Street Closure (cul -de -sac) X Dia onal Diverter X Semi - Diverter X Perceptual Enhancements: Change in Road Surface, Materials, or Color X Streetscape Materials or Landscape Plantings X G 1 u TABLE 2 Effectiveness of Traffic Calming Measures on Traffic Volumes Traffic Calming Measures Highly Effective Effective Slightly I Uncertain of Not Effective Effectiveness Effective Street Width Adjustments: Street Narrowing X I i Choker X Median Island X On- Street Angled Parking X Protected Parking Bas X Traditional Traffic Control Techniques: Vehicle Restrictions X Turn Restrictions X One-Way Streets X Variable-Speed Display Board ( X Trumpet Island X Marked Crosswalks X Stop Signs X Vertical or Horizontal Realignments Speed urnp or bump X Traffic Circle X Chicane X Route Modifications: Street Closure (cul -de -sac) X Diagonal Diverter X Semi - Diverter X Perceptual Enhancements: Change in Road Surface, Materials, or Color I X Streetscape Materials or Landscape Plantings I X ' TABLE 3 Effectiveness of Traffic Calming Measures to Improve Street Safety I Traffic Calming Measures Highly Effective Effective Slightly Effective Uncertain of Effectiveness Not Effective Street Width Adjustments: Street Narrowing X Choker X Median Island X On- Street Angled Parking X Protected Parking Bas X Traditional Traffic - Control Techniques: Vehicle Restrictions X Turn Restrictions X One-Way Streets X Variable-Speed Display Board X Trumpet Island X Marked Crosswalks X Stop Signs X Vertical or Horizontal Realignments Speed hump or bump X Traffic Circle X Chicane X Route Modifications: Street Closure (cul -de -sac) X Diagonal Diverter X Semi - Diverter X Perceptual Enhancements: Change in Road Surface, Materials, or Color X Streetscape Materials or Landscape Plantings X TABLE 4 Effectiveness of Traffic Calming Measures for Enhancing Perceived Street ' Environment Traffic Calming Measures Highly Effective Effective Slightly Effective Uncertain of Effectiveness Not Effective Street Width Adjustments: Street Narrowing X Choker X Median Island X On- Street Angled Parking X Protected Parking Bas X Traditional Traffic Control Techniques: Vehicle Restrictions X Turn Restrictions X One-Way Streets X Variable-Speed Display Board X Trumpet Island X Marked Crosswalks X Stop Sins X Vertical or Horizontal Realignments Speed hump or bump X Traffic Circle X Chicane X Route Modifications: Street Closure (cul -de -sac) X Diagonal Diverter X Semi - Diverter X Perce tual Enhancements: Change in Road Surface, Materials, or Color X Streetscape Materials or Landscape Plantings X Appendix I SBP Associates, Inc. Consulting Services City of Rosemount, Kelly Trust Property PUD Minnesota Alternative Areawide Review Draft Traffic Noise and Air Quality Impact Assessment November, 1999 3914 Randall Avenue Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 (612) 927 -9012 Fax: (612) 788 -8186 BRA Draft Rosemount Air Quality and Noise Assessment City of Rosemount, Kelly Trust Property PUD Minnesota Alternative Urban Areawide Review Draft Traffic Noise and Air Quality Impact Assessment November, 1999 A. Summary and Introduction SBP Associates, Inc. (SBP) has conducted a traffic noise monitoring and modeling analysis for the proposed Kelly Trust PUD in the City of Rosemount. Additionally, SBP has evaluated the potential for significant air quality impacts from traffic related to the proposed development. The information from this study is to be used for the Minnesota Alternative Urban Areawide Review being conducted for the proposed project. The study demonstrates the following: • The noise analysis predicts that noise impacts from traffic generated by the proposed development will be 3 dBA or less at residential locations near roadways serving the development. A traffic study conducted by Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc (BRA) has concluded that intersections near the proposed development will remain below capacity (operating at level of service C or better) with the additional traffic expected to be generated by the development. The lack of congestion near intersections assures that impacts on carbon monoxide levels from the traffic will be minimal. B. Minnesota Noise Standards Minnesota Statutes, Section 116.07, Subd. 2a, exempt noise from city and county roads from the requirements of Minnesota noise rules unless full control of access to the road has been acquired. The standards are presented here for comparison purposes only. Minnesota Rules Chapter 7030 provide the Minnesota standards for noise. These standards describe the limiting levels of sound established on the basis of present knowledge for the preservation of health and welfare. These standards are designed to be consistent with sleep, speech, annoyance, and hearing conservation requirements for receivers within areas grouped according to land use activities. The Minnesota standards are as follows: Paae 2 C i 1 BRA Draft Rosemount Air Quality and Noise Assessment 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM L i o L;o L, o L; NAC -1 (Residential) 65 60 55 50 NAC -2 (Commercial) 70 65 70 65 NAC -3 (Industrial) 80 75 80 75 L10 means the sound level which is exceeded for 10 percent of the time for a one -hour period. L 50 means the sound level which is exceeded 50 percent of the time for a one -hour period. Sound levels are expressed in dB(A). A dB(A) is a unit of sound level expressed in decibels and weighted for the purpose of determining the human response to sound. C. Noise Monitoring Results ' As part of the noise analysis study, SBP Associates, Inc. conducted noise monitoring at two locations along the major project area roadways. Diamond Path Road west of the site and Trunk Highway 3 east of the site. Monitoring locations are shown in Figure 1. The ' purpose of the monitoring was to identify existing noise levels and to calibrate the modeling analysis. Results of the monitoring are as follows: ' Monitoring Location Lio L M 1 M2 68 dBA 69 dBA 61.5 dBA 64 dBA A detailed graphical representation of all monitoring results is provided in Appendix A. D. Minnoise Model The Minnoise model is a modified (modified by the Minnesota Department of ' Transportation) version of the Federal Highway Administration's Optima/Stamina model that is used to predict noise levels from highway projects and to assist with the development of noise barriers. ' E. Model Assumptions 1 Noise level predictions were based on the following data and assumptions: • Traffic noise levels were predicted based on constant operating speeds of 50 miles per hour on South Robert Street, 45 miles per hour on Diamond Path Road, and 35 miles per hour on all other local streets. ' • The noise analysis was completed for the peak day time hour. I Paue 3 - 1 EXISTING ROADWAY -• -+ PRCPOSEO KELLEY TRUST AREA ROADWAYS Figure 1 Noise Monitoring Locations M Modeled Noise Receptor Locations R f Bonestroo RosBne Ia Anderllk 6 Associates EfVin«ia / Arcnh 1 EGEh.�_ KELLEY TRUST j. PROPERTY 1 71 , BRA Draft Rosemount Air Quality and Noise Assessment • Traffic data for the study was generated by BRA and is provided in Appendix B. Peak hour traffic levels were estimated at 10 percent of average daily traffic. • The noise modeling analysis assumed that 0.8 percent of the vehicles were heavy trucks (three or more axles), and 1.4 percent of the vehicles were medium trucks (two axles. six wheels). • The analysis assumed acoustically soft ground cover between the roadway and all receiver locations (alpha = 0.5). • Atmospheric effects on noise levels were ignored. • Noise levels were predicted at 7 receiver sites, which are shown in Figure 1. F. Noise Receiver Locations Seven noise receiver locations were chosen for this analysis. The receiver locations are shown in the attached Figure 1. Receivers RI, R5, R6, and R7 are located in existing residential neighborhoods. Receivers R2, R3, and R4 are located in proposed residential areas in the new development. All receivers are located 100 feet from the centerline of the adjacent roadway. G. Model Results Model results for the 2020 build alternative are provided in Table 1. Table 2 presents a comparison of modeled 2020 noise levels at receivers in existing neighborhoods with and without the proposed development. Complete model output files are provided as Appendix C. Table 1 Kelly Trust Property Development 2020 Post - Development Modeled Noise Levels (dBA) Receptor L i o L;o R1 59 51 R2 54 43 R3 52 41 R4 58 50 R5 67 60 R6 62 55 R7 60 52 Page 4 BRA Draft Rosemount Air Quality and Noise Assessment Table 2 Kelly Trust Property Development 2020 Build and No -Build Modeled Noise Level (dBA) Comparison The largest predicted noise level increases are at Receptors R1 and R3, where predicted L increases are 2 dBA and predicted L50 increases are 3 dBA. For comparison, if other factors remain constant, doubling of traffic levels results in an increased noise level of 3 dBA, or an increase of average traffic speed of 10 mph will also result in a 3 dBA increase. Variations in pavement type can cause actual post - construction noise levels that are several decibels lower or higher than those projected by the model. ' Modeled noise levels at these locations are below the Minnesota daytime standards for residential areas (L 1 o = 65 dBA, L 50 = 60 dBA). Modeled noise levels at receptor R5 are just above the Minnesota daytime standard with and without the development. H. Air Quality Impacts Assessment ' Carbon monoxide (CO) levels near congested intersections can cause violations of Minnesota ambient standards, which are: 1 • 1 -hour average: 30 parts per million (ppm); 0 8 -hour average: 9 ppm. A traffic studv conducted by Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc (BRA) has concluded that intersections near the proposed development will remain below capacity (operating at level of service C or better) with the additional traffic expected to be ' generated by the development. The lack of congestion near intersections assures that impacts on carbon monoxide levels from the traffic will be minimal. I Page 5 Build No -Build Change Receptor Lio L;o LIo L50 Lio L R1 59 51 57 48 +2 +3 R5 67 60 66 60 +1 <1 R6 62 55 60 52 +2 +3 R7 60 52 59 50 +l +2 The largest predicted noise level increases are at Receptors R1 and R3, where predicted L increases are 2 dBA and predicted L50 increases are 3 dBA. For comparison, if other factors remain constant, doubling of traffic levels results in an increased noise level of 3 dBA, or an increase of average traffic speed of 10 mph will also result in a 3 dBA increase. Variations in pavement type can cause actual post - construction noise levels that are several decibels lower or higher than those projected by the model. ' Modeled noise levels at these locations are below the Minnesota daytime standards for residential areas (L 1 o = 65 dBA, L 50 = 60 dBA). Modeled noise levels at receptor R5 are just above the Minnesota daytime standard with and without the development. H. Air Quality Impacts Assessment ' Carbon monoxide (CO) levels near congested intersections can cause violations of Minnesota ambient standards, which are: 1 • 1 -hour average: 30 parts per million (ppm); 0 8 -hour average: 9 ppm. A traffic studv conducted by Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc (BRA) has concluded that intersections near the proposed development will remain below capacity (operating at level of service C or better) with the additional traffic expected to be ' generated by the development. The lack of congestion near intersections assures that impacts on carbon monoxide levels from the traffic will be minimal. I Page 5 From . AL FtrE� 9 A s e N O O 0 W M 0 M 0 O 8 :7 I 4P PHONE No. : 651 E39 9578 dSA , SOUND LEVEL Nov. ,:�4 r U l 8 lob m ; )o 2 9 i r pm ' r D �T= 0 N ' O o ' M 1 1 4 M P , P O ' O u e , O 1 0 p. !N man n.. wiaw . lswwww� W IN ' � amino ,....I ww HM W11 M � � i aaa���a �$m owwoffle no Imn i�� of gossuss OEM 0 MEE N NBC W iaaai . Iwo =1 _- iffiffig WEI i gem WON Rio= OEM-Em p//// A� � N z Nei • ffiiffNi�i i �� I H ■ \ii = NU M: Ni ■.w" lmminil Ruin o fli'H! ri'l ['M � a fills�wfl/lillllil WANT ■N INMI ii�IR A all"11� I � a am ENNEU 1,0 m lob m ; )o 2 9 i r pm ' r D �T= 0 N ' O o ' M 1 1 4 M P , P O ' O u e , O 1 6ONESi.R00 ROSENE ANDERLIK t � 6316361311 77, ^� KELLEY TRUST PROPERTY EXISTING ROADWAY — -� PROPOSED KELLEY TRUST AREA ROADWAYS 10/13/99 13:37 2? :02109 NO: 172 ' FIGURE 2 f Sonestroo Ro9ene STUDY AREA AND / 4 / 4 2 4 " 1 N/ 4 24 ";022 Anderlik & ' Associates ROADWAY SYSTEM Erg4m"= * Aroo h":* BONESTR00 ROSENE ANDERLIK d 6516361311 J J t 0 4L. 4L — 2L Wrl"vRE7+s D. 4L 10/13/99 13:37 5 :03/09 NO: 172 �n (mot to stole) 2L T .1 Z H ZL " 21. 2L 00 ♦ iT f sr. 21. _ 2L 1 �J 2L 41. a L T H 4 L 4L c d t. H 21. H S / *fin Sr 2L 4L 2L LE..Q I f I TRAFFIC SIGNAL H STOP SIGN 2L 2 LANE ROADWAY 4L 4 LANE ROADWAY FIGURE 3 EXISTING LANES /TRAFFIC ° �/ & CONTROL 1 Asa` 2L (plus center left turn lane) rtJStNt ANOE_RLIK ' � 1 z g _LE�G PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL MINOR ARTERIAL �---� COLLECTOR 1 '®' 6.)16361311 S14, If m &aNaPfws RD. 4 CO3'/ rR. =L a �� 10/13/99 13:37 L :04/09 NO: 172 (not to score) I� /.fw Sr I� r L". S•.I. H. �1 Scarce: Qoxoto County FIGURE 4 Bonestroo A Rosene ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL /424/42' "10 " 14 ;rd Ande/lik & CI OSSIFICATION " Assacletes CDWO" . Ana+ftw BONE�TR00 ROSENE ANDERLIK Ll 1 6516361311 10/13/99 13:37 5 :05/09 NO: 172 Source: 1946, 1997 MnOot flow maps. county, city Coto ' FIGURE 5 � Bonestroo von Rosene EXISTING AVERAGE ANNUAL / 67 '/ 42 ' „'a2 /424"iUrs Andadik & ' DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES 11 Assocletes &V ve 41 A,onl'Mob i I SONES,TR00 ROSENE ANDERLIK f 6516361311 10/13/99 13:37 5 :06/09 NO:172 FIGURE 6 Bonestroo 0 Rosene DEVELOPMENT GENERATED Andadik & Associates DAILY TRIPS ,, i AecMftM �' Zh KdSJ � x � S� HVSP ZZL :ON 60 /LO :(9 1£:2L 66/2L/OL A� LL9L919LS9 S, NI18BONV 20SM 0003N09', SONESTR00 ROSENE ANDERLIK 6516361311 � QL h 10/13/99 13:37 � :08/09 NO:172 CSAN 38 ' McAuoarw3 Ra. v _ rn� 1 •tr:r• (� f �� y � ji -, -'L - - al[ frPL —+` 'r■ mil` -s 1-7 (" 96_. , 1 -Ch K asp w - x e NIN tb , 1 to KV55 ZLL :ON 60/60: rO i� :�L 66 /�L /OL LL�L9�9L59 NTI 3aNd 3N3SOa 00�1S3N09 , e i 1 STAMINA 2.0 /BCR FHWA VERS (MARCH 1982) TRAFF NOISE PREDICTIC:3 :MODEL DEVELOPED UNDER CONTRACT BY BBN (INPUT UNITS- ENGLISH , OUTPUT UNITS- ENGLISH ) MODIFIED BY THE MINNESOTA DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION FOR OPERATION ON A MS -DOS PERSONAL COMPUTER, 1985 KELLY TRUST PROPERTY - PM PEAK 2020 - NO DEVELOPMENT OPROGRAM INITIALIZATION PARAMETERS HEIGHT CODE DESCRIPTION .00 1 RECEIVER HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT 1.00 2 A- WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL ONLY .00 3 HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT FOR PASSENGER CARS f%CARS) 8.00 4 HEIGHT ADJUSTMEINT FOR HEAVY TRUCKS ' T) 2.30 5 HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT FOR MEDIUM TRUCKS (MT) OROADWAY 1 NORTH SITE RDWY - DIAMOND PATH TO DANUBE VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES /HOUR SPEED CARS HT _. 35. MT 1. 35. 0 ------------ COORDINATES------- - - - - -- X Y GRADE A 485.0 - 1080.0 0 B 1745.0 - 1011.0 _ 0 C 2728.0 - 1454.0 0 D 3115.0 - 1315.0 0 OROADWAY 2 NORTH SITE RDWY - DANUBE TO SHANNON VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES /HOUR SPEED CARS 1. 35. HT 1. 35. MT 1. 35. 0 ------------ COORDINATES------- - - - - -- X Y Z GRADE D 3115.0 - 1315.0 .0 0 E 3512.0 - 1185.0 .0 0 F 4346.0 - 1317.0 .: 0 G 5093.0 -681.0 .� 0 H 5839.0 - 1098.0 .0 0 OROADWAY 3 NORTH SITE RDWY - SHANNON TO =AST VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES /HOUR SPEED CARS i. 35. HT _. 35. MT ;. 35. 0 ------------ COORDINATES------- - - - - -- X Y Z GRADE H 5839.0 - 1098.0 .0 0 I 6015.0 - 1273.0 0 J 6410.0 - 1229.0 .1 0 iC 6849.0 - 1580.0 .0 0 LL 7256.0 - 2502.0 .0 0 M 7024.0 - 3073.0 .0 0 N 7639.0 - 4039.0 .0 0 OROADWAY 4 CONNEMARA TRAIL - EAST TO NSR VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES /HOUR SPEED CARS 282. 35. HT 2. 35. MT 4. 35. 0 ---- COORDINATES - - - - -- X Y Z GRADE AA 11063.0 - 4785.0 .0 0 BB 9088.0 - 3512.0 .0 0 CC 8210.0 - 3863.0 .0 0 N 7639.0 - 4039.0 .0 0 OROADWAY 5 CONNEMARA TRAIL - NSR TO SHANNON VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES / 3 C:.RJ 3 1 2 . HT 3. 33. MT 4. 35. 0 ------------ COORDINATES------- - - - - -- X Y Z GRADE N 7639.0 - 4039.0 .0 0 EE 6058.0 - 5632.0 .0 0 FF 5400.0 - 57664.0 .0 0 GG 4620.0 - 5764.0 .0 0 OROADWAY 6 CONNEMARA TRAIL - SHANNON TO DIAMOND PATH VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES /HOUR SPEED CARS 538. 35. HT 4. 35. MT 8. 35. 0 ------------ COORDINATES------- - - - - -- X Y Z GRADE GG 4620.0 - 5764.0 .0 0 XR 3158.0 - 5862.0 0 YY 1518.0 - 6435.0 0 OROADWAY 7 SHANNON - NORTH OF NSR VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES /HCUR ED CARS 244. ^. HT 2. 35. MT 4. p ------------ COORDINATES ------------- X Y Z GRADE AAA 6673.0 .0 .0 0 BBB 6455.0 -527.0 .0 0 H 5839.0 - 1098.0 0 OROADWAY 8 SHANNON - NSR TO CONNEMARA VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES / HOUR .. = =7D CARS 235. 35. HT 2. 35. MT 3. 35. 0 ------------C.CORDINATES ------------- X Y Z GRADE H 5839.0 - 1098.0 .D 0 CCC 5312.0 - 1624.0 0 DDD 5093.0 - 2239.0 .: 0 EEE 5356.0 - 3161.0 ._ 0 FFF 5180.0 - 3863.0 ._ 0 GGG 5115.0 - 4302.0 ._ 0 HHH 5137.0 - 4899.0 0 TIT 5016.0 - 5236. ;) 0 G 4620.0 - 5764.0 0 OROADWAY 9 SHANNON - SOUTH 0- CONNEMARA VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES / iiOUR SPEED CARS 37 _r. HT 3. _.,. MT 5. 35. 0 ------------ COORDINATES------- - - - - -- X Y Z GRADE GG 4620.0 - 5764.0 0 HH 4523.0 - 6349.0 0 II 4523.0 - 7714.0 0 OROADWAY 10 DIAMOND PATH - NCF:TH OF CONNE`:,RA VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES /HOUR S =.=D CARS 8 8 �. . HT 7. MT 13. -�. t 0 - COORDINATES------- - - - - -- X Y Z GRADE YY 1518.0 - 6435.0 .0 0 ZZ 1518.0 - 4290.0 .0 0 Z2 1100.0 - 3168.0 .0 0 A 485.0 - 1080.0 .0 0 Al .0 .0 .0 0 B1 -760.0 455.0 .0 0 B2 - 1747.0 580.0 .0 0 OROADWAY 11 DIAMOND PATH - SOUTH OF CONNEMARA VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES /HOUR SPEED Z GRADE CARS 1135. 45. HT 9. 45. O SR2 MT 16. 45. 0 ------------ COORDINATES------- - - - - -- 0 SR4 X Y Z GRADE YY 1518.0 - 6435.0 .0 0 ZZZ 1518.0 - 8435.0 .0 0 OROADWAY 12 SOUTH ROBERT VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES /HOUR SPEED CARS 2964. 50. HT 24. 50. MT 4- 7 . 50. 0 ------------ COORDINATES------- - - - - -- X Y Z GRADE SR1 11895.0 .0 .; O SR2 11895.0 - 3217.0 0 SR4 11261.0 - 5460.0 .0 0 SR3 11018.0 - 6532.0 .0 0 !RECEIVERS 0 ------------ COORDINATES------- - - - - -- X Y Z M -EAST 11086.0 - 5460.0 .0 M -WEST .0 62.0 .0 R1 -GGG 5215.0 - 4302.0 .0 R2 -D 3115.0 - 1215.0 R3 -1, 7356.0 - 2502.0 .0 R4 -BB 9088.0 - 3412.0 .0 R5 1618.0 - 7435.0 .0 R6 -XX 3158.0 - 5762.0 .0 R7 4423.0 - 6800.0 .0 1 ALPHA FACTORS - ROADWAY ACROSS,RECEIVER DOWN 1 * .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .., .5 .5 2 * .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 3 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 4 * .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 _ .5 5 I 7 * .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 8 * .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 9 * .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 1 SHIELDING FACTORS - ROADWAY ACROSS, RECEIVER DOWN 1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 9 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1KELLY TRUST PROPERTY - PM PEAK 2020 - NO DEVELOPMENT ORECEIVER LEQ(H) SIG L10 L50 L90 M -EAST 64.5 3.2 67.4 63.3 59.2 M -WEST 65.6 6.5 69.1 60.8 52.5 R1 -GGG 53.7 7.2 56.9 47.7 38.4 R2 -D 45.9 10.2 47.1 34.0 21.0 R3 -L 45.2 9.8 46.7 34.1 21.5 R4 -BB 53.1 6.8 56.4 47.7 38.9 R5 62.7 5.2 66.3 59.6 53.0 R6 -XX 56.5 6.2 60.1 52.1 44.2 R7 55.3 6.7 58.7 50.1 41.6 1 STAMINA 2.0 /BCR FHWA VERSION (MARCH 1982) TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL DEVELOPED UNDER CONTRACT BY BBN (INPUT UNITS- ENGLISH , OUTPUT UNITS- ENGLISH ) MODIFIED BY THE MINNESOTA DEPT. CF TRANSPORTA:ON FOR OPERATION ON A MS -DOS PERSONAL COMPUTER, 1_985 1 STAMINA 2.0 /BCR FHWA VERSION (MARCH 1982) ' TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL DEVELOPED UNDER CONTRACT BY BBN ' (INPUT UNITS- ENGLISH , OUTPUT UNITS- ENGLISH ) ' MODIFIED BY THE MINNESOTA DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION FOR OPERATION ON A MS -DOS PERSONAL COMPUTER, 1985 KELLY TRUST PROPERTY - PM PEAK 2020 ' OPROGRAM INITIALIZATION PARAMETERS HEIGHT CODE DESCRIPTION .00 1 RECEIVER HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT ' 1.00 2 A- WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL ONLY .00 3 HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT FOR PASSENGER CARS (CARS) ' 8.00 2.30 4 HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT FOR HEAVY TRUCKS 5 HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT FOR MEDIUM TRUCKS (HT) (MT) ' OROADWAY 1 NORTH SITE RDWY - DIAMOND PATH TO DANUBE VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES /HOUR SPEED ' CARS 96 3� HT 35 MT 3. 35. 0 ------------ COORDINATES------- - - - - -- ' X Y Z GRAD A 485.0 - 1080.0 .0 B 1745.0 - 1011.0 .0 ' C 2728.0 - 1454.0 .0 0 D 3115.0 - 1315.0 .0 ' OROADWAY 2 NORTH SITE RDWY - DANUBE TO SHANNON VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES /HOUR SPEED ' CARS 108. 35. HT 1. 35. ' 0 MT 2. 35. ------------ COORDINATES-- - - - - -- X Y Z GRADE D 3115.0 - 1315.0 .0 0 E 3512.0 - 1185.0 .0 0 ' F 4346.0 - 1317.0 .0 0 G 5093.0 -681.0 .0 0 H 5839.0 - 1098.0 .0 0 OROADWAY 3 NORTH SITE RDWY - SHANNON TO EAST t VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES /HOUR SPEED CARS 78. 35. HT 1. 35. MT 1. 35. 0 ------------ COORDINATES------- - - - - -- X Y GRADE 5839.0 - 1098.0 .0 0 1 6015.0 - 1273.0 0 J 6410.0 - 1229.0 p K 6849.0 - 1580.0 .0 0 LL 7256.0 - 2502.0 0 M 7024.0 - 3073.0 ,� 0 N 7639.0 - 4039.0 .0 0 OROADWAY 4 CONNEMARA TRAIL - EAST TO NSR VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES /HOUR SPEED CARS 390. 35, HT 3. 35, MT 6. 35. 0 ------------ COORDINATES------- - - - - -- X Y Z GRADE AA 11063.0 - 4785.0 .0 0 BB 9088.0 - 3512.0 .0 0 CC 8210.0 - 3863.0 ,0 0 `t 7639.0 - 4039.0 .0 0 OROADWAY 5 CONNEMARA TRAIL - NSR TO SR_AN:JC!,. VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES/HCliR. CARS 683. HT 6. 35. MT 10. 35. 0 --------- COORDINATES------- - - - - -- X Y Z GRADE N 7639.0 - 4039.0 „ 0 EE 6058.0 - 5632.0 .0 0 FF 5400.0 -5764.0 .0 0 GG 4620.0 - 5764.0 .0 0 OROADWAY 6 CONNEMARA TRAIL - SHANNON TO DIAMOND -=A VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES /HOUR - CARS 849. 35, HT 7, 35, MT 12. Ir. 0 ------- COORDINATES------- - - - - -- X Y Z GRADE GG 4620.0 - 5764.0 .0 0 X " 3158.0 - 5862.0 �`: 1518.0 - 6435.0 OROADWAY 7 SHANNON - NORTH OF NSR 7ZHT_CLE TYPE VEHICLES /HOUR SPEED CARS 293. 3 5. HT 2. 35. MT 4. 35. O ------------ COORDINATES----- - - - - -- X Y GRADE AAA 6673.0 .0 .0 0 BBB 6455.0 -527.0 .0 0 H 5839.0 - 1098.0 .0 0 OROADWAY 8 SHANNON - NSR TO CONNEMARA VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES /HOUR SPEED CARS 390. 35. HT 3. 35. MT 6. 35. 0 ------------ COORDINATES------- - - - - -- X Y Z GRADE H 5839.0 - 1098.0 .0 0 CCC 5312.0 - 1624.0 .0 0 DDD 5093.0 - 2239.0 .0 0 EEE 5356.0 - 3161.0 .0 0 FFF 5180.0 - 3863.0 .0 0 GGG 5115.0 - 4302.0 .0 0 HHH 5137.0 - 4899.0 .0 0 III 5016.0 - 5236.0 .0 0 GG 4620.0 - 5764.0 .0 0 OROADWAY 9 - Z,N'NON - SOUTH OF CONNEMARA VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES /HOUR SPEED CARS 488. 35. HT 4. 35. MT 7. 35. 0 ------------ COORDINATES------- - - - - -- X Y Z G RAD E GG 4620.0 - 5764.0 .0 0 HH 4523.0 - 6349.0 .0 0 II 4523.0 - 7714.0 .0 0 OROADWAY 10 DikMOND PATH - NORTH OF CONNEMARA, VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES /HOUR SPEED CARS 1074. 45. HT 9. 45. MT 15. 45. 0 ------------ COORDINATES------- - - - - -- VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES /HOUR X Y Z GRADE YY 1518.0 - 6435.0 .0 0 ZZ 1518.0 - 4290.0 .0 0 Z2 1100.0 - 3168.0 0 A 485.0 - 1080.0 .0 0 Al .0 .0 .0 0 B1 -760.0 455.0 .0 0 B2 - 1747.0 580.0 .0 0 OROADWAY 11 DIAMOND PATH - SOUTH OF CONNEMARA GRADE SRI VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES /HOUR SPEED .0 _ CARS 1269. 45. HT 10. 45. 0 SR4 MT 18. 45. 11261.0 0 -- ---------- COORDINATES------- - - - - -- SR3 X Y Z GRADE YY 1518.0 - 6435.0 .0 0 ZZZ 1518.0 - 8435.0 .0 0 OROADWAY 12 SOUTH ROBERT VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES /HOUR SPEED CARS 3026. HT 25. 50. MT 43. 50. 0 - COORDINATES------- - - - - -- X Y Z GRADE SRI 11895.0 .0 _ 0 SR2 11895.0 - 3217.0 ; 0 SR4 11261.0 - 5460.0 G 0 SR3 11018.0 - 6532.0 C 0 !RECEIVERS 0 ----------- COORDINATES------- - - - - -- X Y Z M -EAST 11086.0 - 5460.0 .0 M -WEST .0 62.0 .0 R1 -GGG 5215.0 - 4302.0 .0 R2 -D 3115.0 - 1215.0 .0 R3 -1, 7356.0 - 2502.0 .0 R4 -BB 9088.0 - 3412.0 .0 R5 . 1618.0 - 7435.0 .0 R6 -XX 3158.0 - 5762.0 .0 R7 4423.0 - 6800.0 .0 1 ALPHA FACTORS - ROADWAY ACROSS,RECEIVER DOWN 1 * .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 2 * .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 3 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 4 5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 5 .5 5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 _ 5 6 * .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 5 .5 .5 t 7 * .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 8 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 9 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 1 SHIELDING FACTORS - ROADWAY ACROSS,RECEIVER DOWN 1 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 9 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1KELLY TRUST PROPERTY - PM PEAK 2020 ORECEIVER LEQ(H) SIG L10 L50 L90 M -EAST 64.6 3.2 67.5 63.4 59.3 M -WEST 66.5 6.2 70.0 62.0 54.0 R1 -GGG 55.9 6.6 59.3 50.9 42.5 R2 -D 51.1 8.2 53.8 43.4 32.9 R3 -L 48.6 8.3 51.2 40.0' 30.0 R4 -BB 54.4 6.5 57.9 49.5 41.2 R5 63.2 5.0 66.8 60.3 53.8 R6 -XX 58.5 5.7 62.1 54.8 47.6 R7 56.5 6.3 60.0 51.9 43.9 1 STAMINA 2.0 /BCR FHWA VERSION (MARCH 1982) TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL DEVELOPED UNDER CONTRACT B': BBN (INPUT UNITS- ENGLISH , OUTPUT UNITS- ENGLISH ) MODIFIED BY THE MINNESOTA DEPT. OF TRAIN SPORTATICbl FOR OPER.ATIOii ON A MS -DOS PERSONAL COMPUTER, 1985 1 STAMINA 2.0 /BCR FHWA VERSION (MARCH 1982) TRAFFIC DiOISE PREDICTION MODEL DEVELOPED UNDER CONTRACT BY BBN (INPUT UNITS- ENGLISH , OUTPUT UNITS- ENGLISH ) MODIFIED BY THE MINNESOTA DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION FOR OPER,.ATION ON A MS -DOS PERSONAL COMPUTER, 1985 KELLY TRUST PROPERTY - PM PEAK 2020 OPROGRAM INITIALIZATION PARAMETERS HEIGHT CODE DESCRIPTION .00 1 RECEIVER HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT 1.00 2 A- WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL ONLY .00 3 HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT FOR PASSENGER CARS (CARS) 8.00 4 HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT FOR HEAVY TRUCKS `HT) 2.30 5 HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT FOR MEDIUM TRUCKS (MT) OROADWAY i NORTH SITE RDWY - DIAMOND PATH TO DA`TUBE VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES /HOUR SPEED CARS 96. 35. HT 2. 35. MT 3. 35. ----- COORDINATES------- - - - - -- X Y Z GRADE A 485.0 - 1080.0 .0 0 3 1745.0 - 1011.0 .0 0 2728.0 - 1454.0 .0 0 D 3115.0 - 1315.0 0 0 OROADWAY 2 NORTH SITE RDWY - DANUBE TO SHANNON VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES /HOUR SPEED CARS 108. 35. HT 1. 35. MT 2. 35. 0 ------------ COORDINATES------- - - - - -- X Y Z GRADE 3115.0 -1315.0 .0 0 E 3512.0 - 1185.0 .0 0 F 4346.0 - 1317.0 .0 0 G 5093.0 -681.0 .0 0 H 5839.0 - 1098.0 .0 0 OROADWAY 3 NORTH SITE RDWY - SHANNON TO EAST i VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES /HOUR SPEED CARS 78. 35. M 1. 3c. 0 ------------ COORDINATES------- - - - - -- X Y Z GRADE H 5839.0 - 1098.0 .0 0 I 6015.0 - 1273.0 .0 0 J 6410.0 - 1229.0 .0 0 K 6849.0 - 1580.0 .0 0 LL 7256.0 - 2502.0 .0 0 M 7024.0 - 3073.0 .0 0 N 7639.0 - 4039.0 .0 0 OROADWAY 4 CONNEMARA TRAIL - EAST' TO NSR VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES /HOUR SPEED CARS 390. 35. HT 3. 35. MT 6. 3 - 0 ------------ COORDINATES------- - - - - -- X Y Z GRADE AA 11063.0 - 4785.0 .0 0 BB 9088.0 - 3512.0 .0 0 CC 8210.0 - 3863.0 .0 0 N 7639.0 - 4039.0 .0 0 OROADWAY 5 CONNEMARA TRAIL - NSR TO SHANNON VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES /HCUR SPE --- _ CARS 683. 35. HT 6. 35. MT 10. 35. 0 ------------ COORDINATES------- - - - - -- X Y Z GRADE N 7639.0 - 4039.0 .0 0 EE 6058.0 - 5632.0 .0 0 FF 5400.0 - 5764.0 .0 0 GG 4620.0 - 5764.0 .0 0 OROADWAY 6 CONNEMARA TRAIL - SHANNON TO DIAMOND PATH VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES /HOUR SPEEZ CARS 849. 35. HT 7. 35. MT 12. 35. 0 ------------ COORDINATES------- - - - - -- X Y Z GRADE GG 4620.0 - 5764.0 .0 0 XX 3158.0 - 5862.0 yy 1518.0 - 6435.0 D OROADWAY SHANNON - NORTH OF NSR VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES /HOUR SPEED CARS 293. 35. HT 2. 35. MT 4. 35. 0 ------------ COORDINATES------- - - - - -- X Y z GRADE AAA 6673.0 .0 .0 0 BBB 6455.0 -527.0 .0 0 H 5839.0 - 1098.0 .0 0 OROADWAY 8 SHANNON - NSR TO CONNEMARA VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES /HOUR SPEED CARS 390. 35. HT 3. 35. MT 6. 35. 0 ------------ COORDINATES------- - - - - -- X Y Z GRADE H 5839.0 - 1098.0 .0 0 CCC 5312.0 - 1624.0 .0 0 DDD 5093.0 - 2239.0 .0 0 EEE 5356.0 - 3161.0 0 FFF 5180.0 - 3863.0 .0 0 GGG 5115.0 - 4302.0 .0 0 HHH 5137.0 - 4899.0 .0 0 III 5016.O - 5236.0 .0 0 GG 4620.0 - 5764.0 .0 0 OROADWAY SHANNON - SOUTH CF CONNEMARk VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES /HOUR :Z?EED CARS 488. 35. HT 4. 35. MT 7. 35. 0 ------------ COORDINATES------- - - - - -- X Y Z GRADE GG 4620.0 - 5764.0 .0 0 HH 4523.0 - 6349.0 .0 0 II 4523.0 - 7714.0 .0 0 OROADWAY 10 DIAMOND PATH - NORTH OF CONNF -NtARA VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES /HOUR SPEED CARS 692. 50. HT 1. 50. MT 16. 50. 0 ------------ COORDINATES------- - - - - -- X Y Z GRAZE yY 1518.0 - 6435.0 .0 0 ZZ 1518.0 - 4290.0 .0 0 Z2 1100.0 - 3168.0 .0 C. A 485.0 - 1080.0 .0 0 A! .0 .0 .0 0 B1 -760.0 455.0 .0 0 B2 - 1747.0 580.0 .0 0 OROADWAY• 11 DIAMOND PATH - SOUTH OF CONNEMARA VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES /HOUR SPEED CARS 1269. 45. HT 10. 45. MT 18. 45. 0 ------------ COORDINATES------- - - - - -- X Y Z GRADE YY 1518.0 - 6435.0 .0 0 ZZZ 1518.0 - 8435.0 .0 0 OROADWAY 12 SOUTH ROBERT VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLES /HOUR SPEED CARS 652. 55. HT 12. 55. MT 111. 55. - - - - -- COORDINATES------- - - - - -- , X Y Z GRADE S?1 11895.0 0 11895.0 -32 2 17. , D . 0 SR4 11261.0 - 5460.0 C SR3 11018.0 - 6532.0 .0 0 !RECEIVERS 0 ------------ CCORDINATES ------------- X Y M -EAST 11086.0 - 5460.0 .0 M -WEST .0 62.0 .0 R1 -GGG 5215.0 - 4302.0 .0 R2 -D 3115.0 - 1215.0 .0 R3 -L 7356.0 - 2502.0 .0 R4 -BB 9088.0 - 3412.0 .0 R5 1618.0 - 7435.0 .0 R6 -XX 3158.0 - 5762.0 .0 R7 4423.0 - 6800.0 .0 1 ALPHA FACTORS - ROADWAY ACROSS,RECEIVER DOWN 1 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .3; .5 .5 .5 .5 2 * . 5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 3 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 4 * .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .S .5 .5 .5 .5 5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 6 * .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .3 5 .5 J u 0 7 * .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 8 * .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 9 .S .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .S .5 .5 .5 1 SHIELDING FACTORS - ROADWAY ACRCSS,RECEIVER DOWN 1 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 9 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1KELLY TRUST PROPERTY - PM PEAK 2020 ORECEIVER LEQ(H) SIG L10 L50 L90 M -EAST 63.0 5.1 66.5 60.0 53.4 M -WEST 65.6 6.6 69.1 60.7 52.3 R1 -GGG 55.9 6.6 59.3 50.9 42.5 R2 -D 51.0 8.2 53.8 43.3 32.7 R3 -L 48.4 8.4 51.1 40.3 29.6 R4 -BB 54.3 6.6 57.8 49.3 40.8 R5 63.2 5.0 66.7 60.3 53.8 R6 -XX 58.5 5.7 62.1 54.8 47.6 R7 56.5 6.3 60.0 51.9 43.8 1 STAMINA 2.0 /BCR FHWA VERSION (MARCH 1982) TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MCDEL DEVELOPED UNDER CONTRACT BY BBN (INPUT UNITS- ENGLISH , OUTPUT UNITS- ENGLISH 1'1V L1FlE✓ B T HE " "LIN .-SOTA T1 y ^, , YT1 . OF FOR OPERATION ON A MS -DOS PERSONAL COMPUTER, l9e5