Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.i. Adopt Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for Rich Valley Golf Course Redevelopment (Conley Ave.CSAH 42 Area) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City Council Regular Meeting Date: September 21, 2021 AGENDA ITEM: Adopt Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for Rich Valley Golf Course Redevelopment (Conley Ave./CSAH 42 Area) AGENDA SECTION: Consent PREPARED BY: Anthony Nemcek, Senior Planner AGENDA NO. 6.i. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution, Final AUAR (includes all comments received during the comment period) APPROVED BY: LJM RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution Adopting the AUAR for the Rich Valley Golf Course Redevelopment SUMMARY The City Council is being asked to adopt a resolution adopting the Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the potential redevelopment of the Rich Valley Golf Course property located east of State Highway 52 and north of County Highway 42 (145th Street East). Scannell Properties has entered into an agreement to purchase the 155 acres currently owned by the Rahn Family with the intent of developing it into a business park that would include a large regional distribution center and series of smaller build-to-suit or spec buildings with a potential wide range of light manufacturing, warehousing, processing, assembly, and other light industrial/business park uses on the property. Based on the proposed size of the distribution center, the development would meet the criteria for a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). Given the size and scope of planned future development on the site, the developer has chosen to instead study the entire site through the AUAR process rather than completing multiple EAW’s (or and EIS) over the project area. The AUAR was ordered by the City on April 20, 2021. Two development scenarios were reviewed with the AUAR, one of which would include their proposed redevelopment of the site for over 2,000,000 square feet of office/warehouse uses and the other would follow the City’s Comprehensive Plan for the property. The City’s future land use map identifies roughly one-third of the project area for future regional commercial uses adjacent to Highway 42, with the remainder guided for business park uses. Staff has had conversations with the developer about leaving space at the corner of Conley Avenue and Highway 42 for commercial development, and the BP Business Park land use guidance does allow for commercial zoning and key intersections within a business park. Scannell is agreeable to a smaller area for commercial zoning, but would like to proceed with an office/warehousing building in latter project phases if no viable commercial user for the corner can be found. The state’s environmental rules (MR4410) specify that the City of Rosemount is the Responsible Government Unit for the AUAR. Scannell hired Kimley-Horn to prepare the document, and the City contracted with WSB to review and process the AUAR on behalf of the City. The AUAR was prepared and reviewed. It was submitted for the required 30-day comment period on June 16, 2021, to the review agencies and made available to the public. Comments were due on July 22, 2021, and were received from Dakota County, Met Council, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Pollution Control Agency (PCA), 2 State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and the Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization (VRWJPO). Responses to comments were addressed and the AUAR was revised based on the comments. The Final AUAR was then submitted for the required 10-day comment period. The 10- day comment period ended on September 8, 2021. Comments were received from Department of Agriculture, Met Council, and MnDOT (attached). None of the review agencies objected to the AUAR, which means the City can move to the final step of adopting the AUAR. A summary of the final comments received is outlined below: • Department of Agriculture: Indicated they had no comments • Met Council: Comments related to the Met Council interceptor and stating that future projects that impact the interceptor will need to be reviewed by Met Council.. • MnDOT: MnDOT provided summaries of additional studies that have occurred and those that are forthcoming on US52. MnDOT also stated temporary signals for the US52/CSAH 42 interchange are planned. As with any development that impacts the state highway system, continued coordination with MnDOT and the County Highway Department will need to occur. With the completion of the two comment periods, the review of comments from the review agencies, and receiving no objections from the agencies, the next step is for the City to consider adopting the AUAR. By adopting the AUAR, the AUAR becomes the official environmental review document for any development that occurs in the study area and meets the requirements of Minnesota Rule 4410. This means that any project that is proposed in the study area that may trigger environmental review, such as an EAW, is covered under the AUAR provided the project meets the mitigation measures in the AUAR and fall within the development scenarios analyzed in the AUAR. Once adopted, the AUAR is valid for five years and then can be updated. The Planning Commission will be considering requests for a site plan review, a rezoning of a portion of the site, and preliminary and final plats at its September meeting. Council will be reviewing the Commission’s recommendation in October. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the resolution adopting the AUAR for the Rich Valley Golf Course Development. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2021-76 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ADOPTION OF THE RICH VALLEY GOLF CLUB ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW (AUAR) 2021 WHEREAS, an AUAR Update has been completed for the project pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410 which identifies and assesses the environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with the Rich Valley Golf Course Study Area; WHEREAS, the AUAR was completed pursuant to Minnesota Rule 4410.3610; WHEREAS, the AUAR Update was distributed for the required 30-day and 10-day comment period; WHEREAS, comments received on the AUAR Update have generated information adequate to determine mitigation measures associated with the potential development in this area; WHEREAS, the comments received and the City’s responses to these comments are included in the public record for the AUAR; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Rosemount, MN that the City of Rosemount adopts the Rich Valley Golf Course AUAR dated August 2021. ADOPTED this 21st day of September 2021, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. ______________________________ William H. Droste, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Erin Fasbender, City Clerk Rich Valley Golf Club Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review August 2021 Prepared for: Prepared by: Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR i August 2021 Table of Contents 1. Project Title ................................................................................................................................................................. 1 2. Proposer ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1 3. RGU ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1 4. Reason for EAW Preparation ................................................................................................................................. 2 5. Project Location ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 6. Project Description.................................................................................................................................................... 5 7. Cover Types................................................................................................................................................................. 9 8. Permits and Approvals Required ........................................................................................................................ 11 9. Land Use .................................................................................................................................................................... 12 10. Geology, Soils, and Topography/Land Forms ................................................................................................. 18 11. Water Resources ...................................................................................................................................................... 22 12. Solid Wastes, Hazardous Wastes, and Storage Tanks .................................................................................. 33 13. Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources................................................... 37 14. Historic Properties................................................................................................................................................... 40 15. Visual ........................................................................................................................................................................... 40 16. Air ................................................................................................................................................................................. 41 17. Noise ........................................................................................................................................................................... 42 18. Transportation .......................................................................................................................................................... 43 19. Cumulative Potential Effects ................................................................................................................................ 49 20. Other Potential Environmental Impacts............................................................................................................ 50 Mitigation Plan ................................................................................................................................................................ 50 List of Tables Table 1: Development Scenarios .................................................................................................................................. 6 Table 2: Cover Types ........................................................................................................................................................ 9 Table 3: Permits and Approvals Required ............................................................................................................... 11 Table 4: Wetland Buffer Strips and Setbacks .......................................................................................................... 13 Table 5: Soil Types .......................................................................................................................................................... 19 Table 6: Wells within AUAR Study Area ................................................................................................................... 22 Table 7: Wetlands Identified on Site ......................................................................................................................... 28 Table 8: MPCA What’s in My Neighborhood Sites ............................................................................................... 34 Table 9: Trip Generation Forecasts ............................................................................................................................ 45 Table 10: Existing and Projected Intersection LOS ................................................................................................ 46 Table 11: Permits and Approvals Required ..................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 12: Mitigation Plan .............................................................................................................................................. 52 List of Figures Figure 1: AUAR Study Area ............................................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 2: USGS Map ......................................................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 3: Development Scenario 1: Scannell Max Build ........................................................................................ 7 Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR ii August 2021 Figure 4: Development Scenario 2: Rosemount 2040 Comprehensive Plan ................................................... 8 Figure 5: Cover Type Map ............................................................................................................................................ 10 Figure 6: Existing City Zoning ...................................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 7: Existing Land Use .......................................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 8: Soil Types ........................................................................................................................................................ 21 Figure 9: Wells within AUAR Study Area .................................................................................................................. 24 Figure 10: Water Resources ......................................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 11: MPCA What’s in My Neighborhood Sites ........................................................................................... 35 Figure 12: Traffic Study Intersections and Existing Levels of Service (LOS) ................................................... 48 List of Appendices Appendix A: NHIS Correspondence Appendix B: Historic Resources Correspondence Appendix C: Traffic Study Appendix D: Reponse to Agency Comments Appendix E: Agency Comment Letters Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 1 August 2021 July 2013 Version Alternative Urban Areawide Review This Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) form and EAW Guidelines are available at the Environmental Quality Board’s website at: http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/EnvRevGuidanceDocuments.htm. This EAW form is being used to delineate the issues and analyses to be reviewed in an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR). Where the AUAR guidance provided by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) indicates that an AUAR response should differ notably from what is required for an EAW, the guidance is noted in italics. 1. Project Title Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment 2. Proposer Proposer: Scannell Properties Contact Person: Scott Moe Title: Director of Development Address: 294 Grove Lane Suite 140 City, State, ZIP: Wayzata, MN 55391 Phone: (651) 707-5867 Email: ScottM@scannellproperties.com 3. RGU RGU: City of Rosemount Contact Person: Kyle Klatt Title: Senior Planner Address: 2875 145th Street W City, State, ZIP: Rosemount, Minnesota 55068 Phone: (651) 322-2052 Email: Kyle.Klatt@ci.rosemount.mn.us Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 2 August 2021 4. Reason for EAW Preparation AUAR Guidance: Not applicable to an AUAR. 5. Project Location County: Dakota County City/Township: Rosemount PLS Location (¼, ¼, Section, Township, Range): NE ¼ of Section 30, Township 115N, Range 18W and NW ¼ of Section 30, Township 115N, Range 18W Watershed (81 major watershed scale): Mississippi River - Lake Pepin GPS Coordinates: 44° 44' 30" N, 93° 1' 35" W Tax Parcel Number(s): 340300025010, 340300009010, and 340300030010 At a minimum, attach each of the following to the AUAR: • A map clearly depicting the boundaries of the AUAR and any subdistricts used in the AUAR analysis (See Figure 1) • US Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (see Figure 2) • A cover type map as required for Item 7 (See Figure 5) • Land use and planning and zoning maps as required in conjunction with Item 9 (see Figure 6 and Figure 7) Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 3 August 2021 Figure 1: AUAR Study Area Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 4 August 2021 Figure 2: USGS Map Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 5 August 2021 6. Project Description AUAR Guidance: Instead of the information called for on the EAW form, the description section of an AUAR should include the following elements for each major development scenario included: • Anticipated types and intensity (density) of residential and commercial/warehouse/light industrial development throughout the AUAR area. • Infrastructure planned to serve development (roads, sewers, water, stormwater system, etc.). Roadways intended primarily to serve as adjoining land uses within an AUAR area are normally expected to be reviewed as part of an AUAR. More “arterial” types of roadways that would cross an AUAR area are an optional inclusion in the AUAR analysis; if they are included, a more intensive level of review, generally including an analysis of alternative routes, is necessary. • 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 Important Note: Every AUAR document MUST review one or more development scenarios based on and consistent with the RGU’s Comprehensive Plan in effect when the AUAR is officially ordered. (This is equivalent to reviewing the “no-bu ild” alternative in an EIS.) If an RGU expects to amend its existing Comprehensive Plan, it has the options of deferring the start of the AUAR until after adopting the amended plan or reviewing developments based on both the existing and amended comprehensive plans; however, it cannot review only a development based on an expected amendment to the existing plan. Also, the rules require that one or more development scenarios analyzed must be consistent with known development plans of property owners within the AUAR area. The AUAR study area encompasses approximately 160 acres on three existing tax parcels east of US Highway 52 (US 52) and north of County Road 42 (CR 42) in the city of Rosemount. The site is bounded on the north by 140th Street E, agricultural land to the east, 145th Street E to the south, and low-density industrial uses to the west. The subject property is a golf course that has been in operation since the 1980’s. There are maintenance buildings and a residence in the northwest portion of the site and the clubhouse is located in the south-central portion of the site. Two development scenarios are proposed for evaluation in the AUAR (described in Table 1). Scenario 1 represents the density proposed by the developer and consists of a mix of warehouse and office uses. Scenario 2 represents the maximum density allowed by the City of Rosemount’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan and consists of a mix of warehouse, office, and commercial land uses. The intent of the AUAR is to identify the greatest potential impact with the scenarios and the mitigation measures that may be taken to compensate for those impacts. Development Scenario 1: Scannell Max Build Development Scenario 1 includes 2,140,000 square feet of office/warehouse uses on the site within separate buildings on three existing parcels (see Figure 3). Development Scenario 2: Rosemount 2040 Comprehensive Plan Development Scenario 2 includes 1,040,000 square feet of office/warehouse uses in the northern portion of the site and 415,000 square feet of commercial space on the site along CR 42 (see Figure 4). Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 6 August 2021 Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 Construction on the northern parcel on the site is anticipated to begin in Fall 2021, the remaining parcels would be developed later, depending on the market. Roadway infrastructure supporting Scenario 1 includes two access points from 140th Street E, an access point along CR 42 and an access road bisecting the site north to south. The site will be connected to the area’s existing local stormwater, water, sewer, and supporting infrastructure systems. Table 1: Development Scenarios Land Use Scenario 1: Scannell Max Build Density Scenario 2: Comprehensive Plan Density Office/Warehouse 2,140,000 Square Feet 1,040,000 Square Feet General Commercial 0 Square Feet 415,000 Square Feet Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 7 August 2021 Figure 3: Development Scenario 1: Scannell Max Build Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 8 August 2021 Figure 4: Development Scenario 2: Rosemount 2040 Comprehensive Plan Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 9 August 2021 7. Cover Types AUAR Guidance: The following information should be provided: • A cover type map, at least at the scale of a USGS topographic map, depicting: o Wetlands (identified by Circular 39 type) o Watercourses (rivers, streams, creeks, ditches) o Lakes (identify public waters status and shoreland management classification) o Woodlands (break down by classes where possible) o Grassland (identify native and old field) o Cropland o Current development • 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 maps for each major development scenario should be generally provided. The AUAR study area covers approximately 160 acres of semirural land. This area is partially developed as a golf course. Existing cover types within the study area are listed in Table 2 and shown on Figure 5 and were determined by reviewing aerial photography and land cover classification maps. The National Wetland Inventory identifies two ponds within the study area. Table 2: Cover Types Cover Type Existing (Acres) Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Wooded/Forest 2.1 0 0 Brush/Grassland 0 0 0 Lawn/Landscaping 149.4 29.3 18.3 Impervious Surface 6.6 115 125 Freshwater Ponds 2.2 16 17 Total 160.3 160.3 160.3 Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 10 August 2021 Figure 5: Cover Type Map Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 11 August 2021 8. Permits and Approvals Required AUAR Guidance: A listing of major approvals (including any comprehensive plan amendments and zoning amendments) and public financial assistance and infrastructure likely to be required by the anticipated types of development projects should be given for each major development scenario. This list will help orient reviewers to the 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 3: Permits and Approvals Required Unit of Government Type of Application Status Federal U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 To be applied for, if applicable State Minnesota Pollution Control Agency National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Stormwater Permit for Construction Activities To be applied for, if applicable Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit To be applied for, if applicable Notice of Intent of Demolition To be applied for, if applicable Section 401 Water Quality Certification To be applied for, if applicable Construction Contingency Plan and Response Action Plan approval To be applied for, if applicable Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Temporary Water Appropriation Permit for Construction Dewatering To be applied for County Metropolitan Council Sewer Extension Permit To be applied for, if applicable Sewer Connection Permit to Connect To be applied for, if applicable Direct Connection Permit To be applied for, if applicable Dakota County Right-of-Way Permit To be applied for, if applicable Local City of Rosemount Preliminary/Final Plat To be applied for, if applicable Building Permit To be applied for, if applicable Erosion Control, Grading, and Stormwater Permit To be applied for, if applicable Demolition Permit To be applied for, if applicable Right-of-Way Permit To be applied for, if applicable Comprehensive Plan Amendment To be applied for, if applicable WCA Review and Approval To be applied for, if applicable Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 12 August 2021 Unit of Government Type of Application Status Wetland Buffer Zone Management Plan approval To be completed, if applicable Zoning Map Amendment To be completed, if applicable Planned Unit Development To be completed, if applicable Conditional Use Permit To be completed, if applicable 9. Land Use Describe: i. Existing land use of the site as well as areas adjacent to and near the site, including parks, trails, and prime or unique farmlands. The AUAR study area consists of three parcels totaling 160 acres and is located less than a quarter mile east of US 52 on the north side of CR 42. The AUAR study area is developed and used by the Rich Valley Golf Course as a commercial use. A variety of industrial, agricultural, and commercial land uses are also located adjacent to the site (see Figure 7). One residential property is located southeast of the study area, along CR 42. There are no parks or trails located adjacent to the AUAR study area. There is farmland adjacent to the study area on the south and the east. Approximately 19% of the study area consists of prime or unique farmland (see Table 5). ii. Planned land use as identified in comprehensive plans (if available) and any other applicable plan for land use, water, or resource management by a local, regional, state, or federal agency. AUAR Guidance: Water-related land use management 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 area are envisioned, this should be discussed. Rosemount 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update The City of Rosemount adopted their 2040 Comprehensive Plan update in March 2020. The Comprehensive Plan designates a specific mix of future land use designations throughout the City and describes Rosemount as an “emerging suburban edge” community that is continuing to develop from agricultural land to urbanized development. One of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan update is to achieve sustainable development that can be supported by the City’s infrastructure without extending services through undeveloped properties. Near the CR 42 and US 52 intersection, the Comprehensive Plan identifies land uses that provide a transition from the heavy industrial land uses north and east of this intersection. Within the AUAR study area, the Comprehensive Plan calls for commercial land uses in the southern portion of the site along CR 42 and light industrial land uses for the remaining area. Future Rosemount Greenway In 2012, Dakota County adopted The Rosemount Greenway Masterplan to create a future greenway (the Rosemount Greenway) between downtown Rosemount to Spring Lake Park and Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 13 August 2021 the Mississippi River. A portion of this planned greenway runs along 140th Avenue north of the site. iii. Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild and scenic rivers, critical area, agricultural preserves, etc. Existing Zoning The site is currently zoned AG-Agricultural (see Figure 6). According to Rosemount’s city code, the existing golf course use is a conditionally permitted use under this zoning. Agricultural land is expected to transition to different land uses as the city develops. Any new development, redevelopment, change in land use, or change in zoning is required to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. FEMA National Flood Hazard According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) Flood Insurance Rate Map, the AUAR study area is located in an area of minimal flood hazard and not located within a FEMA 100-year floodplain. The FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panel number for the site is 27037C0235E. The site is not located within the city’s floodplain zoning district. Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization The study area is located within the Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization (VRMJPO) area. VRMJPO seeks to protect surface water, ground water, and natural resources within in the Vermillion River watershed. There are no tributaries within or adjacent to the study area. Based on the regulatory framework in the VRWJPO regarding water and natural resources, the City has adopted the VRWJPO standards into the City’s ordinances. Therefore, regulations related to the VRWJPO standards will be handled by the City. Rosemount Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan The Rosemount Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan, last updated March 2021, identifies two wetlands within the study area. This plan lays out the City’s rules regarding development within and near wetlands. Development adjacent to wetlands the must adhere to several standards listed in Rosemount Municipal Code 11-7-3 including the wetland buffer strips and setbacks listed in Table 4. Additionally, for all new and redeveloped land, the developer shall be responsible for the installation of monuments that mark the outer edge of the wetland buffer zones and will be required to prepare a Buffer Zone Management Plan. Buffer zone monitoring will be required for a minimum of five years to ensure compliance with the performance standards as outlined on the Wetland Buffer Zone Management Plan. Table 4: Wetland Buffer Strips and Setbacks1 Wetland Classification Permanent Buffer Strip Average Width (Feet) Additional Structure Setback from Buffer (Feet) Minimum Permanent Buffer Zone Width (Feet) Preserve 75 30 30 1 Source: City of Rosemount. Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan (2013). https://ci.rosemount.mn.us/DocumentCenter/View/214/Comprehensive-Wetland-Management-Plan-2013?bidId= Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 14 August 2021 Wetland Classification Permanent Buffer Strip Average Width (Feet) Additional Structure Setback from Buffer (Feet) Minimum Permanent Buffer Zone Width (Feet) Manage 1 50 30 30 Manage 2 30 30 15 Manage 3 15 30 15 Discuss the project’s compatibility with nearby land uses, zoning, and plans listed in Item 9a above, concentrating on implications for environmental effects. Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 The City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan guides the land north of CR 42 and east of the project site for business park and light industrial land uses. Land use south of CR 42 is guided for commercial and medium and high density residential uses that transition to single family uses further south. The project site is located in proximity to heavier industrial uses to the north and northwest, and both scenarios provide a transition from these heavier industrial uses. The project site is in a developing portion of the City and the neighboring parcels are all located within the City’s planned urban service area and will be rezoned from agricultural uses as public sanitary sewer and water services are extended further to the east and south. Existing Zoning Scenario 1 and 2 The existing zoning of the site is entirely agricultural. Scenario 1 proposes office/warehouse uses and Scenario 2 proposes office/warehouse and commercial uses . Both scenarios are inconsistent with the current zoning and would require a zoning change. 2040 Comprehensive Plan The City of Rosemount has certified that the Comprehensive Plan complies with the requirements set forth in Minnesota Rules, part 4410.3610, subpart 1. Scenario 1 The 2040 Comprehensive Plan identifies the site as future light industrial on the northern portion of the site and future commercial on the southern portion of the site. Scenario 1 proposes industrial uses through the entire site. Therefore, this scenario is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan in the southern portion of the site. Scenario 2 Scenario 2 proposes uses that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any potential incompatibility as discussed in Item 9b above. Existing Zoning Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 Any proposed development for Scenario 1 or Scenario 2 would require a zoning change to the parcels within the study area to allow for office/warehouse and commercial uses. Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 15 August 2021 2040 Comprehensive Plan Scenario 1 Scenario 1 proposes industrial uses in a portion of the site that the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan designates commercial use. These parcels would require a comprehensive plan amendment to allow the proposed uses. Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 16 August 2021 Figure 6: Existing City Zoning Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 17 August 2021 Figure 7: Existing Land Use Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 18 August 2021 10. Geology, Soils, and Topography/Land Forms AUAR Guidance: A map should be included to show any groundwater hazards identified. A standard soils map for the area should be included. a. Geology - Describe the geology underlying the project area and identify and map any susceptible geologic features such as sinkholes, shallow limestone formations, unconfined/shallow aquifers, or karst conditions. Discuss any limitations of these features for the project and any effects the project could have on these features. Identify any project designs or mitigation measures to address effects to geologic features. AUAR Guidance: A map should be included to show any groundwater hazards identified. According to the Geologic Atlas of Dakota County (Minnesota Geological Survey, 1990), the AUAR study area is underlain by glacial till, glacial outwash, limestone, and sandstone. A Geotechnical Evaluation Report of the site was conducted in April 2021. According to borings conducted during the study, this site is underlain by glacial outwash deposits, commonly composed of mixed sand with gravel and cobbles from the Superior Lobe Glaciation. The glacial outwash deposits are occasionally overlain by rather thin deposits of silty and clayey soils. The existing surface vegetation, root zones and topsoil are not considered suitable for support of the proposed buildings and should be removed and replaced with engineered sand backfill. Bedrock is encountered at varying depths across the AUAR study area, ranging in depth from approximately 80-130 feet below ground surface across the study area. Bedrock is comprised of limestone and sandstone. In descending order, the upper two formations are the Prairie Du Chien Group and the Jordan Sandstone formation. There are no known sinkholes, unconfined/shallow aquifers, or karst conditions located within the AUAR study area. Groundwater is present at approximately 0 to 20 feet below the surface. With the proposed stormwater BMPs and proposed construction, no adverse impacts to groundwater are anticipated as a result of the project. b. Soils and Topography - Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications and descriptions, including limitations of soils. Describe topography, any special site conditions relating to erosion potential, soil stability, or other soil limitations, such as steep slopes or highly permeable soils. Provide estimated volume and acreage of soil excavation and/or grading. Discuss impacts from project activities (distinguish between construction and operational activities) related to soils and topography. Identify measures during and after project construction to address soil limitations including stabilization, soil corrections, or other measures. Erosion/sedimentation control related to stormwater runoff should be addressed in response to Item 11.b.ii. AUAR Guidance: 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 the local ordinances and any special measures that would be added for AUAR purposes should be included. A standard soils map for the area should be included. Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 19 August 2021 According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, the area is comprised of fourteen different soil types (See Table 5 and Figure 8). The erosion hazard rating included in Table 5 indicates the hazard of soil loss from off-road areas after disturbance activities that expose the soil surface. Within the project site, 100% of the soil surface is mapped with a “slight” rating, meaning that erosion is unlikely under ordinary climatic conditions. Earthwork on-site is anticipated to generally balance and be kept on-site. The proposed project would require approximately 150,000 total cubic yards of excavation. Table 5: Soil Types Map Unit Symbol Soil Type Acres within site Percent of Site Hydric Rating Erosion Hazard Farmland Classification 250 Kennebec silt loam 0.7 0% Not Hydric Slight Prime Farmland 27A Dickinson sandy loam, 0 to 2% slopes 3.2 2% Not Hydric Slight Prime Farmland 27B Dickinson sandy loam, 2 to 6% slopes 33.0 21% Not Hydric Slight Prime Farmland 313 Spillville loam, occasionally flooded 10.9 7% Hydric (1%-32%) Slight Prime Farmland 39B Wadena loam, 2 to 6% slopes 35.5 22% Not Hydric Slight Prime Farmland 411B Waukegan 1 to 6% slopes 13.3 8% Not Hydric Slight Prime Farmland 415A Kanaranzi loam, 0-6% slopes 2.0 1% Not Hydric Slight Farmland of Statewide Importance 415B Kanaranzi loam, 2-6% slopes 7.1 4% Not Hydric Slight Farmland of Statewide Importance 41A Estherville sandy loam 0-2% slopes 16.4 10% Not Hydric Slight Farmland of Statewide Importance 41B Estherville sandy loam 2-6% slopes 8.5 5% Hydric (1%-32%) Slight Farmland of Statewide Importance 611C Hawick sandy loam 6-12% slopes 8.2 5% Not Hydric Slight Not Prime Farmland 611D Hawick sandy loam 12-18% slopes 10.6 7% Not Hydric Slight Not Prime Farmland 7B Hubbard loamy sand, 1 to 6% slopes 1.9 1% Not Hydric Slight Not Prime Farmland Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 20 August 2021 Map Unit Symbol Soil Type Acres within site Percent of Site Hydric Rating Erosion Hazard Farmland Classification 7C Hubbard loamy sand, 6 to 12% slopes 8.9 6% Not Hydric Slight Not Prime Farmland Total 160.3 100% -- -- -- Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 21 August 2021 Figure 8: Soil Types Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 22 August 2021 11. Water Resources AUAR Guidance: The information called for on the EAW form should be supplied for any of the infrastructure associated with the AUAR development scenarios, and for any development expected to physically impact any water resources. Where it is uncertain whether water resources will be impacted depending on the exact design of future development, the AUAR should cover the possible impacts through a “worst case scenario” or else prevent impacts through the provisions of the mitigation plan. Describe surface water and groundwater features on or near the site below. i. Surface Water - Lakes, streams, wetlands, intermittent channels, and county/judicial ditches. All surface water features should be described and identified on a map of the project area. Include any special designations such as public waters, trout stream/lake, wildlife lakes, migratory waterfowl feeding/resting lake, and outstanding resource value water. Include water quality impairments or special designations listed on the current MPCA 303d Impaired Waters List that are within one mile of the project. Include DNR Public Waters Inventory number(s), if any. Surface water features within the study area include two ponds located on the site. These ponds are identified on the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) and the surface area of these ponds totals 2.18 acres (see Figure 10). There are no waterbodies identified by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) Part 303d Impaired Waters List within one mile of the study area. The site generally drains from south to north with discharges to the existing ditch along 140th Street E. No surface water with any type of special designation is present on the site. The project site is located within the VRMJPO area. ii. Groundwater – aquifers, springs, and seeps. Include 1) depth to groundwater; 2) if project is within a MDH well protection area; and 3) identification of any onsite and/or nearby wells, including unique numbers and well logs, if available. If there are no wells known on site or nearby, explain the methodology used to determine this. According to the April 2021 Geotechnical Evaluation Report, the depth to groundwater within the AUAR study area is 0 to 20 feet below the surface, and beneath is the Jordan Sandstone formation (Prairie Du Chien-Jordan aquifer). Based on the Minnesota Department of Health Minnesota Well Index, there are three wells located within the AUAR study area (Table 6 and Figure 9). The AUAR study area is not located in any wellhead protection areas or drinking water supply management areas. Table 6: Wells within AUAR Study Area Well ID Number Well Status Well Name Well Depth Date Completed 460141 Active Rich Valley Golf Course 230 Feet 07/24/1989 438525 Active Rahn, Ray 154 Feet 05/23/1988 Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 23 August 2021 Well ID Number Well Status Well Name Well Depth Date Completed 475934 Active Rich Valley Golf Course Well #2 147 Feet 08/02/1991 Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 24 August 2021 Figure 9: Wells within AUAR Study Area Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 25 August 2021 Describe effects from project activities on water resources and measures to minimize or mitigate the effects below. iii. Wastewater - For each of the following, describe the sources, quantities, and composition of all sanitary, municipal/domestic, and industrial wastewaters projected or treated at the site. AUAR Guidance: Observe the following points of guidance in an AUAR: • Only domestic wastewater should be considered in an AUAR—industrial wastewater would be coming from industrial uses that are excluded from review through an AUAR process • Wastewater flows should be estimated by land use subareas of the AUAR area; the basis of flow estimates should be explained • The major sewer system features should be shown on a map and the expected flows should be identified • If not explained under Item 6, the expected staging of the sewer system construction should be described • The relationship of the sewer system extension to the RGU’s comprehensive sewer plan and (for metro area AUARs) to Metropolitan Council regional systems plans, including MUSA expansions, should be discussed. For non-metro area AUARs, the AUAR must discuss the capacity of the RGU’s wastewater treatment system compared to the flows from the AUAR area; any necessary improvements should be described. • If on-site systems will serve part of the AUAR, the guidance in the February 2000 edition of the EAW Guidelines on page 16 regarding item 18b under Residential development should be followed. 1) If the wastewater discharge is to a publicly owned treatment facility, identify any pretreatment measures and the ability of the facility to handle the added water and waste loadings, including any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal wastewater infrastructure. As part of the proposed development, a City sanitary sewer trunk main will be extended from the existing MCES interceptor sanitary sewer lift station on L74, located on property north of 140th Street through the proposed development and stubbed to the south side of CR 42. The proposed development will be served by the proposed City sanitary sewer trunk main. Wastewater from the property will flow to the MCES Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant in Empire Township, Dakota County. The Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant is an advanced secondary treatment plant with ultraviolet disinfection. Currently, the plant has a maximum capacity of 28.6 million gallons per day. During the month of April 2021, the plant had an average flow of 11.2 million gallons per day, which results in an excess capacity of 17.4 million gallons per day. The City’s 2040 Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan, completed in 2019, planned for industrial and commercial uses to contribute 800 gallons per acre per day (GAD). Under this assumption, the AUAR study area would contribute 128,240 gallons per day (GPD), with a peaking factor of 3.9, resulting in a peak hourly flow of 500,136 GPD . Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 26 August 2021 The proposed maximum development scenario is consistent with the City’s planned sanitary sewer usage from the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, meaning the regional treatment facility and wastewater collection pipes have sufficient long-term capacity to handle the additional wastewater flow that would be generated by the AUAR scenarios. 2) If the wastewater discharge is to a subsurface sewage treatment system (SSTS), describe the system used, the design flow, and suitability of site conditions for such a system. No subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS) are anticipated within the AUAR study area as part of the development scenario. 3) If the wastewater discharge is to surface water, identify the wastewater treatment methods, discharge points, and proposed effluent limitations to mitigation impacts. Discuss any effects to surface or groundwater from wastewater discharges. No wastewater discharge to surface waters is anticipated for the development scenario. iv. Stormwater – Describe the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff at the site prior to and post construction. Include the routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site (major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters). Discuss any environmental effects from stormwater discharges. Describe stormwater pollution prevention plans including temporary and permanent runoff controls and potential BMP site locations to manage or treat stormwater runoff. Identify specific erosion control, sedimentation control, or stabilization measures to address soil limitations during and after project construction. AUAR Guidance: For an AUAR the following additional guidance should be followed in addition to that in EAW Guidelines: • It is expected that an AUAR will have a detailed analysis of stormwater issues • A map of the proposed stormwater management system and of the water bodies that will receive stormwater should be provided • The description of the stormwater systems would identify on-site and “regional” detention ponding and also indicate whether the various ponds will be new water bodies or converted existing ponds or wetlands. Where on-site ponds will be used but have not yet been designed, the discussion should indicate the design standards that will be followed. • If present in or adjoining the AUAR area, the following types of water bodies must be given special analyses: o Lakes: Within the Twin Cities metro area, a nutrient budget analysis must be prepared for any “priority lake” identified by the Metropolitan Council. Outside of the metro area, lakes needing a nutrient budget analysis must be determined by consultation with the MPCA and DNR staffs. o Trout streams: If stormwater discharges will enter or affect a trout stream, an evaluation of the impacts on the chemical composition and temperature regime of Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 27 August 2021 the stream and the consequent impacts on the trout population (and other species of concern) must be included. The existing impervious surface area within the study area totals approximately 6.6 acres. Both development scenarios propose increases to the amount of impervious surface within the site. The soil across the AUAR study area is generally highly permeable and well-suited for infiltration, and more specifically bioinfiltration. The required treatment volume is determined by the City of Rosemount and the Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization (VRJPO) as a function of new impervious area. The project will be required to meet the VRWJPO and City of Rosemount’s Engineering Guidelines and 2018 CSWMP requirements. The project will be required to retain and infiltrate the 100-year, 24-hour rainfall event (7.4 inches). Additionally, existing off-site flows directed to the project will need to be retained and managed on-site. The stormwater volume, rate, and quality improvements provided by existing ponds (Rosemount regional basins 3049 and 1814 shown on Figure 10) will need to remain upon completion of the project. The City of Rosemount does have regional ponding credit available for treatment of offsite water through the use of the City Storm Trunk Fee Calculator. v. Water Appropriation – Describe if the project proposes to appropriate surface or groundwater (including dewatering). Describe the source, quantity, duration, use, and purpose of the water use and if a DNR water appropriation permit is required. Describe any well abandonment. If connecting to an existing municipal water supply, identify the wells to be used as a water source and any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal water infrastructure. Discuss environmental effects from water appropriation, including an assessment of the water resources available for appropriation. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects from the water appropriation. AUAR Guidance: If the area requires new water supply wells, specific information about that appropriation and its potential impacts on groundwater levels should be given; if groundwater levels would be affected, any impacts resulting on other resources should be addressed. Construction dewatering will be required for the development of the AUAR study area. Construction activities associated with dewatering will include discharging into temporary sedimentation basins to reduce the rate of water discharged from the site, as well as discharging to temporary stormwater best management practices. Any temporary dewatering will require a DNR Temporary Water Appropriations General Permit 1997-0005 if less than 50 million gallons per year and less than one year in duration. It is anticipated that the temporary dewatering would only occur during utility installation and potential construction of building footings. The water supply will be obtained from the nine municipal groundwater wells that currently supply the Rosemount water system. The groundwater wells draw water from Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 28 August 2021 the Jordan aquifer.2 According to the City’s comprehensive plan, the City’s firm pumping capacity is 7,900 gallons per minute (gpm) as of 2019. In 2016, the existing water system was analyzed for supply, treatment, storage, and distribution capacity to determine if additional water system capital improvements are necessary in order to continue to provide a safe and reliable water supply through 2040 in the Comprehensive Plan. It was determined that as the city grows, additional capacity for supply, treatment, and storage on the distribution system will be necessary to meet projected water demands through 2040. The proposed project will connect to the existing watermain within 140th Street (16” diameter) and County Road 42 (6” diameter) to provide a redundant source of water to serve the project site. vi. Surface Waters 1) Wetlands – Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to wetland features, such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging, and vegetative removal. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of wetlands, including the anticipated effects that any proposed wetland alterations may have to the host watershed. Identify measures to avoid (e.g., available alternatives that were considered), minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to wetlands. Discuss whether any required compensatory wetland mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts will occur in the same minor or major watershed and identify those probable locations. Approximately 2.18 acres of wetlands are located within the AUAR study area based on 2021 National Wetlands Inventory data from the DNR (See Table 7). These wetlands appear to be constructed ponds within the golf course. Significant impacts to these existing ponds are anticipated and the removal of these wetlands will require the purchase of wetland banking credits. Table 7: Wetlands Identified on Site Identifying Inventory Wetland Type Wetland Classification Identified Wetland Size Aerial Identification National Wetlands Inventory Freshwater Pond PUBHx 1.59 Acres Pond Freshwater Pond PUBHx 0.54 Acres Pond Total -- -- 2.18 Acres -- Other surface waters – Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to surface water features (lakes, streams, ponds, intermittent channels, county/judicial ditches) such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging, diking, stream diversion, impoundment, aquatic plant removal, and riparian alteration. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of water features. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to surface water features, including in- 2 Source: City of Rosemount. 2040 Comprehensive Plan: Water Supply Chapter (2019). https://www.ci.rosemount.mn.us/DocumentCenter/View/4108/Appendix-A---Water-Supply-3-18 -20?bidId= Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 29 August 2021 water Best Management Practices that are proposed to avoid or minimize turbidity/sedimentation while physically altering the water features. Discuss how the project will change the number or type of watercraft on any water body, including current and projected watercraft usage. AUAR Guidance: Water surface use need only be addressed if the AUAR area would include or adjoin recreational water bodies. No alternations to other surface waters are anticipated as part of either development scenario. If the wastewater discharge is to surface water, identify the wastewater treatment methods, discharge points, and proposed effluent limitations to mitigation impacts. Discuss any effects to surface or groundwater from wastewater discharges. No wastewater discharge to existing surface waters is anticipated for either development scenario. Stormwater – Describe the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff at the site prior to and post construction. Include the routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site (major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters). Discuss any environmental effects from stormwater discharges. Describe stormwater pollution prevention plans including temporary and permanent runoff controls and potential Best Management Practices site locations to manage or treat stormwater runoff. Identify specific erosion control, sedimentation control, or stabilization measures to address soil limitations during and after project construction. Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 The following stormwater management requirements will be adhered to: • City of Rosemount Code of Ordinances; Chapter 10, Section 2 • City of Rosemount Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan • Vermillion River Joint Watershed Powers Organization Standards • National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit requirements will be determined for each new development within the AUAR study area. This permit requires 80 percent TSS removal and meeting existing run-off rates for the 2, 10, and 100 -year storm events. Stormwater will be managed on site and will maintain the current drainage patterns to the discharge points along the northern portion of the site. The proposed development within the AUAR study area will require compliance with the standards of the Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization and the City of Rosemount for water quality, volume control, rate control, and erosion control. The project will be required to meet the VRWJPO LGU (City of Rosemount) and City of Rosemount’s Engineering Guidelines and 2018 CSWMP requirements. The project will be required to retain and infiltrate the 100-year, 24-hour rainfall event (7.4 inches). Additionally, existing off-site flows directed to the project will need to be retained and managed on-site. The stormwater volume, rate, and quality improvements provided by existing regional basins 3049 and 1814 will need remain upon completion of the project. The City of Rosemount does have regional ponding credit available for treatment of offsite water through the use of the City Storm Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 30 August 2021 Trunk Fee Calculator. It is anticipated that three (3) feet of separation can be achieved from the seasonally high groundwater elevation in all proposed infiltration areas. If for some reason during final design it is identified that adequate separation cannot be provided to the existing groundwater, alternative stormwater methods will be implemented. Alternative stormwater management methods that may be considered to provide adequate stormwater rate, volume, and quality controls include underground stormwater filtration, underground stormwater re-use, surface biofiltration, white roofs, and landscaping/shading of parking lot and surface stormwater management areas. Alternative filtration practices would be lined with an impermeable liner and contain minimum of 24 inches of engineered soil media above a draintile system at the bottom of the BMP to collect the filtered stormwater. Stormwater modeling of runoff and temperature controls will be completed as part of the final design of each project phase to provide volume and temperature control for the proposed improvements. The modeling will be performed to ensure conformance to all City of Rosemount and VRWJPO standards. Outfalls will be defined as part of the final design of each project phase. The following design/construction standards are to be adhered to during construction: • Grading of the infiltration basins shall be accomplished using low-impact, earthmoving equipment to prevent compaction of the underlying soils. • Infiltration basin excavation shall be held 1 foot above the bottom of the excavation until the contributing drainage areas with exposed soils have been fully stabilized. • Divert upland drainage areas to prevent runoff from entering the excavated basins or into the work areas. • Care must be taken to avoid contamination of engineered soils with sediment, in-situ, or topsoil during and after installation. Materials must be segregated. • Installation with dry soil conditions is critical to prevent smearing and compaction. Schedule work for periods of dry weather. • Do not leave infiltration areas and/or perimeter slope exposed overnight. Secure the area from risk of precipitation and damages at the end of every work day. In the event of rain, take action to divert stormwater away from work area and temporarily cover all exposed soils with filter fabric or impermeable sheeting. • In the event that the sediment is introduced into the BMP during or immediately following excavation, remove sediment prior to initiating the next step in the infiltration basin construction process. • Excavate sediment built up during construction after stabilization of upstream areas and before placement of hydraulic soil stabilizer type special. • Stockpiling of materials shall not be allowed in proposed infiltration areas before or after they are constructed. Only specified equipment will be allowed inside of the orange construction fence for the sole purpose of constructing the infiltration basins. • All infiltration basin construction activities shall be completed during dry soil conditions. Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 31 August 2021 • All infiltration areas shall be protected during construction operations. In both development scenarios, roads, parking lots, and stormwater management basins are proposed. To minimize the impact of snow melt on the adjacent natural resources, snow will be stockpiled and managed in proposed landscape and stormwater pre-treatment forebays. In the spring, the proposed infiltration basins will minimize the effect of freezing by providing increased pore space through the native sandy soils and proposed plantings. The infiltration basins will also be sized to control the peak runoff rates from the 1 -, 10-, and 100-year, 24-hour rainfall events. It is anticipated that approximately 105 acre-feet of stormwater volume will need to be retained and infiltrated on-site to meet the City’s requirements, with an additional 5 acre-feet of stormwater volume necessary for providing pre-treatment (via NURP ponds) prior to discharging into the proposed infiltration basins. The volume provided on-site will provide excess storage to compensate for the runoff volume expected during spring thawing. The proposed stormwater management BMPs will be designed to comply with all City of Rosemount and VRWJPO standards and with comply with all maintenance/monitoring requirements of the City and VRWJPO. Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 32 August 2021 Figure 10: Water Resources Rosemount Regional Basin 1814 Rosemount Regional Basin 3049 Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 33 August 2021 12. Solid Wastes, Hazardous Wastes, and Storage Tanks Pre-project Site Conditions – Describe existing contamination or potential environmental hazards on or in close proximity to the project site, such as soil or groundwater contamination, abandoned dumps, closed landfills, existing or abandoned storage tanks, and hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. Discuss any potential environmental effects from pre-project site conditions that would be caused or exacerbated by project construction and operation. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from existing contamination or potential environmental hazards. Include development of a Contingency Plan or Response Action Plan. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the site was conducted in April 2021 by Braun Intertec. The report identified recognized environmental concerns at the site including 5 petroleum above ground storage tanks in the northwestern portion of the site, the use of petroleum at the site, coal slag used to treat snow melt on the golf course, potential petroleum discharge into the septic system, possible historic use as a dump in the northwest corner of the site, the site was formerly identified as a Petroleum Brownfield Program site in 1999, and proximity to a superfund site the University of Minnesota Rosemount Research Center located 0.75 miles from the site. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) What’s In My Neighborhood (WIMN) database was reviewed to determine if any known contaminated properties or potential environmental hazards are located within the study area and although no sites were identified within the AUAR Study Area, five sites were identified within 250 feet of the study area (see Table 8 and Figure 11). Of the five sites, two have activities that are listed as active. Using the following criteria established by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), the sites were classified into high, medium, and low risk sites: • High risk: In general, sites with high environmental risks are properties that have documented releases of chemicals or hazardous or regulated substances (e.g., active and inactive state and federal cleanup sites, active and inactive dump sites, and active leaking underground storage tank sites), strong evidence of contamination (e.g., soil staining, stressed vegetation), or storage of large volumes of petroleum or other chemicals (e.g., bulk storage tank facilities). • Medium risk: Sites of medium environmental risk are properties where smaller volumes of petroleum, chemicals, or hazardous materials are frequently stored and used (e.g., registered underground and aboveground storage tanks, vehicle repair facilities, metal working shops), but at which no evidence of spills or releases exists, or properties with documented releases that have been “closed” (signifying no further cleanup actions deemed necessary) by the MPCA. Closed sites, such as closed leaking underground storage tank sites, are considered medium risks because residual soil or groundwater contamination may exist. • Low risk: Low environmental risk sites include properties where minor volumes of chemicals or hazardous materials have been used or stored (e.g., hazardous waste generators, and possibly some farmsteads and residences). Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 34 August 2021 Table 8: MPCA What’s in My Neighborhood Sites Site ID Site Name Activity Status Activity Program Risk Level 134904 Bay and Bay Transportation Services Inactive Industrial Stormwater Stormwater Low 5922 Halvor Lines Inc Inactive Construction Stormwater; Petroleum Remediation, Leak Site; Underground Tanks Multiple Programs Medium 120039 Wayne Transport Active Hazardous Waste, Very small quantity generator; Underground Tanks Multiple Programs Medium 191321 Rich Valley Golf Course Inactive Brownfields, Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup Low 73026 Raymond J Ostertag Farm Active Feedlots Feedlots Low Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 35 August 2021 Figure 11: MPCA What’s in My Neighborhood Sites Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 36 August 2021 A Phase II Environmental Site Assessment will be completed on the site to further explore the recognized environmental concerns identified in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Once the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment is complete, stormwater management facilities will be located outside of any known areas of contamination and will be designed according to local and state requirements. A Response Action Plan (RAP) will be development for any known areas of contamination and a Construction Contingency Plan (CCP) will prepared and implemented during construction. Project Related Generation/Storage of Solid Wastes – Describe solid wastes generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from solid waste handling, storage, and disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of solid waste including source reduction and recycling. AUAR Guidance: Generally, only the estimated total quantity of municipal solid waste generated and information about any recycling or source separation programs of the RGU need to be included According to Dakota County Ordinances 110 and 111, Dakota County will ensure compliance with applicable laws, rules, and ordinances related to the management of solid and hazardous waste as required by Minnesota Statutes, section 473.811. Construction Generated Solid Waste Construction of the proposed development would generate construction-related waste materials such as wood, packaging, excess materials, and other wastes, which would either be recycled or disposed of in the proper facilities in accordance with state regulations and guidelines. Redevelopment of portions of the site may generate earth materials and debris during demolition activities. Demolition debris is inert material such as concrete, brick, bituminous, and rock. The solid wastes generated during demolition would be recycled or disposed of at a state-permitted landfill. For solid waste generated from the completed project, a source recycling/separation plan would be implemented, and wastes that cannot be recycled would be managed in accordance with state regulations and guidelines. Operation Generated Solid Waste Recycling for residential units and commercial buildings in the AUAR study area will be conducted in accordance with the 2016 Recycling Law (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 115A, Section 115A.151 and Section 115A.552). Furthermore, Dakota County Ordinance 15.08 requires all solid waste haulers to offer source separated recycling services and curbside pick-up within the county. The proposed development would generate new demands on solid waste management and sanitation services provided in the project area. It is estimated that the non-residential (commercial/industrial) waste stream be approximately 32,100 tons per year under Scenario 1 and 22,425 tons per year under Scenario 2. Project Related Use/Storage of Hazardous Materials – Describe chemicals/hazardous materials used/stored during construction and/or operation of the project including method of storage. Indicate the number, location, and size of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum or other materials. Discuss potential environmental effects from Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 37 August 2021 accidental spills or releases of hazardous materials. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from the use/storage of chemicals/hazardous materials including source reduction and recycling. Include development of a spill prevention plan. AUAR Guidance: Not required for an AUAR. Potential locations of storage tanks associated with commercial uses in the AUAR should be identified (e.g., gasoline tanks at service stations). Not required for an AUAR. Project Related Generation/Storage of Hazardous Wastes – Describe hazardous wastes generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from hazardous waste handling, storage, and disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of hazardous wastes including source reduction and recycling. AUAR Guidance: Not required for an AUAR. Not required for an AUAR. 13. Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources Describe fish and wildlife resources as well as habitats and vegetation on or near the site. AUAR Guidance: The description of fish and wildlife resources should be related to the habitat types depicted on the cover types map. Any differences in impacts between development scenarios should be highlighted in the discussion. Minimal native wildlife habitat is located within the AUAR study area due to the site’s use as a golf course. Wildlife that can be found within the study area include birds and small mammals. There is one area of Minnesota Biological Survey (MBS) Sites of Biodiversity Significance and two Regionally Significant Ecological Areas (RSEA) located within one mile of the site. No native plant communities are within or adjacent to the study area. Existing cover types are shown in Figure 5. Describe rare features such as state-listed (endangered, threatened, or special concern) species, native plant communities, Minnesota County Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance, and other sensitive ecological resources on or within close proximity to the site. Provide the license agreement number (LA-843) and/or correspondence number (ERDB) from which the data were obtained, and attach the Natural Heritage letter from the DNR. Indicate if any additional habitat or species survey work has been conducted within the site and describe results. AUAR Guidance: For an AUAR, prior consultation with the DNR Division of Ecological Resources for information about reports of rare plant and animal species in the vicinity is required. Include the reference numbers called for on the EAW form in the AUAR and include the DNR’s response letter. If such consultation indicates the need, an on-site habitat survey for rare species in the appropriate portions of the AUAR area is required. Areas of on-site surveys should be depicted on a map, as should any “protection zones” established as a result. Federally-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 38 August 2021 Based on a review of the US Department of Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) data for federally-listed threatened and endangered species, there are three federally-listed species within Dakota County; Northern Long-eared Bat, Rusty Patched Bumble Bee, and Prairie Bush Clover. A record for the Rusty Patched Bumble Bee (Bombus Affinis), a federally-listed endangered species, is located within Dakota County. The preferred habitat for this species includes grasslands and tallgrass prairies. Although the study area is located within a high potential zone for the Rusty Patched Bumble Bee, the site has been previously developed for golf course use and does not contain natural prairie vegetation, therefore impacts to the rusty patched bumble bee are not anticipated. A record for the Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) is located within Dakota County. Northern long-eared bat was designated a federally threatened species by FWS in April 2015. According to the Minnesota DNR, in the southern part of the state, NLEB may use attics, bridges, and buildings for hibernating. In summer, the species is often found within forested habitats, especially around wetlands. Summer roosts may include under loose tree bark, in buildings, behind signs or shutters, caves, mines, and quarry tunnels. Given that the site area has been developed for golf course use, and does not contain caves or large expanses of forested habitat, , the potential for the Northern Long-eared Bat to utilize the site is considered low. A record for the Prairie Bush Clover (Lespedeza leptostachya), a federally-listed threated species, is located within Dakota County. The preferred habitat for this species includes tallgrass prairie. The site does any prairie habitat; therefore, no adverse impacts to the Prairie Bush Clover are anticipated. State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Based on a review of the Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) for state-listed threatened, endangered, and special concern species (per license agreement LA-965), there are no records within the AUAR study area and four records within one mile of the study area: Bell’s Vireo, Lark Sparrow, Loggerhead Shrike, and Peregrine Falcon. A record for the Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii), a state-listed special concern species, is located within a one-mile radius of the project site. The preferred habitat for this species includes shrub thickets, clumps, and edges within or bordering open habitats such as grasslands or wetlands. The site does not contain suitable habitat for the species; therefore, no adverse impacts to the Bell’s Vireo are anticipated. A record for the Lark Sparrow (Chondestes grammacus), a state-listed special concern species, is within a one-mile radius of the site. The preferred habitat for this species is dry grassland with a specific set of components: short and/or sparse grasses with at least some bare ground and scattered trees. All of the grassland currently present on the site is maintained for the Rich Valley Golf Course and does not represent suitable habitat for the Lark Sparrow; therefore, no adverse impacts to the Lark Sparrow are anticipated. A record for the Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), a state-listed endangered species, is within a one-mile radius of the site. The preferred habitat for this species is upland grasslands and occasionally agricultural areas with perching sites such as shrubs and small trees additionally. Trees within the site may represent marginally suitable habitat for the species. Tree removal activities are anticipated to be conducted early in the construction season, prior to the breeding Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 39 August 2021 season for the loggerhead shrike (before April); therefore, no impacts are anticipated to this species. Any loggerhead shrike sightings will be reported to the DNR. A record for the Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus), a state-listed special concern species, is located within a one-mile radius of the project site. The preferred habitat for this species includes cliff ledges along rivers or lakes, which are not present within the project site. No impacts to the peregrine falcon are anticipated. Other Sensitive Ecological Resources There is one area of Minnesota Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance and two Regionally Significant Ecological Areas located within one mile of the site. Considering none of the MCBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance or RSEAs are within the project limits, no adverse impacts in these areas are anticipated. No native plant communities are within or adjacent to the project site. Discuss how the identified fish, wildlife, plant communities, rare features, and ecosystems may be affected by the project. Include a discussion on introduction and spread of invasive species from the project construction and operation. Separately discuss effects to known threatened and endangered species. Effects to Wildlife Habitat The current site provides several acres of non-native wildlife habitat. It is possible one or more species utilizing the existing site may be relocated as a result of site development. Effects to Threatened and Endangered Species Trees within the site may represent marginally suitable habitat for the Loggerhead Shrike and tree removal activities related to the redevelopment of the site may have a negative impact to this species. The AUAR study area lacks suitable habitat for the Northern Long-eared Bat, Rusty-patched Bumble Bee, Prairie Bush Clover, Bell’s Vireo, Lark Sparrow, and Peregrine Falcon. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated for those species. Invasive Species Invasive species are a major cause of biodiversity loss and are considered biological pollutants by the DNR. Invasive species can be moved on construction equipment, landscaping equipment, and other debris. Stormwater Stormwater run-off can cause a number of environmental problems. When stormwater drains off a construction site, it can carry sediment and pollutants that harm lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands which in turn may harm wildlife. The proposed development scenarios include stormwater management and treatment of all stormwater run-off withi n the AUAR study area which will improve water quality within the study area. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources. Effects to Wildlife Habitat The proposed development includes stormwater ponds that will be seeded with native plants to provide habitat for pollinators and small mammals. Tree removal mitigation will be implemented as required by City of Rosemount’s code of ordinances. Some green space and native Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 40 August 2021 landscaping will be provided within the proposed development scenarios. Pollinator friendly seed mixes will be used to promote pollinator habitat. Effects to Threatened and Endangered Species To avoid potential impacts to the Loggerhead Shrike, tree removal activities are anticipated to be conducted early in the construction season, prior to the breeding season for the loggerhead shrike (before April); therefore, no impacts are anticipated to this species. Any loggerhead shrike sightings will be reported to the DNR. As noted above, pollinator friendly seed mixes will be used to promote pollinator habitat. Invasive Species Invasive species will be controlled on-site during construction and landscaping will not include any DNR identified invasive species. Additionally, best management practices will be followed when relocating equipment from other sites. Stormwater The project will include approximately 12 acres of above ground stormwater management areas. These areas will allow for stormwater treatment in diverse environments that can support pollinators and other wildlife. 14. Historic Properties Describe any historic structures, archeological sites, and/or traditional cultural properties on or in close proximity to the site. Include 1) historic designations; 2) known artifact areas; and 3) architectural features. Attach letter received from the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Discuss any anticipated effects to historic properties during project construction and operation. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to historic properties. AUAR Guidance: For an AUAR, contact with the State Historic Preservation Office and State Archeologist is required to determine whether there are areas of potential impacts to these resources. If any exist, an appropriate site survey of high probability areas is needed to address the issue in more detail. The mitigation plan must include mitigation for any impacts identified. A SHPO database review was requested in April 2021. The database review identified no historic sites within proximity to the site. Therefore, there are no impacts to nearby archaeological, historical, and/or architectural resources anticipated as part of this development. A letter from the State Historic Preservation Office outlining this finding is provided in Appendix B. 15. Visual Scenic views or vistas may include spectacular viewing points along lakes, rivers or bluffs; virgin timber tracts; prairie remnants; geological features; waterfalls; specimen trees; or plots of wildflowers. Describe any project related visual effects such as vapor plumes or glare from intense lights. Discuss the potential visual effects from the project. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate visual effects. Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 41 August 2021 AUAR Guidance: Any impacts on scenic views and vistas present in the AUAR should be addressed. This would include both direct physical impacts and impacts on visual quality or integrity. If any non-routine visual impacts would occur from the anticipated development, this should be discussed here along with appropriate mitigation. Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 The AUAR study area includes existing golf course property that is not near any unique designated scenic views or vistas. Future development would conform with the zoning regulations for building form and lighting would be in conformance with city ordinances. No visual impacts are anticipated. 16. Air Stationary Source Emissions – Describe the type, sources, quantities, and compositions of any emissions from stationary sources such as boilers or exhaust stacks. Include any hazardous air pollutants, criteria pollutants, and any greenhouse gases. Discuss effects to air quality including any sensitive receptors, human health, or applicable regulatory criteria. Include a discussion of any methods used to assess the project’s effect on air quality and the results of that assessment. Identify pollution control equipment and other measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from stationary source emissions. AUAR Guidance: This item is not applicable to an AUAR. Any stationary air emissions source large enough to merit environmental review requires individual review. Not applicable. Vehicle Emissions – Describe the effect of the project’s traffic generation on air emissions. Discuss the project’s vehicle-related emissions effect on air quality. Identify measures (e.g., traffic operational improvements, diesel idling minimization plan) that will be taken to minimize or mitigate vehicle-related emissions. AUAR Guidance: Although the MPCA no longer issues Indirect Source Permits, traffic-related air quality may still be an issue if the analysis in Item 18 indicates that development would cause or worsen traffic congestion. The general guidance from the EAW form should still be followed. Questions about the details of air quality analysis should be directed to MPCA staff. Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has developed a screening method designed to identify intersections that will not cause a carbon monoxide (CO) impact above state standards. MnDOT has demonstrated that even the 10 highest traffic volume intersections in the Twin Cities do not experience CO impacts. Therefore, intersections with traffic volumes lower than these 10 highest intersections will not cause a CO impact above state standards. MnDOT’s screening method demonstrates that intersections with total daily approaching traffic volumes below 82,300 vehicles per day will not have the potential for causing CO air pollution problems. None of the intersections in the study area exceed the criteria that would lead to a violation of the air quality standards. Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 42 August 2021 Dust and Odors – Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of dust and odors generated during project construction and operation. (Fugitive dust may be discussed under Item 16a). Discuss the effect of dust and odors in the vicinity of the project including nearby sensitive receptors and quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of dust and odors. AUAR Guidance: Dust and odors need not be addressed in an AUAR, unless there is some unusual reason to do so. The RGU might want to discuss as part of the mitigation plan, however, any dust control ordinances in effect. Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 The proposed development for either scenario may generate temporary fugitive dust emissions during construction. The City of Rosemount regulates dust in accordance with the standards set by the MPCA.3 Dust emissions can be controlled by sweeping, watering, sprinkling, as appropriate or as prevailing weather and soil conditions dictate. Dust emissions are not anticipated during operations as all ground surfaces will either be impervious or vegetated. 17. Noise Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of noise generated during project construction and operation. Discuss the effect of noise in the vicinity of the project including 1) existing noise levels/sources in the area; 2) nearby sensitive receptors; 3) conformance to state noise standards; and 4) quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of noise. AUAR Guidance: Construction noise need not be addressed in an AUAR, unless there is some unusual reason to do so. The RGU might want to discuss as part of the mitigation plan, however, any construction noise ordinances in effect. • If the area will include or adjoin major noise sources, a noise analysis is needed to determine if any noise levels in excess of standards would occur, and if so, to identify appropriate mitigation measures. With respect to traffic-generated noise, the noise analysis should be based on the traffic analysis of Item 18. it is expected that an AUAR will have a detailed analysis of stormwater issues; • A map of the proposed stormwater management system and of the water bodies that will receive stormwater should be provided; • The description of the stormwater systems would identify on-site and “regional” detention ponding and also indicate whether the various ponds will be new water bodies or converted existing ponds or wetlands. Where on-site ponds will be used but have not yet been designed, the discussion should indicate the design standards that will be followed. • If present in or adjoining the AUAR area, the following types of water bodies must be given special analyses: 3 Source: Rosemount, Minnesota, Municipal Code § 11 -9-1 (C) Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 43 August 2021 • Lakes: within the Twin Cities metro area a nutrient budget analysis must be prepared for any “priority lake” identified by the Metropolitan Council. Outside of the metro area, lakes needing a nutrient budget analysis must be determined by consultation with the MPCA and DNR staffs; • Trout streams: if stormwater discharges will enter or affect a trout stream an evaluation of the impacts on the chemical composition and temperature regime of the stream and the consequent impacts on the trout population (and other species of concern) must be included. Traffic Generated Noise Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 The project site is an existing golf course near state highways and county roads. Existing traffic noise sources at the site are from the surrounding roadways. Traffic volumes in the project area are either on roadways that do not have receivers that are sensitive to noise, or, the traffic levels attributable to the project are well below the amount that would generate a sound increase that could be noticeable. The change in traffic noise levels is not anticipated to be readily perceptible. A sound increase of 3 dBA is barely noticeable by the human ear, a 5 dBA increase is clearly noticeable, and a 10 dBA increase is heard as twice as loud. For example, if the sound energy is doubled (i.e., the amount of traffic doubles), there is a 3 dBA increase in noise, which is just barely noticeable to most people. On the other hand, if traffic increases by a factor of 10, the resulting sound level will increase by about 10 dBA and be perceived as twice as loud. Operational Noise Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 The Rosemount Code of Ordinances regulates mechanical noise associated with building operation by the standards set by the MPCA.4 All future development for either scenario will be required to comply with these requirements. Construction Noise Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 As stated in the AUAR guidelines, construction noise need not be addressed unless there is some unusual reason to do so. No unusual circumstances have been identified that would necessitate a detailed construction noise analysis. The Rosemount Code of Ordinances regulates both the hours of operation for construction equipment and allowable noise levels. Construction of the proposed project would comply with these requirements. 18. Transportation AUAR Guidance: For AUAR reviews a detailed traffic analysis will be needed, conforming to the MnDOT guidance as listed on the EAW form. Describe traffic-related aspects of project construction and operation. Include 1) existing and proposed additional parking spaces; 2) estimated total average daily traffic generated; 3) estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence; 4) source of trip generation rates used in the estimates; and 5) availability of transit and/or other alternative transportation modes. Parking 4 Source: Rosemount, Minnesota, Municipal Code § 11-9-1 (A) Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 44 August 2021 Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 Although there are around 160 existing parking spaces on 1 acre of parking within the study area near the golf course clubhouse, after redevelopment all parking spaces for the development will be new spaces. Minimum off-street parking requirements listed in Section 11-6-1 of the City of Rosemount’s Code of Ordinances will be adhered to. Existing Conditions The existing roadway network within the study area includes CR 42, US 52, MN 55, Conley Avenue, and 140th Street/142nd Street. The roadway network is described below. • CR 42 (145th Street) is an east-west roadway that runs along the southern boundary of the AUAR development. West of Conley Avenue, CR 42 is a four-lane, divided roadway with turn lanes provided at most intersections. East of Conley Avenue, CR 42 tapers to a two-lane, undivided roadway with turn lanes provided at intersections. The 2019 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) is 5,400 vehicle per day (VPD) east of US 52 and 15,900 VPD west of US 52. The speed limit on CR 42 is 55 miles per hour (MPH). • US 52 is a north-south roadway that runs west of the AUAR development. US 52 is a four-lane divided roadway with interchanges provided at major intersecting roadways. The 2018 AADT is 34,000 VPD in the project vicinity. The speed limit on US 52 is 65 MPH. • MN 55 is a primarily east-west roadway that runs northeast of the AUAR development. MN 55 is a two-lane undivided roadway with right and left turn lanes provided at major intersections and right-turn lanes provided at most smaller intersections. East of 145th Street the 2019 AADT is 14,400 VPD and west of 145th Street the 2015 AADT is 12,800 VPD. The speed limit on MN 55 is 55 MPH. • Conley Avenue is a north-south roadway that runs along the western boundary of the AUAR development. Conley Avenue is a two-lane undivided roadway. The 2019 AADT is 1,900 VPD. The speed limit Conley Avenue is 35 MPH. • 140th Street/142nd Street is an east-west roadway that runs along the northern boundary of the AUAR development. 140th Street/142nd Street is a two-lane undivided roadway. The 2019 AADT is 135 VPD east of the site. Traffic Generation Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 It is estimated that Scenario 1 will generate 715 trips during the weekday a.m. peak hour, 660 trips during the weekday p.m. peak hour, and 8,595 daily trips. Scenario 2 is estimated to generate 810 trips during the weekday a.m. peak hour, 1,930 trips during the weekday p.m. peak hour, and 21,465 daily trips. Trip generation estimates were based on site specific data for the proposed land uses provided by the developer, and using land use codes 150 (Warehousing), 710 (General Office Building), and 820 (Shopping Center) in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. The trip generation for both scenarios is shown in Table 9. The full traffic study conducted for the AUAR can be found in Appendix C. Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 45 August 2021 Table 9: Trip Generation Forecasts Scenario AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Total In Out Total In Out Scenario 1 715 555 155 660 200 460 8,595 Scenario 2 810 560 250 1,930 890 1,040 21,465 Availability of Transit There are no transit routes currently serving the AUAR study area. However, there are transit routes currently on US 52 north of CSAH 42 (145th Street) and on CSAH 42 (145th Street) west of US 52. In addition, MVTA has identified a future transit route on CSAH 42 (145th Street) from US 52 east to Hastings. Discuss the effect on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic improvements necessary. The analysis must discuss the project’s impact on the regional transportation system. If the peak hour traffic generated exceeds 250 vehicles or the total daily trips exceeds 2,500, a traffic impact study must be prepared as part of the EAW. Use the format and procedures described in the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s Access Management Manual, Chapter 5 (available at: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/accessmanagement/resources.html) or a similar local guidance. AUAR Guidance: For AUAR reviews, a detailed traffic analysis will be needed, conforming to the MnDOT guidance as listed on the EAW form. The results of the traffic analysis must be used in the response to Items 16 and 17. Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was completed in April 2021 based on the projected trip generation of the two proposed scenarios. The results of this study can be found in Appendix C. Based on the detailed findings of the Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment TIA, the area’s transportation network is expected to support redevelopment within the AUAR study area with mitigation. The TIA identified improvements that could be constructed to mitigate possible future traffic impacts associated with development within the AUAR study area. Metrics for traffic analysis include intersection delay as measured by Level of Service (LOS) and queue lengths. The traffic analysis report includes intersection capacity analyses for intersections at site access points along CR 42 and 140th Street as well as intersection operations within the vicinity of the project (see locations identified on Figure 12). The access along CR 42 meets the ¼ mile access spacing requirement in the Dakota County 2040 Transportation Plan. If CR 42 is expanded to a divided highway near the site, partial access could be provided to the site. Based on the results of the TIA capacity analysis, several intersections operate poorly in both scenarios without mitigation. Table 9 shows the LOS for the study area intersections in each analysis scenario. Scenario 2 without mitigation was not analyzed because Scenario 1 required mitigation and Scenario 2 generates even more traffic. Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 46 August 2021 Table 10: Existing and Projected Intersection LOS Intersection Existing LOS Scenario 1 LOS Mitigated Scenario 1 LOS Mitigated Scenario 2 LOS 2021 2025 2025 2045 2025 2045 A.M. Peak Hour Intersection LOS CR 42 & US 52 SB Ramps B F C C C C CR 42 & US 52 NB Ramps C F B C C C CR 42 & Conley Avenue A C C C A B CR 42 & 142nd Street A A A A A A CR 42 & MN 55 B C C B A A CR 42 & South Access -- C D F C C 140th Street & West Access -- A A A A A 140th Street & East Access -- A A A A A P.M. Peak Hour Intersection LOS CR 42 & US 52 SB Ramps B F C C C C CR 42 & US 52 NB Ramps C F B C B B CR 42 & Conley Avenue A C C C A B CR 42 & 142nd Street A A A A A A CR 42 & MN 55 E F F B D B CR 42 & South Access -- B A C C C 140th Street & West Access -- A A A A A 140th Street & East Access -- A A A A A Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate project related transportation effects. The following provides a summary of mitigation improvements that were identified as part of the traffic analysis for the Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment. Scenario 1 Short-Term (2025) Scenario 1 Conditions • Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of CR 42 & US 52 southbound ramps • Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of CR 42 & US 52 northbound ramps • Addition of a westbound right turn lane at the intersection of CR 42 & South Access Long-Term (2045) Scenario 1 Conditions Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 47 August 2021 • All Modifications from Short-Term (2025) Scenario 1 Conditions • Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of CR 42 & MN 55 Scenario 2 Short-Term (2025) Scenario 2 Conditions • Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of CR 42 & US 52 southbound ramps • Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of CR 42 & US 52 northbound ramps • Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of CR 42 & Conley Avenue • Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of CR 42 & South Access • Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of CR 42 & MN 55 • Addition of a westbound right turn lane at the intersection of CR 42 & South Access • Addition of a westbound through lane from the South Access to where the 4-lane currently begins • Extension of eastbound left turn lane to 550 feet at the intersection of CR 42 & South Access Long-Term (2045) Scenario 2 Conditions • All modifications from Short-Term (2025) Scenario 2 Conditions • Addition of dual northbound left turn lanes at the intersection of CR 42 & MN 55 • Addition of dual eastbound left turn lanes at the intersection of CR 42 & South Access • Expansion of southbound approach at CR 42 & US 52 to a dedicated left-turn lane, a shared left/thru lane, and dual dedicated right-turn lanes. Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 48 August 2021 Figure 12: Traffic Study Intersections and Existing Levels of Service (LOS) Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 49 August 2021 19. Cumulative Potential Effects AUAR Guidance: Because the AUAR process by its nature is intended to deal with cumulative potential effects from all future developments within the AUAR area, it is presumed that the responses to all items on the EAW form automatically encompass the impacts from all anticipated developments within the AUAR area. However, the total impact on the environment with respect to any of the items on the EAW form may also be influenced by past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects outside of the AUAR area. The cumulative potential effect descriptions may be provided as part of the responses to other appropriate EAW items, or in response to this item. Describe the geographic scales and timeframes of the project related environmental effects that could combine with other environmental effects resulting in cumulative potential effects. Cumulative effects are defined as the “effect on the environment that results from the incremental effects of a project in addition to other projects in the environmentally relevant area that might reasonably be expected to affect the same environmental resources, including future projects actually planned or for which a basis of expectation has been laid, regardless of what person undertakes the other projects or what jurisdictions have authority over the projects.”5 The geographic areas considered for cumulative effects are those areas adjacent to the AUAR study area, and the timeframe considered includes projects that would be constructed in the reasonably foreseeable future. Cumulative effects result from the incremental impact of the development scenarios when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The geographic area considered for cumulative potential effects is the area within the AUAR study area. No other projects have been identified as reasonably foreseeable and have the potential to interact with either scenario as to cause varying degrees of reasonably foreseeable cumulative impacts. Describe any reasonably foreseeable future projects (for which a basis of expectation has been laid) that may interact with environmental effects of the proposed project within the geographic scales and timeframes identified above. No other projects have been identified as reasonably foreseeable and have the potential to interact with either scenario as to cause varying degrees of reasonably foreseeable cumulative impacts. Discuss the nature of the cumulative potential effects and summarize any other available information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental effects due to these cumulative effects. No other projects have been identified as reasonably foreseeable and have the potential to interact with either scenario as to cause varying degrees of reasonably foreseeable cumulative impacts. 5 Minnesota Rules, part 4410.0200, subpart 11a Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 50 August 2021 20. Other Potential Environmental Impacts If the project may cause any additional environmental effects not addressed by Items 1 to 19, describe the effects here, discuss the how the environment will be affected, and identify measures that will be taken to minimize and mitigate these effects. All known environmental effects are addressed in the preceding sections. Mitigation Plan This Mitigation Plan is submitted as part of the AUAR to provide reviewers and regulators with an understanding of the actions that are advisable, recommended, or necessary to protect the environment and minimize potential impacts by the proposed development scenarios. This Mitigation Plan has been revised and updated based on comments received during the Draft AUAR comment period. Responses to these comments are included in Appendix D and copies of the comment letters are included in Appendix E. This Mitigation Plan is intended to satisfy the AUAR rules that require the preparation of a mitigation plan that specifies measures or procedures that will be used to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the potential impacts of development within the AUAR study area. Although mitigation strategies are discussed throughout the AUAR document, this plan will be formally adopted by the RGU as their action plan to prevent potentially significant environmental impacts. The primary mechanism for mitigation of environmental impacts is the effective use of ordinances, rules, and regulations. The plan does not modify the regulatory agencies’ responsibilities for implementing their respective regulatory programs nor create additional regulatory requirements. The plan specifies the legal and institutional arrangements that will assure that the adopted mitigation measures are implemented. There were no impacts or mitigation strategies identified in Item 14 and Item 15; therefore, these areas are not included in the Mitigation Plan. The remaining AUAR items have identified regulatory requirements and/or mitigation measures that reduce the level of potential impact of development within the study area. The following mitigation summary applies to Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, unless otherwise specified. Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 51 August 2021 Table 11: Permits and Approvals Required Unit of Government Type of Application Status Federal U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 To be applied for, if applicable State Minnesota Pollution Control Agency National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Stormwater Permit for Construction Activities To be applied for, if applicable Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit To be applied for, if applicable Notice of Intent of Demolition To be applied for, if applicable Section 401 Water Quality Certification To be applied for, if applicable Construction Contingency Plan and Response Action Plan approval To be applied for, if applicable Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Temporary Water Appropriation Permit for Construction Dewatering To be applied for County Metropolitan Council Sewer Extension Permit To be applied for, if applicable Sewer Connection Permit to Connect To be applied for, if applicable Direct Connection Permit To be applied for, if applicable Dakota County Right-of-Way Permit To be applied for, if applicable Local City of Rosemount Preliminary/Final Plat To be applied for, if applicable Building Permit To be applied for, if applicable Erosion Control, Grading, and Stormwater Permit To be applied for, if applicable Demolition Permit To be applied for, if applicable Right-of-Way Permit To be applied for, if applicable Comprehensive Plan Amendment To be applied for, if applicable WCA Review and Approval To be applied for, if applicable Wetland Buffer Zone Management Plan approval To be completed, if applicable Zoning Map Amendment To be completed, if applicable Planned Unit Development To be completed, if applicable Conditional Use Permit To be completed, if applicable Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 52 August 2021 Table 12: Mitigation Plan Resource Area Mitigation Land Use Scenario 1 and Scenario 2: Any zoning and/or land use inconsistencies will be addressed through a comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning, or the City’s conditional use permit process. Scenario 1: Scenario 1 proposes industrial uses in a portion of the site that the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan designates commercial use. These parcels would require a comprehensive plan amendment to allow the proposed uses. Geology, Soils, and Topography Scenario 1 and Scenario 2: Erosion prevention and sediment control practices will be implemented on-site per the NPDES General Stormwater Permit requirements. Scenario 1 and Scenario 2: The existing surface vegetation, root zones and topsoil are not considered suitable for support of the proposed buildings and will be removed and replaced with engineered sand backfill. Water Resources Scenario 1 and Scenario 2: Infrastructure will be built within the AUAR study area to convey stormwater to stormwater management areas to help achieve the appropriate water quality treatment. The project will include approximately 12 acres of above ground stormwater management areas. As required by the City and Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization, the quantity and rate of stormwater runoff from the 1-, 10-, and 100-year, 24-hour rainfall events in post-development conditions will be managed to not exceed the existing conditions. Infrastructure will be built within the AUAR study area to convey stormwater to stormwater management areas to help achieve this water quantity requirement. Scenario 1 and Scenario 2: Stormwater will be conveyed by means of an underground storm sewer to constructed stormwater management areas. Conveyance systems will be designed in accordance with acceptable industry standards and in conformance with jurisdictional requirements. Scenario 1 and Scenario 2: Maintenance and monitoring of the stormwater management areas will be performed to ensure long term effectiveness of the facilities. Scenario 1 and Scenario 2: Obtain a permit from the Metropolitan Council and MPCA for a sewer extension and permit to connect. Scenario 1 and Scenario 2: Obtain a permit from MDH for a watermain installation. Scenario 1 and Scenario 2: Groundwater wells will be properly sealed by a licensed well contractor prior to redevelopment within the AUAR study area per MPCA and MDH well sealing requirements. Scenario 1 and Scenario 2: Best management practices pertaining to stormwater management will be adhered to during construction. Scenario 1 and Scenario 2: Removal of existing wetlands will require the purchase of wetland banking credits. Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 53 August 2021 Resource Area Mitigation Contamination/ Hazardous Waste Scenario 1 and Scenario 2: Development would both generate construction-related waste materials such as wood, packaging, excess materials, and other wastes, which would be either recycled or disposed in the proper facilities; Products will be kept in their original containers unless they cannot be resealed. Original labels and Material Safety Data Sheets will be made available. Surplus materials will be properly removed from the property upon completion of use. Scenario 1 and Scenario 2: Ensure compliance with applicable laws, rules, and ordinances related to the management of solid and hazardous waste as required by Minnesota Statutes 2020, section 473.811, subdivision 5c. Scenario 1 and Scenario 2: Coordinate with the MPCA regarding the required plans, material handling, and disposal. Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources Scenario 1 and Scenario 2: Wildlife friendly erosion control methods will be utilized within the study area to minimize impacts to wildlife using the site during construction. Scenario 1 and Scenario 2: Invasive species will be controlled during site construction. Scenario 1 and Scenario 2: To avoid potential impacts to the Loggerhead Shrike, tree removal activities are anticipated to be conducted early in the construction season, prior to the species’ breeding season. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to this species. Any loggerhead shrike sightings will be reported to the DNR. Air Scenario 1 and Scenario 2: Construction will generate temporary fugitive dust emissions during construction. These emissions will be controlled by sweeping, watering, sprinkling, as appropriate or as prevailing weather and soil conditions dictate. The City of Rosemount regulates dust in accordance with the standards set by the MPCA. Noise Scenario 1 and Scenario 2: Construction activities may result in temporarily elevated noise levels. To the extent possible, construction activities will be conducted to minimize noise levels and nighttime construction activities. Permits related to construction noise must be obtained from the City at least 10 working days prior to the start of construction. Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR 54 August 2021 Resource Area Mitigation Transportation Scenario 1: • Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of CR 42 & US 52 southbound ramps • Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of CR 42 & US 52 northbound ramps • Addition of a westbound right turn lane at the intersection of CR 42 & South Access • Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of CR 42 & MN 55 Scenario 2: • Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of CR 42 & US 52 southbound ramps • Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of CR 42 & US 52 northbound ramps • Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of CR 42 & Conley Avenue • Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of CR 42 & South Access • Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of CR 42 & MN 55 • Addition of a westbound right turn lane at the intersection of CR 42 & South Access • Addition of a westbound through lane from east of the South Access to where the 4-lane currently begins. Extension of eastbound left turn lane to 550 feet at the intersection of CR 42 & South Access • Addition of dual northbound left turn lanes at the intersection of CR 42 & MN 55 • Addition of dual eastbound left turn lanes at the intersection of CR 42 & South Access. Expansion of southbound approach at CR 42 & US 52 to a dedicated left-turn lane, a shared left/thru lane, and dual dedicated right-turn lanes. Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR August 2021 Appendix A NHIS Correspondence Appendix A: Correspondence to Agency Comments : Responses to Public Comments From:Simmons, Koehl To:Review.NHIS@state.mn.us Cc:Bunge, Leila; Payne, Ashley Subject:NHIS Review Request for Rich Valley Golf Course Area in Rosemount, MN Date:Friday, April 30, 2021 3:55:00 PM Attachments:Study Area.jpg Hello, Kimley-Horn has been contracted to prepare an AUAR for the Rich Valley Golf Course located along County Road 42 west of Highway 52 on a 160-acre site in Rosemount, Dakota County, Minnesota. A project location map is attached. A review of the DNR Natural Heritage Inventory System (LA-965) database was conducted for the AUAR study area and the area within one mile of the project site. This review identified 4 records within one mile of the project site but no records within the project site itself. A record for the Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii), a state-listed special concern species, is located within a one-mile radius of the project site. The preferred habitat for this species includes shrub thickets, clumps, and edges within or bordering open habitats such as grasslands or wetlands. The site does not contain suitable habitat for the species; therefore, no adverse impacts to the Bell’s Vireo are anticipated. A record for the Lark Sparrow (Chondestes grammacus), a state-listed special concern species, is within a one-mile radius of the site. The preferred habitat for this species is dry grassland with a specific set of components: short and/or sparse grasses with at least some bare ground and scattered trees. All of the grassland currently present on the site is maintained for the Rich Valley Golf Course and does not represent suitable habitat for the Lark Sparrow; therefore no adverse impact to the Lark Sparrow are anticipated. A record for the Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), a state-listed endangered species, is within a one-mile radius of the site. The preferred habitat for this species is upland grasslands and occasionally agricultural areas with perching sites such as shrubs and small trees additionally. Trees within the site may represent marginally suitable habitat for the species. Tree removal activities will be conducted to avoid the breeding season for the loggerhead shrike; therefore, no impacts are anticipated to this species. Any loggerhead shrike sightings will be reported to the DNR. A record for the Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus), a state-listed special concern species, is located within a one-mile radius of the project site. The preferred habitat for this species includes cliff ledges along rivers or lakes, which are not present within the project site. No impacts to the peregrine falcon are anticipated. There is one area of Minnesota Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance and two Regionally Significant Ecological Areas located within one mile of the site. Considering none of the MCBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance or RSEAs are within the project limits, no adverse impacts in these areas are anticipated. No native plant communities are within or adjacent to the project site. No public water bodies are within or adjacent to the project area. Based on the information listed above, no adverse impacts are anticipated to the species or the RSEA areas identified through the NHIS records search. Please confirm our conclusions and let us know if you have any questions or need additional information. Thank you, Koehl SimmonsKimley-Horn | 767 Eustis Street, Suite 100, St. Paul, MN 55114 Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR August 2021 Appendix B Historic Resources Correspondence Historic Resources Correspondence 1 Simmons, Koehl From:MN_MNIT_Data Request SHPO <DataRequestSHPO@state.mn.us> Sent:Thursday, April 22, 2021 4:57 PM To:Simmons, Koehl Cc:Bunge, Leila Subject:RE: SHPO Database Search for AUAR in Rosemount, MN Attachments:History.xls Categories:External Hello Koehl, Please see attached. Our database has no archaeological records for the given project area. Jim SHPO Data Requests Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office 50 Sherburne Avenue, Suite 203 Saint Paul, MN 55155 (651) 201-3299 datarequestshpo@state.mn.us Notice: This email message simply reports the results of the cultural resources database search you requested. The database search is only for previously known archaeological sites and historic properties.IN NO CASE DOES THIS DATABASE SEARCH OR EMAIL MESSAGE CONSTITUTE A PROJECT REVIEW UNDER STATE OR FEDERAL PRESERVATION LAWS –please see our website at https://mn.gov/admin/shpo/protection/ for further information regarding our Environmental Review Process. Because the majority of archaeological sites in the state and many historic/architectural properties have not been recorded, important sites or properties may exist within the search area and may be affected by development projects within that area. Additional research, including field surveys, may be necessary to adequately assess the area’s potential to contain historic properties or archaeological sites. Properties that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or have been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP are indicated on the reports you have received, if any. The following codes may be on those reports: NR – National Register listed. The properties may be individually listed or may be within the boundaries of a National Register District. CEF – Considered Eligible Findings are made when a federal agency has recommended that a property is eligible for listing in the National Register and MN SHPO has accepted the recommendation for the purposes of the Environmental Review Process. These properties need to be further assessed before they are officially listed in the National Register. SEF – Staff eligible Findings are those properties the MN SHPO staff considers eligible for listing in the National Register, in circumstances other than the Environmental Review Process. DOE – Determination of Eligibility is made by the National Park Service and are those properties that are eligible for listing in the National Register, but have not been officially listed. CNEF – Considered Not Eligible Findings are made during the course of the Environmental Review Process. For the purposes of the review a property is considered not eligible for listing in the National Register. These properties may need to be reassessed for eligibility under additional or alternate contexts. Properties without NR, CEF, SEF, DOE, or CNEF designations in the reports may not have been evaluated and therefore no assumption to their eligibility can be made. Integrity and contexts change over time, therefore any eligibility determination made ten (10) or more years from the date of the current survey are considered out of date and the property will need to be reassessed. 2 If you require a comprehensive assessment of a project’s potential to impact archaeological sites or historic/architectural properties, you may need to hire a qualified archaeologist and/or historian. If you need assistance with a project review, please contact Kelly Gragg-Johnson, Environmental Review Specialist @ 651-201-3285 or by email at kelly.graggjohnson@state.mn.us. The Minnesota SHPO Archaeology and Historic/Architectural Survey Manuals can be found at https://mn.gov/admin/shpo/identification-evaluation/. Given the Governor's implementation of Stay Safe MN, SHPO staff will continue to work remotely and be available via phone and email, and the SHPO office will be closed to visitors and unable to accommodate in- person research and deliveries. Mail is being delivered to the office via USPS, FedEx and UPS, however, staff have limited weekly access to sort and process mail. Our office will continue to take file search requests via DataRequestSHPO@state.mn.us. Check SHPO's webpage for the latest updates and we thank you for your continued patience. From: Simmons, Koehl <Koehl.Simmons@kimley-horn.com> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 11:53 AM To: MN_MNIT_Data Request SHPO <DataRequestSHPO@state.mn.us> Cc: Bunge, Leila <leila.bunge@kimley-horn.com> Subject: SHPO Database Search for AUAR in Rosemount, MN Hello, We are preparing an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the Rich Valley Golf Course site Rosemount, Dakota County, Minnesota. I am writing to request a historic and architectural inventory database search for the site located in the following township, range, and section: Township Range Section 115N 18W 30 See the attached figure of the project location. The AUAR will examine the potential impacts for the maximum intensity of land use proposed and planned for the 160 acre study area. Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information. Thank you, Koehl Simmons Kimley-Horn |767 Eustis Street, Suite 100, St. Paul, MN 55114 Direct: 612 474-4945 Connect with us:Twitter |LinkedIn |Facebook |Instagram Celebrating 14 years as one of FORTUNE’s 100 Best Companies to Work For This message may be from an external email source. Do not select links or open attachments unless verified. Report all suspicious emails to Minnesota IT Services Security Operations Center. COUNTY CITYTWP PROPNAME ADDRESS TOWNSHIPRANGESECTION Dakota Rosemount Edmund Knodt Farm 15102 Coates Blvd.115 18 30 Edmund Knodt Farm 115 18 30 Edmund Knodt Farm 115 18 30 QUARTERSUSGS REPORTNUMNRHPCEFDOEINVENTNUM DK-93-1H Y DK-RSC-024 DK-2011-2H Y DK-RSC-024 DK-2011-1H Y DK-RSC-024 Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR August 2021 Appendix C Traffic Study Appendix C Traffic Impact Analysis Ri ch Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA JUNE 2021 Prepared By: Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR │ Appendix C - Traffic Analysis June 2021 Page | 2 Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 REPORT PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................................... 5 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS .................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 STUDY AREA ................................................................................................................................................. 6 2.3 EXISTING VOLUMES ..................................................................................................................................... 6 3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 7 3.1 FUTURE PLANNED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ...................................................................................... 7 3.2 FUTURE TRAFFIC FORECASTING ............................................................................................................... 7 4.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................................. 9 4.1 SITE LOCATION ............................................................................................................................................. 9 4.2 SITE CIRCULATION ....................................................................................................................................... 9 4.3 EXISTING AND FUTURE LAND USE............................................................................................................. 9 4.4 TRIP GENERATION ..................................................................................................................................... 10 4.5 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT ................................................................................. 11 4.6 TOTAL SITE TRAFFIC.................................................................................................................................. 12 5.0 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................... 13 5.1 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS............................................................................................................................... 13 5.2 LEVEL OF SERVICE OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................ 14 5.3 EXISTING (2021) LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... 14 5.4 SHORT-TERM (2025) NO-BUILD LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS ............................................................ 16 5.5 LONG-TERM (2045) NO-BUILD LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS .............................................................. 17 5.6 LONG-TERM (2045) NO-BUILD WITH MITIGATION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS .............................. 19 5.7 SHORT-TERM (2025) SCENARIO 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS ....................................................... 21 5.8 SHORT-TERM (2025) SCENARIO 1 WITH MITIGATION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS ....................... 23 5.9 LONG-TERM (2045) SCENARIO 1 WITH MITIGATION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS.......................... 26 5.10 SHORT-TERM (2025) SCENARIO 2 WITH MITIGATION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS ..................... 29 5.11 LONG-TERM (2045) SCENARIO 2 WITH MITIGATION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS........................ 32 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................... 34 6.1 PROJECT TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................................... 35 Page | 3 Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR │ Appendix C - Traffic Analysis June 2021 6.2 SHORT-TERM (2025) NO-BUILD LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SUMMARY ........................................ 35 6.3 SHORT-TERM (2025) SCENARIO 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SUMMARY .................................... 35 6.4 SHORT-TERM (2025) SCENARIO 2 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SUMMARY .................................... 35 6.5 LONG-TERM (2045) NO-BUILD LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SUMMARY ........................................... 36 6.6 LONG-TERM (2045) SCENARIO 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SUMMARY ...................................... 36 6.7 LONG-TERM (2045) SCENARIO 2 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SUMMARY ...................................... 36 6.8 MITIGATION PLAN ....................................................................................................................................... 37 APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................................................... 38 TABLES TABLE 1: PROJECTED GROWTH RATES ................................................................................................................... 8 TABLE 2: AUAR DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS ........................................................................................................... 9 TABLE 3: TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY (SCENARIO 1) ........................................................................................ 10 TABLE 4: TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY (SCENARIO 2) ........................................................................................ 11 TABLE 5: TRIP GENERATION FORECAST................................................................................................................ 11 TABLE 6: ANALYSIS SCENARIO SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 13 TABLE 7: LEVEL OF SERVICE GRADING CRITERIA ................................................................................................ 14 TABLE 8: EXISTING (2021) NO-BUILD CONDITIONS AM PEAK HOUR DELAY AND LOS ..................................... 15 TABLE 9: EXISTING (2021) NO-BUILD CONDITIONS PM PEAK HOUR DELAY AND LOS ..................................... 15 TABLE 10: SHORT-TERM (2025) NO-BUILD CONDITIONS AM PEAK HOUR DELAY AND LOS ............................ 16 TABLE 11: SHORT-TERM (2025) NO-BUILD CONDITIONS PM PEAK HOUR DELAY AND LOS ............................ 17 TABLE 12: LONG-TERM (2045) NO-BUILD CONDITIONS AM PEAK HOUR DELAY AND LOS ............................... 18 TABLE 13: LONG-TERM (2045) NO-BUILD CONDITIONS PM PEAK HOUR DELAY AND LOS ............................... 18 TABLE 14: LONG-TERM (2045) NO-BUILD MITIGATED AM PEAK HOUR DELAY AND LOS .................................. 20 TABLE 15: LONG-TERM (2045) NO-BUILD MITIGATED PM PEAK HOUR DELAY AND LOS .................................. 20 TABLE 16: SHORT-TERM (2025) SCENARIO 1 AM PEAK HOUR DELAY AND LOS ............................................... 21 TABLE 17: SHORT-TERM (2025) SCENARIO 1 PM PEAK HOUR DELAY AND LOS ............................................... 22 TABLE 18: SHORT-TERM (2025) SCENARIO 1 MITIGATED AM PEAK HOUR DELAY AND LOS ........................... 24 Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR │ Appendix C - Traffic Analysis June 2021 Page | 4 TABLE 19: SHORT-TERM (2025) SCENARIO 1 MITIGATED PM PEAK HOUR DELAY AND LOS ........................... 25 TABLE 20: LONG-TERM (2045) SCENARIO 1 MITIGATED AM PEAK HOUR DELAY AND LOS ............................. 27 TABLE 21: LONG-TERM (2045) SCENARIO 1 MITIGATED PM PEAK HOUR DELAY AND LOS ............................. 28 TABLE 22: SHORT-TERM (2025) SCENARIO 2 MITIGATED AM PEAK HOUR DELAY AND LOS ........................... 30 TABLE 23: SHORT-TERM (2025) SCENARIO 2 MITIGATED PM PEAK HOUR DELAY AND LOS ........................... 31 TABLE 24: LONG-TERM (2045) SCENARIO 2 MITIGATED AM PEAK HOUR DELAY AND LOS ............................. 33 TABLE 25: LONG-TERM (2045) SCENARIO 2 MITIGATED PM PEAK HOUR DELAY AND LOS ............................. 34 EXHIBITS (SEE APPENDIX A) EXHIBIT 1: PROJECT SITE LOCATION AND STUDY AREA EXHIBIT 2: EXISTING GEOMETRY AND INTERSECTION CONTROL EXHIBIT 3: EXISTING (2021) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES EXHIBIT 4: SHORT-TERM (2025) NO-BUILD PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES EXHIBIT 5: LONG-TERM (2045) NO-BUILD PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES EXHIBIT 6: OFFICE/WAREHOUSE PASSENGER VEHICLE SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION EXHIBIT 7: RETAIL PASSENGER VEHICLE SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION EXHIBIT 8: TRUCK SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION EXHIBIT 9: SCENARIO 1 PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT EXHIBIT 10: SCENARIO 2 PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT EXHIBIT 11: SHORT-TERM (2025) SCENARIO 1 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES EXHIBIT 12: SHORT-TERM (2025) SCENARIO 1 GEOMETRY AND INTERSECTION CONTROL EXHIBIT 13: LONG-TERM (2045) SCENARIO 1 GEOMETRY AND INTERSECTION CONTROL EXHIBIT 14: LONG-TERM (2045) SCENARIO 1 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES EXHIBIT 15: SHORT-TERM (2025) SCENARIO 2 GEOMETRY AND INTERSECTION CONTROL EXHIBIT 16: SHORT-TERM (2025) SCENARIO 2 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES EXHIBIT 17: LONG-TERM (2045) SCENARIO 2 GEOMETRY AND INTERSECTION CONTROL EXHIBIT 18: LONG-TERM (2045) SCENARIO 2 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Page | 5 Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR │ Appendix C - Traffic Analysis June 2021 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report serves as the traffic analysis for the Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment Alternative Urban Area Review (AUAR). The Rich Valley Golf Club is adjacent to CSAH 42 and Conley Avenue in Rosemount, Minnesota. The location of the development is provided in Exhibit 1 in Appendix A. The forthcoming traffic analysis focused on two analysis years: Short-Term development that is anticipated to be completed by 2025 and Long-Term development which is anticipated to be completed by 2045. 1.1 REPORT PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study is to address traffic and transportation impacts of the proposed development on surrounding streets and intersections. This traffic impact study was prepared based on criteria set forth by the City of Rosemount. The following information is provided. A description and map of the existing and proposed roadway system, including state, regional, and local roads to be affected by the development of the AUAR area. This information includes existing and proposed roadway capacities and existing and projected background (i.e. without the AUAR development) traffic volumes. Trip generation data – trip generation rates and trip totals – for the development scenarios broken down by land use zones and/or other relevant subdivisions of the area. As well as the projected distributions onto the roadway system. Analysis of impacts of the traffic generated by the AUAR area on the roadway system, including the comparison of peak period capacities and analysis of Level of Service and delay times at study area intersections A discussion of potential improvements and traffic management measures that are proposed to mitigate operational concerns 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS The existing roadway network within the study area includes CSAH 42, US Highway 52, MN Highway 55, Conley Avenue, and 140th Street/142nd Street. The roadway network is described below. CSAH 42 (145th Street) is an east-west roadway that runs along the southern boundary of the AUAR development. West of Conley Avenue, CSAH 42 is a four-lane, divided roadway with turn lanes provided at most intersections. East of Conley Avenue, CSAH 42 tapers to a two-lane, undivided roadway with turn lanes provided at most intersections. The 2019 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) is 5,400 vehicle per day (VPD) east of US 52 and 15,900 VPD west of US 52. The speed limit on CSAH 42 is 55 miles per hour (MPH). US Highway 52 is a north-south roadway that is located west of the AUAR development. US Highway 52 is a four-lane divided roadway with interchanges provided at major intersecting roadways. The 2018 AADT is 34,000 VPD in the project vicinity. The speed limit on US Highway 52 is 65 MPH. MN Highway 55 is a primarily east-west roadway that is located northeast of the AUAR development. MN Highway 55 is a two-lane undivided roadway with right and left turn lanes provided at major intersections and right-turn lanes provided at most smaller intersections. East of CSAH 42 (145th Street) the 2019 AADT Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR │ Appendix C - Traffic Analysis June 2021 Page | 6 is 14,400 VPD and west of CSAH 42 (145th Street) the 2015 AADT is 12,800 VPD. The speed limit on MN Highway 55 is 55 MPH. Conley Avenue is a north-south roadway that runs along the western boundary of the AUAR development. Conley Avenue is a two-lane undivided roadway. The 2019 AADT is 1,900 VPD. The speed limit Conley Avenue is 35 MPH. 140th Street/142nd Street is an east-west roadway that runs along the northern boundary of the AUAR development. 140th Street/142nd Street is a two-lane undivided roadway. The 2019 AADT is 135 VPD east of the site. 2.2 STUDY AREA Based on discussion with City staff, the following intersections were included within the study area for the traffic analysis. The list provides the existing intersection control for each of the study intersections. CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Southbound Ramps (southbound stop-controlled) CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Northbound Ramps (northbound stop-controlled) CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue (southbound stop-controlled) CSAH 42 & 142nd Street (southeast bound stop-controlled) CSAH 42 & MN Highway 55 (northeast bound stop-controlled) Exhibit 2 provides the existing geometry and intersection control for the study intersections. 2.3 EXISTING VOLUMES Turning Movement Counts (TMCs) were recorded at all five study intersections in March of 2021. Turning movement counts can be found in Appendix B. The counts were adjusted for COVID-19 because they were recorded during a period of decreased traffic volumes. The COVID-adjusted existing (2021) traffic volumes are provided in Exhibit 3. Page | 7 Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR │ Appendix C - Traffic Analysis June 2021 3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS The AUAR traffic analysis focuses on two analysis years: Short-Term (2025) and Long-Term (2045). Following is a discussion of planned future roadway and intersection improvements within the project study area and volume development for 2025 and 2045 No-Build conditions. 3.1 FUTURE PLANNED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS There are no immediate MnDOT, Dakota County, or Rosemount roadway improvements planned in the vicinity of the study roadway network. MnDOT has previously explored constructing a full interchange at TH 52 & CSAH 42. This interchange reconstruction would significantly alter the access to Conley Avenue and project site. However, the existing diamond interchange was expanded from a single lane in each direction to its current geometry in 2017. Therefore, the interchange was not analyzed as part of this study. Dakota County and City of Rosemount long term plans indicate that TH 55 should be expend to a four-lane roadway. This improvement was assumed to completed by the 2040 Horizon year. 3.2 FUTURE TRAFFIC FORECASTING Background traffic volumes for the study intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours for both 2025 and 2045 No-Build traffic conditions were developed using data from the 2021 TMCs, MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application AADTs, and the Dakota County 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The following provides a summary of the background volume development for both analysis years. 2025 No-Build Volume Development Background traffic volumes for Short-Term (2025) and Long-Term (2045) conditions were developed based on the TMCs recorded in March of 2021. As previously mentioned, Due to the impact of COVID-19 on traffic volumes during March of 2021, a factor was calculated to account for decreased traffic. The COVID-19 factor was calculated by comparing 2019 AADTs to AADTs derived from the 2021 Counts. A factor of 190.0% was applied to the Conley Avenue movements and a COVID-19 factor of 130.0% was applied to all other movements in the study area. After the TMCs were adjusted to Pre-COVID volumes, a growth factor was applied based on the expected growth in the study area. The growth factor was calculated by comparing existing AADTs to 2040 projected AADTs from the Dakota County 2040 Comprehensive Plan at six locations within the study area. Table 1 provides the Historical AADTs, Projected AADTs and average growth rate at each location. With the large range of growth rates between differing roadways, individual growth rates were used for each study roadway. The following growth rates were applied to the TMCs. A 1.2% growth rate was applied to the US Highway 52 ramp volumes. A 0.5% growth rate was applied to CSAH 42 at the US Highway 52 ramps and at Minnesota 55. The 4.0% growth rate was applied and balanced at the intersections immediately to the east of US Highway 52. The 4.0% growth rate was not carried over to the Minnesota 55 intersection as it was assumed that the majority of the growth would come from the development of the adjacent parcels to the project site. A 1.0% growth rate was applied to Minnesota 55. Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR │ Appendix C - Traffic Analysis June 2021 Page | 8 A growth rate was not applied Conley Avenue or 142nd Street in the 2025 No-Build Scenario as these roadways only provide access to the surrounding existing development and the proposed site. However, by 2040 it was assumed that there would be development on adjacent parcels to the project site. The 2040 growth on Conley Avenue & 142nd Street was determined by adding in the trip generation for 750,000 square feet of warehouse. TABLE 1: PROJECTED GROWTH RATES Roadway Segment MNDOT Traffic Mapping Application AADTs Dakota County 2040 Comprehensive Plan Projected Volume Growth Rate Year AADT 2040 CSAH 42 West of US 52 2019 15,900 17,100 0.3% East of US 52 2019 5,400 12,200 4.0% Minnesota 55 West of CSAH 42 2015 12,800 15,900 0.9% East of CSAH 42 2019 14,400 16,200 0.6% US Highway 52 North of CSAH 42 2015 34,500 46,100 1.2% South of CSAH 42 2018 34,000 37,200 0.4% Exhibit 4 provides the Short-Term (2025) Background traffic volumes at the study intersections for weekday AM and PM peak hours. 2045 No-Build Volume Development Per discussions with the City of Rosemount, there are no known developments planned in the study area, so the same methodology used for the Short-Term (2025) conditions was used to develop Long-Term (2045) conditions. Background traffic volumes for Long-Term (2045) conditions were developed based on the same growth rate as Short-Term volume development. Exhibit 5 provides the Long-Term (2045) Background traffic volumes at the study intersections for weekday AM and PM peak hours. Page | 9 Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR │ Appendix C - Traffic Analysis June 2021 4.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 4.1 SITE LOCATION The Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment Site is on the northeast corner of CSAH 42 and Conley Avenue, east of US Highway 52, in Rosemount, Minnesota. The overall size of the property is approximately 155 acres. The site is currently occupied by a 27-hole golf course. 4.2 SITE CIRCULATION Access to the site is proposed via three full accesses. The primary access is on CSAH 42 in the same location as the existing Rich Valley Golf Club access. Two accesses are proposed on 140th Street: an access on the west edge of the site, near the existing golf course maintenance accesses, and an access on the east edge of the site. The east access on 140th Street will be a spine road connection through the site that will also be the primary access on CSAH 42. The spine road that runs the length of the site will provide access to individual developments within the site area. The site accesses to the development will be the same in Scenarios 1 and 2. Proposed land uses for Scenarios 1 and 2 are attached in Appendix C. CSAH 42 is an undivided roadway, with a speed limit of 55 mph, and 5,400 vpd. Per the Dakota County access spacing guidelines (page 6-10 of the Dakota County 2040 Transportation Plan), full movement intersections should be spaced at ¼ of a mile and no partial movement intersections are permitted. The primary access on CSAH 42 meets the access spacing guidelines, however no additional partial accesses will be permitted on CSAH 42 unless the roadway is expanded into a divided roadway. If CSAH 42 is expanded to a divided highway near the site, two partial accesses could be provided to the site with a minimum required spacing of ⅛ of a mile. 4.3 EXISTING AND FUTURE LAND USE There are two development plans, Scenario 1 consists of a mix of warehouse and office uses, this plan is what the developer sees as the most likely development plan for the site. Scenario 2 consists of a mix of warehouse, office, and commercial land uses; this development plan is the maximum site density per the City of Rosemount Comprehensive Plan. Table 2 provides a summary of the two development scenarios that are considered in this AUAR. Both scenarios included a 540,000 square foot warehousing and distribution center that will be considered separately from other warehouse and office land uses because the facility has site-specific, non-standard trip generation. Warehouse and office square footages assumed that warehouse/office space would be 90% warehouse and 10% office. TABLE 2: AUAR DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS Full Development Scenario 1 Land Use Size Distribution Facility 540,000 Square Feet Warehouse 1,440,000 Square Feet Office 160,000 Square Feet Full Development Scenario 2 Land Use Size Distribution Facility 540,000 Square Feet Warehouse 450,000 Square Feet Office 50,000 Square Feet Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR │ Appendix C - Traffic Analysis June 2021 Page | 10 Commercial 415,000 Square Feet For Scenario 1 and 2 full build-out was assumed in both the Short-Term (2025) and Long-Term (2045) Conditions. No partial build conditions were analyzed. The access locations and internal spine road are anticipated to be the same in both scenarios. 4.4 TRIP GENERATION ANTICIPATED TRIP GENERATION Trip generation forecasts were developed based the updated land use information in Appendix C. Trip generation was calculated based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition for the warehousing, office, commercial spaces, and site-specific data was used for the proposed distribution facility. The site-specific trip generation is provided in Appendix D. The ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition Supplement provides truck trips as percentage of total vehicle trips. For Warehousing, General Office Building, and General Commercial land uses, the truck trips were calculated by applying the AM and PM truck percentages to the total trips generated by the land use. Table 3 provides a summary of the trip generation forecast for Scenario 1. The total trip generation is anticipated to be 8,595 daily trips, 715 trips during the AM peak hour (555 entering and 155 exiting), and 660 trips during the PM peak hour (200 entering and 460 exiting). TABLE 3: TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY (SCENARIO 1) Land Use Description ITE Intensity / Units Vehicle Type Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Distribution Facility Site Specific 540,000 / Square Feet Passenger Vehicle 4,528 201 64 265 86 102 188 Truck 7 10 17 11 4 15 Warehousing 150 1,440,000 / Square Feet Passenger Vehicle 2,506 164 49 213 63 170 233 Truck 25 7 32 11 30 41 General Office Building 710 160,000 / Square Feet Passenger Vehicle 1,560 158 26 184 29 153 182 Truck 2 0 2 0 2 2 Total Passenger Vehicle Trips Generated 523 139 662 178 425 603 Total Truck Trips Generated 34 17 51 22 36 58 Total Site Generated Trips (Rounded to nearest 5) 8,595 555 155 715 200 460 660 Table 4 provides a detailed summary of the trip generation forecast for the proposed Scenario 2. The total trip generation is anticipated to be 21,465 daily trips, 810 trips during the AM peak hour (560 entering and 250 exiting), and 1,930 trips during the PM peak hour (890 entering and 1,040 exiting). Page | 11 Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR │ Appendix C - Traffic Analysis June 2021 TABLE 4: TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY (SCENARIO 2) Land Use Description ITE Intensity / Units Vehicle Type Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Distribution Facility Site Specific 540,000 / Square Feet Passenger Vehicle 4,528 201 64 265 86 102 188 Truck 7 10 17 11 4 15 Warehousing 150 450,000 / Square Feet Passenger Vehicle 784 51 16 67 20 54 74 Truck 8 2 10 3 9 12 General Office Building 710 50,000 / Square Feet Passenger Vehicle 488 50 8 58 9 49 58 Truck 1 0 1 0 0 0 General Commercial 820 415,000 / Square Feet Passenger Vehicle 15,668 240 147 387 759 822 1,581 Truck 2 1 3 0 0 0 Total Passenger Trips Generated 542 235 777 874 1,027 1,901 Total Truck Trips Generated 18 13 31 14 13 27 Total Site Generated Trips (Rounded to nearest 5) 21,465 560 250 810 890 1,040 1,930 TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON Table 5 provides a summary of the anticipated trips generated by the two development scenarios. These trip estimates are provided for the full build out of the development plans. TABLE 5: TRIP GENERATION FORECAST Scenario AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Total In Out Total In Out Scenario 1 715 555 155 660 200 460 8,595 Scenario 2 810 560 250 1,930 890 1,040 21,465 As previously mentioned, based on discussions with the developer, Scenario 1 is the more likely development scenario. Scenario 2 generates more trips in both the AM and PM peak hours and generates over twice as many daily trips as Scenario 1. Both scenarios concepts have two accesses on 140 th Street and one access onto CSAH 42. 4.5 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT The distribution of project traffic onto the study area roadway network and intersections was based on current traffic patterns, surrounding demographics, and a general assessment of the major regional roadways surrounding the study area. Three distributions were used to assign site trips to the study network: Passenger vehicles using the office and warehousing facilities, passenger vehicles using the commercial facilities, and a truck distribution that was used for both office, warehousing, and commercial truck trips. The following global trip distribution was assumed for passenger vehicles utilizing the proposed office and warehousing development: 60% north on US Highway 52 Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR │ Appendix C - Traffic Analysis June 2021 Page | 12 15% south on US Highway 52 20% west on CSAH 42 5% east on Minnesota 55 The office and warehouse passenger vehicle site trip distribution is shown in Exhibit 6. The following global trip distribution was assumed for passenger vehicles utilizing the proposed commercial development: 35% north on US Highway 52 15% south on US Highway 52 30% west on CSAH 42 20% east on Minnesota 55 The retail passenger vehicle site trip distribution is shown in Exhibit 7. The following global trip distribution was assumed for Trucks utilizing the proposed office, warehousing, and retail development: 60% north on US Highway 52 30% south on US Highway 52 5% west on CSAH 42 5% east on Minnesota 55 The truck site trip distribution is shown in Exhibit 8. 4.6 TOTAL SITE TRAFFIC Exhibit 9 provides the Scenario 1 peak hour traffic trip assignment volumes and Exhibit 10 provides the Scenario 2 peak hour traffic trip assignment volumes. These were determined by applying the distribution patterns in Exhibits 6-8 to the respective peak hour trips generated by the applicable land uses. Page | 13 Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR │ Appendix C - Traffic Analysis June 2021 5.0 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS 5.1 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS Three analysis periods were analyzed, the Existing Year (2021), and the future years included Short-Term (2025) and Long-Term (2045). A Road Safety Audit (RSA) was recently completed along Minnesota 55 and CSAH 42. Intersection mitigation options such as a roundabout were proposed at Minnesota 55 & CSAH 42, but no definitive improvement plans were determined as part of the RSA. Therefore, the mitigation in this analysis assumed a signal at Minnesota 55 & CSAH 42 as the roundabout option involved improvements along a two mile stretch of Minnesota 55. Table 6 describes the conditions analyzed for the AUAR traffic analysis. TABLE 6: ANALYSIS SCENARIO SUMMARY CONDITION VOLUME AND ROADWAY NETWORK ASSUMPTIONS Condition 1 Existing (2021) VOLUMES: Based on 2021 TMCs with a COVID adjustment to account for decreased traffic ROADWAY NETWORK: Existing geometry and traffic control provided in Exhibit 2. Condition 2 Short-Term (2025) No-Build VOLUMES: Condition 1 traffic volumes plus Background Growth to 2025. ROADWAY NETWORK: Existing geometry and traffic control. Condition 3 Long-Term (2045) No-Build VOLUMES: Condition 1 traffic volumes plus Background Growth to 2045. ROADWAY NETWORK: Existing geometry and traffic control. Condition 4 Long-Term (2045) No-Build with Mitigation VOLUMES: Condition 1 traffic volumes plus Background Growth to 2045. ROADWAY NETWORK: Existing network plus the addition of signals at CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Northbound Ramp, CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Southbound Ramp, and CSAH 42 & Minnesota 55 Condition 5 Short-Term (2025) Scenario 1 VOLUMES: Condition 2 traffic volumes plus Scenario 1 Site Trips ROADWAY NETWORK: Existing geometry and traffic control. Condition 6 Short-Term (2025) Scenario 1 with Mitigation VOLUMES: Condition 2 traffic volumes plus Scenario 1 Site Trips ROADWAY NETWORK: Existing network plus the addition of signal at the intersections of CSAH 42 & the US Highway 52 Northbound and Southbound Ramps. Condition 7 Long-Term (2045) Scenario 1 with Mitigation VOLUMES: Condition 3 traffic volumes plus Scenario 1 Site Trips ROADWAY NETWORK: Condition 6 mitigation & CSAH 42 & MN 55 signalization Condition 8 Short-Term (2025) Scenario 2 with Mitigation VOLUMES: Condition 2 traffic volumes plus Scenario 2 Site Trips ROADWAY NETWORK: Existing network plus traffic signals at the intersections of US Highway 52 Northbound and Southbound Ramps, CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue, CSAH 42 & the Site Access, and CSAH 42 & Minnesota 55. Geometric changes include adding a westbound lane beginning at the southbound right turn at the intersection of CSAH 42 & the South Access and extending the eastbound left turn lane at the intersection of CSAH 42 & Site Access. Condition 9 Long-Term (2045) Scenario 2 with Mitigation VOLUMES: Condition 3 traffic volumes plus Scenario 2 Site Trips ROADWAY NETWORK: Condition 8 network plus dual NBL at CSAH 42 & Minnesota 55 (i.e. for lefts turning from Minnesota 55 to CSAH 42), dual EBLs at CSAH 42 & South Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR │ Appendix C - Traffic Analysis June 2021 Page | 14 Access, and southbound approach at CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 was expanded to a dedicated left turn lane, a shared Left/Thru, and a dual dedicated right turn lanes. 5.2 LEVEL OF SERVICE OVERVIEW An intersection capacity analysis was performed at the study intersections for the nine scenarios listed in Table 6. The capacity analysis was performed for the weekday AM and PM peak hours, and Synchro/SimTraffic was used to determine intersection delay and level of service (LOS). LOS is a quantitative measure used by traffic engineers to describe the operations of an intersection or along a roadway segment. It ranges from A to F, with A being the best and F being the worst level of operation. LOS A conditions are characterized by minimal vehicle delay and free-flow conditions, while LOS F is characterized by long vehicle delay – usually when demand exceeds available roadway capacity. Although LOS E is defined as at-capacity, LOS D is generally the minimum acceptable level of operation at an intersection in the Twin Cities Metro area. Each study intersection was analyzed based on the Synchro/SimTraffic software. For unsignalized intersections, LOS was reported as the worst individual movement. This was done to ensure that the mainline LOS did not hide any potential issues on the minor street. The overall intersection LOS was reported for signalized intersections. Table 7 provides the LOS grading criteria for unsignalized and signalized intersections. For the purposes of this traffic analysis, it was assumed that acceptable level of service for the overall intersection is LOS D or better and the acceptable level of service for an individual movement is LOS E or better. TABLE 7: LEVEL OF SERVICE GRADING CRITERIA Level of Service Average Control Delay (seconds/vehicle) at: Unsignalized Intersections Signalized Intersections A 0 – 10 0 – 10 B > 10 – 15 > 10 – 20 C > 15 – 25 > 20 – 35 D > 25 – 35 > 35 – 55 E > 35 – 50 > 55 – 80 F > 50 > 80 5.3 EXISTING (2021) LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS A capacity analysis was conducted for Existing (2021) traffic conditions at the study intersections. The analysis was performed for weekday AM and PM peak hours and is based on the traffic volumes provided in Exhibit 3. Tables 8 & 9 provide a summary of the capacity analysis at the study intersections. The movements that are anticipated to operate at LOS E are shown in yellow and the movements that are anticipated to operate at LOS F are shown in red. The full SimTraffic reports are included in Appendix E. Page | 15 Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR │ Appendix C - Traffic Analysis June 2021 TABLE 8: EXISTING (2021) NO-BUILD CONDITIONS AM PEAK HOUR DELAY AND LOS Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Southbound Ramps Side Street Stop EB - - 0.8 A 1.1 A 10.7 B WB 5.9 A 1.0 A - - NB - - - - - - SB 10.7 B - - 3.9 A CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Northbound Ramps Side Street Stop EB 3.3 A 0.3 A - - 24.6 C WB - - 1.2 A 0.6 A NB 24.6 C - - 2.5 A SB - - - - - - CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Side Street Stop EB 1.5 A 0.3 A - - 6.5 A WB - - 0.5 A 0.1 A NB - - - - - - SB 6.5 A - - 2.4 A CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Side Street Stop EB - - 0.7 A - - 3.0 A WB - - 0.4 A 0.2 A NB - - - - - - SB 3.0 A - - 1.1 A CSAH 42 & Minnesota 55 Side Street Stop EB 12.9 B 0.6 A 3.2 A 12.9 B WB - - - - - - NB 3.0 A 1.2 A - - SB - - 1.4 A 0.2 A TABLE 9: EXISTING (2021) NO-BUILD CONDITIONS PM PEAK HOUR DELAY AND LOS Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Southbound Ramps Side Street Stop EB - - 0.8 A 1.1 A 12.4 B WB 3.4 A 1.5 A - - NB - - - - - - SB 12.4 B - - 8.1 A CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Northbound Ramps Side Street Stop EB 2.9 A 0.4 A - - 19.6 C WB - - 1.1 A 0.3 A NB 19.6 C - - 2.4 A SB - - - - - - CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Side Street Stop EB 1.9 A 0.3 A - - 5.8 A WB - - 0.5 A - - NB - - - - - - SB 5.8 A - - 2.3 A CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Side Street Stop EB - - 1.0 A - - 3.1 A WB - - 0.9 A - - NB - - - - - - SB 3.1 A - - - - CSAH 42 & Minnesota 55 Side Street Stop EB 43.0 E - - 22.7 C 43.0 E WB - - - - - - NB 12.3 B 2.7 A - - SB - - 1.7 A 0.2 A Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR │ Appendix C - Traffic Analysis June 2021 Page | 16 Under Existing (2021) No-Build Conditions, all intersection movements are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS except for the following: CSAH 42 & Minnesota Highway 55 – the eastbound left turn operates at LOS E during the PM peak hour. The projected delay on this leg of the intersection is not unusual for a minor-street stop-controlled intersection with a heavily traveled roadway such as Minnesota Highway 55. In addition, there are 10 or fewer vehicles that make this left turn during each peak hour. The 95th percentile queues were reviewed at the study intersections. There are no queuing issues at the study intersections under Existing (2021) No-Build conditions. 5.4 SHORT-TERM (2025) NO-BUILD LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS A capacity analysis was conducted for 2025 No-Build traffic conditions at the study intersections to determine baseline conditions for the 2025 analysis year. The analysis was performed for weekday AM and PM peak hours and is based on the traffic volumes provided in Exhibit 4. No improvements were made to the network geometry or intersection control. Tables 10 & 11 provide a summary of the capacity analysis at the study intersections. The full SimTraffic reports are included in Appendix E. TABLE 10: SHORT-TERM (2025) NO-BUILD CONDITIONS AM PEAK HOUR DELAY AND LOS Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Southbound Ramps Side Street Stop EB - - 0.9 A 1.0 A 11.6 B WB 5.5 A 1.0 A - - NB - - - - - - SB 11.6 B - - 4.2 A CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Northbound Ramps Side Street Stop EB 3.8 A 0.5 A - - 27.7 D WB - - 1.3 A 0.6 A NB 27.7 D - - 3.1 A SB - - - - - - CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Side Street Stop EB 1.4 A 0.3 A - - 6.7 A WB - - 0.5 A 0.0 A NB - - - - - - SB 6.7 A - - 2.6 A CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Side Street Stop EB - - 0.8 A - - 6.0 A WB - - 0.5 A 0.4 A NB - - - - - - SB 6.0 A - - 1.8 A CSAH 42 & Minnesota 55 Side Street Stop EB 22.4 C 0.5 A 3.5 A 22.4 C WB - - - - - - NB 3.5 A 1.4 A - - SB - - 1.8 A 0.2 A Page | 17 Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR │ Appendix C - Traffic Analysis June 2021 TABLE 11: SHORT-TERM (2025) NO-BUILD CONDITIONS PM PEAK HOUR DELAY AND LOS Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Southbound Ramps Side Street Stop EB - - 1.0 A 0.9 A 19.3 C WB 5.2 A 1.6 A - - NB - - - - - - SB 19.3 C - - 9.5 A CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Northbound Ramps Side Street Stop EB 3.6 A 0.5 A - - 24.8 C WB - - 1.2 A 0.4 A NB 24.8 C - - 3.1 A SB - - - - - - CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Side Street Stop EB 1.8 A 0.4 A - - 7.8 A WB - - 0.6 A - - NB - - - - - - SB 7.8 A - - 2.5 A CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Side Street Stop EB - - 1.0 A - - 2.6 A WB - - 0.9 A - - NB - - - - - - SB 2.6 A - - - - CSAH 42 & Minnesota 55 Side Street Stop EB 67.2 F - - 27.6 D 67.2 F WB - - - - - - NB 13.1 B 2.8 A - - SB - - 1.8 A 0.6 A Under Short-Term (2025) No-Build Conditions, all intersection movements are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS except for the following: CSAH 42 & Minnesota Highway 55 – the eastbound left turn is expected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour. The projected delay on this leg of the intersection is not unusual for a minor-street stop-controlled intersection with a heavily traveled roadway such as Minnesota Highway 55. In addition, there are 15 or fewer vehicles that make this left turn during each peak hour. The 95th percentile queues were reviewed at the study intersections. There are no queuing issues at the study intersections in the 2025 No-Build conditions. 5.5 LONG-TERM (2045) NO-BUILD LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS A capacity analysis was conducted for 2045 No-Build traffic conditions at the study intersections to determine baseline conditions for the 2045 analysis year. The analysis was performed for weekday AM and PM peak hours and is based on the traffic volumes provided in Exhibit 5. No improvements were made to the network geometry or intersection control. Tables 12 & 13 provide a summary of the capacity analysis at the study intersections. The full SimTraffic reports are included in Appendix E. Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR │ Appendix C - Traffic Analysis June 2021 Page | 18 TABLE 12: LONG-TERM (2045) NO-BUILD CONDITIONS AM PEAK HOUR DELAY AND LOS Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Southbound Ramps Side Street Stop EB - - 2.3 A 1.1 A 77.9 F WB 10.6 B 1.4 A - - NB - - - - - - SB 77.9 F - - 8.1 A CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Northbound Ramps Side Street Stop EB 10.2 B 0.9 A - - 100+ F WB - - 1.8 A 0.9 A NB 100+ F - - 100+ F SB - - - - - - CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Side Street Stop EB 3.7 A 0.6 A - - 15.8 C WB - - 1.2 A 0.1 A NB - - - - - - SB 15.8 C - - 3.8 A CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Side Street Stop EB - - 0.8 A - - 5.4 A WB - - 0.6 A 0.6 A NB - - - - - - SB 5.4 A - - 1.7 A CSAH 42 & Minnesota 55 Side Street Stop EB 61.0 F 0.9 A 3.1 A 61.0 F WB - - - - - - NB 4.7 A 0.9 A - - SB - - 0.9 A 0.1 A TABLE 13: LONG-TERM (2045) NO-BUILD CONDITIONS PM PEAK HOUR DELAY AND LOS Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Southbound Ramps Side Street Stop EB - - 2.3 A 1.3 A 100+ F WB 11.7 B 2.0 A - - NB - - - - - - SB 100+ F - - 29.2 D CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Northbound Ramps Side Street Stop EB 11.9 B 0.9 A - - 100+ F WB - - 1.6 A 1.0 A NB 100+ F - - 100+ F SB - - - - - - CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Side Street Stop EB 4.0 A 0.7 A - - 12.2 B WB - - 1.3 A - - NB - - - - - - SB 12.2 B - - 4.4 A CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Side Street Stop EB - - 1.1 A - - 3.7 A WB - - 1.0 A - - NB - - - - - - SB 3.7 A - - - - CSAH 42 & Minnesota 55 Side Street Stop EB 100+ F - - 8.2 A 100+ F WB - - - - - - NB 16.0 C 2.3 A - - SB - - 0.9 A 0.9 A Page | 19 Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR │ Appendix C - Traffic Analysis June 2021 Under Long-Term (2045) No-Build Conditions, all intersection movements are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS except for the following: CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Southbound Ramps – the southbound left turn is expected to operate at LOS F during the AM & PM peak hours. The projected delay on this leg of the intersection is not unusual for a minor-street stop-controlled intersection based on growth projections for CSAH 42 but may require mitigation. CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Northbound Ramps – the northbound left turn is expected to operate at LOS F during the AM & PM peak hours. The projected delay on this leg of the intersection is excessive and will require mitigation. CSAH 42 & Minnesota Highway 55 – the eastbound left turn is expected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour. The projected delay on this leg of the intersection is excessive and will require mitigation. The 95th percentile queues were reviewed at the study intersections. The 95th percentile queues for the movements that exceed their storage capacity or have undesirable levels of delay are listed below. CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Northbound Ramps – In the AM peak hour, the northbound approach would have approximately a 34-vehicle queue in the left-thru lane and about a 15 vehicle queue in the right turn lane which would extend beyond the provided storage bay. In the PM peak hour, the northbound approach would have similar length queues, extending beyond the storage bay. 5.6 LONG-TERM (2045) NO-BUILD WITH MITIGATION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS A capacity analysis was conducted for the Long-Term (2045) No-Build with Mitigation conditions at the study intersections to determine baseline improvements needed to maintain acceptable operations. The improvements that were included in the Long-Term (2045) No-Build with Mitigation conditions are listed below. The improvements are also listed in Table 6 for Condition 4. CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Southbound Ramps – Signalize the intersection. CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Northbound Ramps – Signalize the intersection. CSAH 42 & Minnesota Highway 55 – As previously mentioned, an RSA was recently completed along Minnesota 55 and CSAH 42. Intersection mitigation options such as a roundabout were proposed at Minnesota 55 & CSAH 42 but no definitive improvement plans were determined as part of the RSA. Therefore, signalize was assumed at the intersection. The analysis was performed for weekday AM and PM peak hours and is based on the traffic volumes provided in Exhibit 5. Tables 14 & 15 provide a summary of the capacity analysis at the study intersections. The full SimTraffic reports are included in Appendix E. Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR │ Appendix C - Traffic Analysis June 2021 Page | 20 TABLE 14: LONG-TERM (2045) NO-BUILD MITIGATED AM PEAK HOUR DELAY AND LOS Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Southbound Ramps Signal EB - - 37.1 D 4.2 A 25.4 C WB 41.5 D 22.5 C - - NB - - - - - - SB 19.6 B - - 8.4 A CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Northbound Ramps Signal EB 24.0 C 9.1 A - - 18.4 B WB - - 21.7 C 10.3 B NB 28.8 C - - 6.6 A SB - - - - - - CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Side Street Stop EB 8.8 A 4.1 A - - 13.4 B WB - - 1.3 A 0.2 A NB - - - - - - SB 13.4 B - - 3.4 A CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Side Street Stop EB - - 0.8 A - - 6.2 A WB - - 1.1 A 0.9 A NB - - - - - - SB 6.2 A - - 1.3 A CSAH 42 & Minnesota 55 Signal EB 17.7 B 0.8 A 4.4 A 8.0 A WB - - - - - - NB 14.0 B 3.5 A - - SB - - 13.9 B 2.8 A TABLE 15: LONG-TERM (2045) NO-BUILD MITIGATED PM PEAK HOUR DELAY AND LOS Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Southbound Ramps Signal EB - - 37.0 D 5.6 A 25.2 C WB 34.6 C 19.2 B - - NB - - - - - - SB 19.5 B - - 18.5 B CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Northbound Ramps Signal EB 25.8 C 11.0 B - - 17.0 B WB - - 17.9 B 7.7 A NB 27.4 C - - 6.8 A SB - - - - - - CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Side Street Stop EB 8.8 A 6.3 A - - 20.3 C WB - - 1.4 A - - NB - - - - - - SB 20.3 C - - 4.6 A CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Side Street Stop EB - - 1.0 A - - 6.1 A WB - - 1.4 A - - NB - - - - - - SB 6.1 A - - - - CSAH 42 & Minnesota 55 Signal EB 25.1 C - - 10.3 B 13.1 B WB - - - - - - NB 29.0 C 5.2 A - - SB - - 13.8 B 4.3 A Page | 21 Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR │ Appendix C - Traffic Analysis June 2021 Under Long-Term (2045) No-Build Mitigated Conditions, all intersection movements are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS. The 95th percentile queues were reviewed at the study intersections. There are no queuing issues at the study intersections in the Long-Term (2045) No-Build Mitigated conditions. 5.7 SHORT-TERM (2025) SCENARIO 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS A capacity analysis was conducted for the Short-Term (2025) Scenario 1 traffic conditions at the study intersections to determine how the study network is expected to operate with additional site traffic. The analysis was performed for weekday AM and PM peak hours and is based on the traffic volumes provided in Exhibit 11. No improvements were made to the network geometry or intersection control. Tables 16 & 17 provide a summary of the capacity analysis at the study intersections. The full SimTraffic reports are included in Appendix E. TABLE 16: SHORT-TERM (2025) SCENARIO 1 AM PEAK HOUR DELAY AND LOS Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Southbound Ramps Side Street Stop EB - - 2.6 A 1.1 A 100+ F WB 7.3 A 1.2 A - - NB - - - - - - SB 100+ F - - 53.3 F CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Northbound Ramps Side Street Stop EB 6.5 A 1.8 A - - 100+ F WB - - 1.3 A 1.1 A NB 100+ F - - 12.0 B SB - - - - - - CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Side Street Stop EB 3.7 A 1.3 A - - 16.6 C WB - - 0.7 A 0.2 A NB - - - - - - SB 16.6 C - - 3.8 A CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Side Street Stop EB - - 0.6 A - - 4.0 A WB - - 0.5 A 0.3 A NB - - - - - - SB 4.0 A - - 1.6 A CSAH 42 & Minnesota 55 Side Street Stop EB 17.7 C 0.7 A 3.1 A 17.7 C WB - - - - - - NB 3.7 A 1.5 A - - SB - - 1.6 A 0.2 A CSAH 42 & South Access Side Street Stop EB 4.0 A 0.6 A - - 24.1 C WB - - 4.4 A 4.2 A NB - - - - - - SB 24.1 C - - 3.4 A 140th Street & West Access Side Street Stop EB - - 0.3 A 0.1 A 4.5 A WB - - 0.3 A - - NB 4.5 A - - - - SB - - - - - - 140th Street & East Access Side Street Stop EB - - 0.7 A 0.2 A 4.3 A WB 0.7 A 0.3 A - - NB 4.3 A - - 2.5 A SB - - - - - - Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR │ Appendix C - Traffic Analysis June 2021 Page | 22 TABLE 17: SHORT-TERM (2025) SCENARIO 1 PM PEAK HOUR DELAY AND LOS Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Southbound Ramps Side Street Stop EB - - 2.3 A 1.1 A 100+ F WB 6.2 A 2.2 A - - NB - - - - - - SB 100+ F - - 15.8 C CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Northbound Ramps Side Street Stop EB 9.7 A 1.6 A - - 73.4 F WB - - 1.5 A 1.6 A NB 73.4 F - - 5.7 A SB - - - - - - CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Side Street Stop EB 7.2 A 0.9 A - - 20.6 C WB - - 1.1 A - - NB - - - - - - SB 20.6 C - - 5.1 A CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Side Street Stop EB - - 1.1 A - - 4.1 A WB - - 0.9 A 0.9 A NB - - - - - - SB 4.1 A - - - - CSAH 42 & Minnesota 55 Side Street Stop EB 71.0 F - - 39.5 E 71.0 F WB - - - - - - NB 14.3 B 2.8 A - - SB - - 1.8 A 0.6 A CSAH 42 & South Access Side Street Stop EB 2.2 A 0.4 A - - 11.0 B WB - - 5.0 A 2.7 A NB - - - - - - SB 11.0 B - - 5.5 A 140th Street & West Access Side Street Stop EB - - 0.2 A 0.0 A 4.8 A WB - - 0.6 A - - NB 4.8 A - - - - SB - - - - - - 140th Street & East Access Side Street Stop EB - - 0.3 A 0.1 A 4.6 A WB 0.4 A 0.1 A - - NB 4.6 A - - 2.6 A SB - - - - - - Under Short-Term (2025) Scenario 1 Conditions, all intersection movements are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS except for the following: CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Southbound Ramps – the southbound left turn is expected to operate at LOS F during the AM & PM peak hours. The projected delay on this leg of the intersection is excessive and will require mitigation. CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Northbound Ramps – the northbound left turn is expected to operate at LOS F during the AM & PM peak hours. The projected delay on this leg of the intersection is excessive and will require mitigation. CSAH 42 & Minnesota Highway 55 – the eastbound left turn is expected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour. The projected delay on this leg of the intersection is not unusual for a minor-street Page | 23 Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR │ Appendix C - Traffic Analysis June 2021 stop-controlled intersection with a heavily traveled roadway such as Minnesota Highway 55. In addition, there are 15 or fewer vehicles that projected to make this left turn during each peak hour. The 95th percentile queues were reviewed at the study intersections. The existing eastbound left turn lane for the southern site access provides adequate storage capacity. The 95th percentile queues for the movements that exceed their storage capacity or have undesirable levels of delay are listed below. CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Southbound Ramps – In the AM peak hour, the southbound approach would have approximately a 30-vehicle queue in the left-thru lane and about a 25 vehicle queue in the right turn lane, both queues would extend beyond the provided storage bay. In the PM peak hour, the southbound approach would have approximately a 23-vehicle queue in the left-thru lane, and approximately a 15-vehicle queue in the right-turn lane. While the right-turn lane does not extend past the storage bay length, the left/thru lane extends past the southbound right storage capacity, potentially blocking vehicles from entering the right-turn lane. CSAH 42 & Minnesota 55 – In the PM peak hour, the eastbound approach would have approximately an 11-vehicle queue in the right-turn lane. This would extend past the provided storage by about half a vehicle. 5.8 SHORT-TERM (2025) SCENARIO 1 WITH MITIGATION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS A capacity analysis was conducted for the Short-Term (2025) Scenario 1 with Mitigation conditions at the study intersections to determine improvements needed to maintain acceptable operations. The improvements that were included in the Short-Term (2025) Scenario 1 with Mitigation conditions are listed below. The improvements are shown on Exhibit 12 and also listed in Table 6 for Condition 6. CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Northbound Ramps – Signalize the intersection. CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Southbound Ramps – Signalize the intersection. The analysis was performed for weekday AM and PM peak hours and is based on the traffic volumes provided in Exhibit 11. Tables 18 & 19 provide a summary of the capacity analysis at the study intersections. The full SimTraffic reports are included in Appendix E. Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR │ Appendix C - Traffic Analysis June 2021 Page | 24 TABLE 18: SHORT-TERM (2025) SCENARIO 1 MITIGATED AM PEAK HOUR DELAY AND LOS Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Southbound Ramps Signal EB - - 26.7 C 3.9 A 23.0 C WB 50.8 D 16.4 B - - NB - - - - - - SB 34.2 C - - 6.5 A CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Northbound Ramps Signal EB 39.3 D 10.3 B - - 18.6 B WB - - 14.5 B 9.1 A NB 44.4 D - - 7.6 A SB - - - - - - CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Side Street Stop EB 7.9 A 5.3 A - - 22.9 C WB - - 0.7 A 0.2 A NB - - - - - - SB 22.9 C - - 4.0 A CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Side Street Stop EB - - 0.7 A - - 3.6 A WB - - 0.5 A 0.4 A NB - - - - - - SB 3.6 A - - 2.0 A CSAH 42 & Minnesota 55 Side Street Stop EB 20.9 C 0.8 A 3.5 A 20.9 C WB - - - - - - NB 3.7 A 1.5 A - - SB - - 1.6 A 0.3 A CSAH 42 & South Access Side Street Stop EB 5.8 A 1.1 A - - 26.7 D WB - - 5.0 A 4.0 A NB - - - - - - SB 26.7 D - - 3.5 A 140th Street & West Access Side Street Stop EB - - 0.3 A 0.1 A 4.3 A WB - - 0.4 A - - NB 4.3 A - - - - SB - - - - - - 140th Street & East Access Side Street Stop EB - - 0.5 A 0.2 A 3.9 A WB 0.6 A 0.1 A - - NB 3.9 A - - 2.3 A SB - - - - - - Page | 25 Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR │ Appendix C - Traffic Analysis June 2021 TABLE 19: SHORT-TERM (2025) SCENARIO 1 MITIGATED PM PEAK HOUR DELAY AND LOS Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Southbound Ramps Signal EB - - 31.3 C 4.5 A 20.4 C WB 45.4 D 13.8 B - - NB - - - - - - SB 23.5 C - - 11.9 B CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Northbound Ramps Signal EB 29.1 C 6.3 A - - 18.3 B WB - - 23.8 C 11.5 B NB 42.4 D - - 6.7 A SB - - - - - - CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Side Street Stop EB 11.9 B 2.2 A - - 19.4 C WB - - 1.2 A - - NB - - - - - - SB 19.4 C - - 6.1 A CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Side Street Stop EB - - 1.1 A - - 4.3 A WB - - 0.9 A 0.7 A NB - - - - - - SB 4.3 A - - - - CSAH 42 & Minnesota 55 Side Street Stop EB 100+ F - - 29.5 D 100+ F WB - - - - - - NB 13.9 B 2.9 A - - SB - - 1.8 A 0.5 A CSAH 42 & South Access Side Street Stop EB 2.7 A 0.6 A - - 9.7 A WB - - 5.4 A 3.3 A NB - - - - - - SB 9.7 A - - 5.9 A 140th Street & West Access Side Street Stop EB - - 0.1 A 0.1 A 4.3 A WB - - 0.5 A - - NB 4.3 A - - - - SB - - - - - - 140th Street & East Access Side Street Stop EB - - 0.3 A 0.0 A 4.4 A WB 0.4 A 0.1 A - - NB 4.4 A - - 2.5 A SB - - - - - - Under Short-Term (2025) Scenario 1 Mitigated Conditions, all intersection movements are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS except for the following: CSAH 42 & Minnesota Highway 55 – the eastbound left turn is expected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour. The projected delay on this leg of the intersection is high for a minor-street stop- controlled intersection with a heavily traveled roadway such as Minnesota Highway 55. However, only 15 vehicles make this movement during the peak hour which is not a high enough volume to warrant mitigation. The 95th percentile queues were reviewed at the study intersections. There are no queuing issues at the study intersections in the Short-Term (2025) Scenario 1 Mitigated conditions. Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR │ Appendix C - Traffic Analysis June 2021 Page | 26 5.9 LONG-TERM (2045) SCENARIO 1 WITH MITIGATION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS A capacity analysis was conducted for the Long-Term (2045) Scenario 1 with Mitigation conditions at the study intersections to determine improvements needed to maintain acceptable operations. The improvements that were included in the Long-Term (2045) Scenario 1 with Mitigation conditions are listed below. The improvements are shown on Exhibit 13 and also listed in Table 6 for Condition 7. CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Northbound Ramps – Signalize the intersection. (Short-Term 2025 Mitigation) CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Southbound Ramps – Signalize the intersection. (Short-Term 2025 Mitigation) CSAH 42 & Minnesota Highway 55 – Signalize the intersection. The analysis was performed for weekday AM and PM peak hours and is based on the traffic volumes provided in Exhibit 14. Tables 20 & 21 provide a summary of the capacity analysis at the study intersections. The full SimTraffic reports are included in Appendix E. Page | 27 Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR │ Appendix C - Traffic Analysis June 2021 TABLE 20: LONG-TERM (2045) SCENARIO 1 MITIGATED AM PEAK HOUR DELAY AND LOS Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Southbound Ramps Signal EB - - 38.5 D 5.5 A 27.0 C WB 47.5 D 7.9 A - - NB - - - - - - SB 40.7 D - - 13.1 B CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Northbound Ramps Signal EB 30.3 C 8.1 A - - 23.5 C WB - - 44.1 D 14.2 B NB 54.5 D - - 14.2 B SB - - - - - - CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Signal EB 31.5 C 22.2 C - - 26.9 C WB - - 35.6 D 4.0 A NB - - - - - - SB 25.4 C - - 6.0 A CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Side Street Stop EB - - 0.7 A - - 5.3 A WB - - 1.2 A 1.0 A NB - - - - - - SB 5.3 A - - 2.1 A CSAH 42 & Minnesota 55 Signal EB 19.1 B 0.8 A 4.3 A 8.6 A WB - - - - - - NB 14.2 B 3.6 A - - SB - - 14.8 B 3.4 A CSAH 42 & South Access Side Street Stop EB 13.0 B 2.2 A - - 54.5 F WB - - 5.9 A 3.3 A NB - - - - - - SB 54.5 F - - 3.9 A 140th Street & West Access Side Street Stop EB - - 0.4 A 0.2 A 4.5 A WB - - 0.2 A - - NB 4.5 A - - - - SB - - - - - - 140th Street & East Access Side Street Stop EB - - 0.4 A 0.3 A 4.4 A WB 0.7 A 0.2 A - - NB 4.4 A - - 2.6 A SB - - - - - - Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR │ Appendix C - Traffic Analysis June 2021 Page | 28 TABLE 21: LONG-TERM (2045) SCENARIO 1 MITIGATED PM PEAK HOUR DELAY AND LOS Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Southbound Ramps Signal EB - - 45.6 D 7.0 A 31.9 C WB 44.7 D 9.5 A - - NB - - - - - - SB 33.6 C - - 37.9 D CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Northbound Ramps Signal EB 25.0 C 8.3 A - - 23.0 C WB - - 38.5 D 18.3 B NB 43.7 D - - 9.8 A SB - - - - - - CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Signal EB 29.8 C 15.0 B - - 23.9 C WB - - 34.1 C - - NB - - - - - - SB 18.4 B - - 13.0 B CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Side Street Stop EB - - 1.0 A - - 5.6 A WB - - 1.4 A 1.1 A NB - - - - - - SB 5.6 A - - - - CSAH 42 & Minnesota 55 Signal EB 25.7 C - - 11.9 B 14.3 B WB - - - - - - NB 30.0 C 5.4 A - - SB - - 15.4 B 4.5 A CSAH 42 & South Access Side Street Stop EB 5.9 A 1.6 A - - 21.7 C WB - - 6.2 A 6.0 A NB - - - - - - SB 21.7 C - - 7.4 A 140th Street & West Access Side Street Stop EB - - 0.2 A 0.0 A 4.5 A WB - - 0.5 A - - NB 4.5 A - - - - SB - - - - - - 140th Street & East Access Side Street Stop EB - - 0.3 A 0.1 A 4.3 A WB 0.6 A 0.1 A - - NB 4.3 A - - 2.6 A SB - - - - - - Under Long-Term (2045) Scenario 1 Mitigated Conditions, all intersection movements are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS except for the following: CSAH 42 & South Access – the southbound left turn is expected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour. The projected delay on this leg of the intersection is not unusual for a minor-street stop- controlled intersection based on growth projections for CSAH 42. Additionally, only five vehicles make this movement in the AM peak hour, so mitigation was not analyzed. The 95th percentile queues were reviewed at the study intersections. There are no queuing issues at the study intersections in the Long-Term (2045) Scenario 1 Mitigated conditions. It should be noted, the existing eastbound left turn lane for the southern site access provides adequate storage capacity. Page | 29 Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR │ Appendix C - Traffic Analysis June 2021 5.10 SHORT-TERM (2025) SCENARIO 2 WITH MITIGATION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS The Short-Term (2025) Scenario 2 Without Mitigation was not analyzed because the Short-Term (2025) Scenario 1 required mitigation and Scenario 2 generates more traffic. A capacity analysis was conducted for the Short-Term (2025) Scenario 2 with Mitigation conditions at the study intersections to determine improvements needed to maintain acceptable operations. The improvements that were included in the Short-Term (2025) Scenario 2 with Mitigation conditions are listed below. The improvements are shown on Exhibit 15 and also listed in Table 6 for Condition 8. CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Northbound Ramps – Signalize the intersection. CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Southbound Ramps – Signalize the intersection. CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue – Signalize the intersection. CSAH 42 & Site Access – Signalize the intersection. Add second westbound through lane from the southbound right turn lane, between the site access and where the four-lane section currently begins near Conley Avenue. Extend the eastbound left turn lane to 550 feet. CSAH 42 & Minnesota Highway 55 – Signalize the intersection. The analysis was performed for weekday AM and PM peak hours and is based on the traffic volumes provided in Exhibit 16. Tables 22 & 23 provide a summary of the capacity analysis at the study intersections. The full SimTraffic reports are included in Appendix E. Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR │ Appendix C - Traffic Analysis June 2021 Page | 30 TABLE 22: SHORT-TERM (2025) SCENARIO 2 MITIGATED AM PEAK HOUR DELAY AND LOS Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Southbound Ramps Signal EB - - 17.9 B 2.6 A 20.8 C WB 53.6 D 8.7 A - - NB - - - - - - SB 50.7 D - - 8.2 A CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Northbound Ramps Signal EB 37.4 D 12.1 B - - 25.0 C WB - - 42.2 D 12.2 B NB 36.7 D - - 6.0 A SB - - - - - - CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Signal EB 10.7 B 5.5 A - - 4.3 A WB - - 1.0 A 0.3 A NB - - - - - - SB 27.4 C - - 4.8 A CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Side Street Stop EB - - 0.7 A - - 6.2 A WB - - 1.2 A 1.1 A NB - - - - - - SB 6.2 A - - 1.6 A CSAH 42 & Minnesota 55 Signal EB 20.6 C 0.8 A 5.1 A 9.4 A WB - - - - - - NB 14.4 B 4.9 A - - SB - - 15.6 B 5.6 A CSAH 42 & South Access Signal EB 40.4 D 10.7 B - - 27.9 C WB - - 41.8 D 12.6 B NB - - - - - - SB 27.1 C - - 1.9 A 140th Street & West Access Side Street Stop EB - - 0.3 A 0.1 A 4.0 A WB - - 0.2 A - - NB 4.0 A - - - - SB - - - - - - 140th Street & East Access Side Street Stop EB - - 0.4 A 0.1 A 4.0 A WB 0.6 A 0.2 A - - NB 4.0 A - - 2.3 A SB - - - - - - Page | 31 Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR │ Appendix C - Traffic Analysis June 2021 TABLE 23: SHORT-TERM (2025) SCENARIO 2 MITIGATED PM PEAK HOUR DELAY AND LOS Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Southbound Ramps Signal EB - - 52.3 D 7.8 A 31.3 C WB 35.0 C 9.1 A - - NB - - - - - - SB 45.3 D - - 20.2 C CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Northbound Ramps Signal EB 50.5 D 13.1 B - - 18.7 B WB - - 16.0 B 11.8 B NB 44.4 D - - 9.2 A SB - - - - - - CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Signal EB 69.0 E 7.4 A - - 8.9 A WB - - 6.0 A - - NB - - - - - - SB 63.7 E - - 13.6 B CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Side Street Stop EB - - 1.5 A - - 8.3 A WB - - 2.2 A 1.5 A NB - - - - - - SB 8.3 A - - - - CSAH 42 & Minnesota 55 Signal EB 40.7 D - - 37.3 D 39.0 D WB - - - - - - NB 48.1 D 8.0 A - - SB - - 49.3 D 18.2 B CSAH 42 & South Access Signal EB 40.9 D 8.4 A - - 24.3 C WB - - 46.5 D 27.8 C NB - - - - - - SB 43.8 D - - 5.7 A 140th Street & West Access Side Street Stop EB - - 0.0 A 0.1 A 4.1 A WB - - 0.4 A - - NB 4.1 A - - - - SB - - - - - - 140th Street & East Access Side Street Stop EB - - 0.1 A 0.0 A 4.3 A WB 0.5 A 0.2 A - - NB 4.3 A - - 2.3 A SB - - - - - - Under Short-Term (2025) Scenario 2 Mitigated Conditions, all intersection movements are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS except for the following: CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue – the eastbound and southbound left turn movements are expected to operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour. The projected delay on these movements is not excessive for a signalized intersection. 55 vehicles make the eastbound left turn movement and 10 make the southbound left turn movement in the PM peak hour. Mitigation was not applied to these movements because they are low volume and signal timing prioritizes the CSAH 42 east-west through movements. The 95th percentile queues were reviewed at the study intersections. There are no queuing issues at the study intersections in the Short-Term (2025) Scenario 2 Mitigated conditions. Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR │ Appendix C - Traffic Analysis June 2021 Page | 32 5.11 LONG-TERM (2045) SCENARIO 2 WITH MITIGATION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS A capacity analysis was conducted for the Long-Term (2045) Scenario 2 with Mitigation conditions at the study intersections to determine improvements needed to maintain acceptable operations. The improvements that were included in the Long-Term (2045) Scenario 2 with Mitigation conditions are listed below. The improvements are shown on Exhibit 17 and also listed in Table 6 for Condition 9. CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Southbound Ramps – Signalize the intersection. In addition to the Short- Term 2025 Mitigation, expand the southbound exit ramp to provide a dedicated left turn lane (300 feet), a left/through lane, and dual dedicated right turn lanes (300 feet). CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Northbound Ramps – Signalize the intersection. CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue – Signalize the intersection. CSAH 42 & Site Access – Signalize the intersection. Add second westbound through lane from the southbound right turn lane, between the site access and where the four-lane section currently begins near Conley Avenue. In addition to the Short-Term 2025 Mitigation, add dual eastbound left turn lanes (350 feet). CSAH 42 & Minnesota Highway 55 – Signalize the intersection. In addition to the Short-Term 2025 Mitigation, add dual northbound left turn lanes (300 feet) and extend eastbound right turn lane to 450 feet. The analysis was performed for weekday AM and PM peak hours and is based on the traffic volumes provided in Exhibit 18. Tables 24 & 25 provide a summary of the capacity analysis at the study intersections. The full SimTraffic reports are included in Appendix E. Page | 33 Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR │ Appendix C - Traffic Analysis June 2021 TABLE 24: LONG-TERM (2045) SCENARIO 2 MITIGATED AM PEAK HOUR DELAY AND LOS Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Southbound Ramps Signal EB - - 17.1 B 3.3 A 20.9 C WB 46.0 D 10.7 B - - NB - - - - - - SB 53.6 D - - 11.0 B CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Northbound Ramps Signal EB 50.3 D 6.4 A - - 24.2 C WB - - 31.8 C 15.9 B NB 46.8 D - - 10.9 B SB - - - - - - CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Signal EB 19.0 B 7.5 A - - 10.3 B WB - - 11.3 B 6.7 A NB - - - - - - SB 32.7 C - - 8.8 A CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Side Street Stop EB - - 1.0 A - - 4.3 A WB - - 2.0 A 0.6 A NB - - - - - - SB 4.3 A - - 1.7 A CSAH 42 & Minnesota 55 Signal EB 17.0 B 0.9 A 4.7 A 8.4 A WB - - - - - - NB 12.7 B 3.7 A - - SB - - 15.4 B 2.6 A CSAH 42 & South Access Signal EB 41.9 D 4.1 A - - 23.5 C WB - - 28.7 C 9.1 A NB - - - - - - SB 33.6 C - - 2.0 A 140th Street & West Access Side Street Stop EB - - 0.2 A 0.0 A 4.3 A WB - - 0.3 A - - NB 4.3 A - - - - SB - - - - - - 140th Street & East Access Side Street Stop EB - - 0.2 A 0.1 A 4.8 A WB 0.6 A 0.1 A - - NB 4.8 A - - 2.3 A SB - - - - - - Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR │ Appendix C - Traffic Analysis June 2021 Page | 34 TABLE 25: LONG-TERM (2045) SCENARIO 2 MITIGATED PM PEAK HOUR DELAY AND LOS Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Southbound Ramps Signal EB - - 37.7 D 7.8 A 27.4 C WB 48.4 D 6.1 A - - NB - - - - - - SB 41.7 D - - 26.7 C CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Northbound Ramps Signal EB 50.6 D 10.0 A - - 20.0 B WB - - 20.4 C 15.6 B NB 46.4 D - - 14.8 B SB - - - - - - CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Signal EB 51.0 D 5.8 A - - 15.2 B WB - - 19.3 B - - NB - - - - - - SB 52.0 D - - 27.3 C CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Side Street Stop EB - - 1.5 A - - 8.6 A WB - - 3.2 A 0.8 A NB - - - - - - SB 8.6 A - - - - CSAH 42 & Minnesota 55 Signal EB 41.4 D - - 12.3 B 13.7 B WB - - - - - - NB 19.7 B 3.0 A - - SB - - 16.0 B 3.9 A CSAH 42 & South Access Signal EB 43.5 D 9.2 A - - 23.7 C WB - - 39.9 D 16.6 B NB - - - - - - SB 43.7 D - - 5.9 A 140th Street & West Access Side Street Stop EB - - 0.2 A 0.1 A 4.3 A WB - - 0.2 A - - NB 4.3 A - - - - SB - - - - - - 140th Street & East Access Side Street Stop EB - - 0.1 A 0.3 A 4.2 A WB 0.5 A 0.1 A - - NB 4.2 A - - 2.2 A SB - - - - - - Under Long-Term (2045) Scenario 2 Mitigated Conditions, all intersection movements are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS. The 95th percentile queues were reviewed at the study intersections. There are no queuing issues at the study intersections in the Long-Term (2045) Scenario 2 Mitigated conditions. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Rich Valley AUAR has provided traffic analysis for the Rich Valley Golf Club site, adjacent to CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue in Rosemount, MN. No-Build, Scenario 1 Build, and Scenario 2 Build conditions were analyzed for their Short-Term (2025) and Long-Term (2045) traffic impacts. The following provides a summary of the analysis. Page | 35 Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR │ Appendix C - Traffic Analysis June 2021 6.1 PROJECT TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT The Scenario 1 trip generation is anticipated to be 8,595 daily trips, 715 trips during the AM peak hour (555 entering and 155 exiting), and 660 trips during the PM peak hour (200 entering and 460 exiting). The Scenario 2 trip generation is anticipated to be 21,465 daily trips, 810 trips during the AM peak hour (560 entering and 250 exiting), and 1,930 trips during the PM peak hour (890 entering and 1,040 exiting). After discussions with the developer, Updated Scenario 1 is the more likely development scenario. Both scenarios have similar site layouts with identical accesses, one access onto CSAH 42, and two accesses onto 140th Street. 6.2 SHORT-TERM (2025) NO-BUILD LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SUMMARY A capacity analysis was conducted for 2025 No-Build traffic conditions at the study intersections to determine baseline conditions for the 2025 analysis year. No improvements were incorporated into the traffic model. Based on the analysis, all intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS and there are no queuing issues at the study intersections. The eastbound left-turn movement at CSAH 42 & Minnesota 55 operates at LOS F in the PM peak hour. During the PM peak hour there are ten vehicles making this movement. 6.3 SHORT-TERM (2025) SCENARIO 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SUMMARY 2025 Scenario 1 Build traffic conditions were studied with and without mitigation at the study intersections to determine if the additional build project traffic significantly impacts operating conditions of the study intersections and what mitigation measures would be necessary. The first analysis assumed the base geometry and the mitigated analysis utilized the geometry and intersection control from Table 6, Condition 6. Based on the unmitigated analysis, the following intersections have movements that are anticipated to operate at unacceptable LOS with the addition of site traffic CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Southbound Ramps (AM & PM peak hours) CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Northbound Ramps (AM & PM peak hours) CSAH 42 & Minnesota 55 (PM peak hour) Additionally, the southbound left turn movement at the intersection of CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 and the eastbound right turn movement at the intersection of CSAH 42 & Minnesota 55 have 95th percentile queues that extend past the provided storage capacity. 6.4 SHORT-TERM (2025) SCENARIO 2 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SUMMARY A capacity analysis was performed for 2025 Scenario 2 Build traffic conditions at the study intersections to determine if the additional build project traffic significantly impacts operating conditions of the study intersections and what mitigation measures would be necessary. The mitigated analysis utilized the geometry and intersection control from Table 6, Condition 8. Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR │ Appendix C - Traffic Analysis June 2021 Page | 36 Based on the mitigated analysis, all intersections operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours. 6.5 LONG-TERM (2045) NO-BUILD LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SUMMARY 2045 No-Build traffic conditions were studied with and without mitigation at the study intersections to determine baseline mitigation needed to maintain acceptable LOS as the background traffic volumes grow. The first analysis assumed the base geometry and the mitigated analysis utilized the geometry and intersection control from Table 6, Condition 4. Based on the unmitigated analysis, the following intersections have movements that are anticipated to operate at unacceptable LOS with background growth CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Southbound Ramps (AM & PM peak hours) CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 Northbound Ramps (AM & PM peak hours) CSAH 42 & Minnesota 55 (AM & PM peak hour) Additionally, the northbound right turn movement at the intersection of CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 northbound ramps has a 95th percentile queue that extend past the provided storage capacity. In the mitigated analysis, during the PM peak hour, the southbound left turn movement at the intersection of CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 southbound ramps operates at LOS E. The projected delay on this leg of the intersection is not unusual for a minor-street stop-controlled intersection with a heavily traveled roadway such as CSAH 42. All other movements operate at an acceptable LOS. 6.6 LONG-TERM (2045) SCENARIO 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SUMMARY A capacity analysis was performed for 2045 Scenario 1 Build traffic conditions at the study intersections to determine what mitigation measures will be necessary. The mitigated analysis utilized the geometry and intersection control from Table 6, Condition 7. Based on the mitigated analysis, all intersections operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours. However, in the AM peak hour, at the intersection of CSAH 42 & South Access, the southbound left turn movement operates at LOS F. This turning movement is low volume. All queues are expected to be within their respective storage capacity. 6.7 LONG-TERM (2045) SCENARIO 2 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SUMMARY A capacity analysis was performed for 2045 Scenario 2 Build traffic conditions at the study intersections to determine what mitigation measures will be necessary. The mitigated analysis utilized the geometry and intersection control from Table 6, Condition 9. Based on the mitigated analysis, all intersections operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours. All queues are expected to be within their respective storage capacity. Page | 37 Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR │ Appendix C - Traffic Analysis June 2021 6.8 MITIGATION PLAN The following provides a summary of mitigation improvements that were identified as part of the traffic analysis for the Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment. Existing (2021) No-Build Conditions No Mitigation Necessary Short-Term (2025) No- Build Conditions No Mitigation Necessary Short-Term (2025) Scenario 1 Conditions (Exhibit 12) Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 southbound ramps Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 northbound ramps Addition of a westbound right turn lane at the intersection of CSAH 42 & South Access Short-Term (2025) Scenario 2 Conditions (Exhibit 15) Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 southbound ramps Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 northbound ramps Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of CSAH 42 & South Access Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of CSAH 42 & Minnesota 55 Addition of a westbound right turn lane at the intersection of CSAH 42 & South Access Addition of a westbound through lane from the South Site Access to where the 4-lane currently begins. Extension of eastbound left turn lane to 550 feet at the intersection of CSAH 42 & South Access Long-Term (2045) No-Build Conditions Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 northbound ramps Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of CSAH 42 & Minnesota 55 Long-Term (2045) Scenario 1 Conditions (Exhibit 13) All Modifications from Short-Term (2025) Scenario 1 Conditions Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of CSAH 42 & Minnesota 55 Long-Term (2045) Scenario 2 Conditions (Exhibit 17) All modifications from Short-Term (2025) Scenario 2 Conditions Addition of dual northbound left turn lanes at the intersection of CSAH 42 & Minnesota 55 Addition of dual eastbound left turn lanes at the intersection of CSAH 42 & South Access Expansion of southbound approach at CSAH 42 & US Highway 52 to a dedicated left-turn lane, a shared left/thru lane, and dual dedicated right-turn lanes Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR │ Appendix C - Traffic Analysis June 2021 Page | 38 APPENDIX Appendix A: EXHIBITS Appendix B: TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS Appendix C: SITE PLANS Appendix D: SITE-SPECIFIC TRIP GENERATION Appendix E: SIMTRAFFIC REPORTS Rich Valley Redevelopment AUAR │ Appendix C - Traffic Analysis May 2021 Appendix A: EXHIBITS NOT TO SCALE 42 COUNTY 55 EXHIBIT 1 PROJECT SITE LOCATION AND STUDY AREA ROSEMOUNT, MN LEGEND Proposed Site Location Study Intersections Proposed Site Driveways NOT TO SCALE 42 COUNTY 55 EXHIBIT 2 EXISTING GEOMETRY AND INTERSECTION CONTROL ROSEMOUNT, MN LEGEND Project Site Location Study Intersections Existing Stop Control NOT TO SCALE 42 COUNTY 55 EXHIBIT 3 EXISTING (2021) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ROSEMOUNT, MN LEGEND Proposed Site Location AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (X X) NOT TO SCALE 42 COUNTY 55 EXHIBIT 4 SHORT-TERM (2025) NO-BUILD PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ROSEMOUNT, MN LEGEND Proposed Site Location AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (X X) NOT TO SCALE 42 COUNTY 55 LEGEND Proposed Site Location AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (X X) EXHIBIT 5 LONG-TERM (2045) NO-BUILD PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ROSEMOUNT, MN NOT TO SCALE 42 COUNTY 55 EXHIBIT 6 OFFICE/WAREHOUSE PASSENGER VEHICLE SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION ROSEMOUNT, MN LEGEND Proposed Site Location Site Traffic Distribution Inbound Site Traffic Outbound Site Traffic NOT TO SCALE 42 COUNTY 55 EXHIBIT 7 COMMERCIAL PASSENGER VEHICLE SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION ROSEMOUNT, MN LEGEND Proposed Site Location Site Traffic Distribution Inbound Site Traffic Outbound Site Traffic NOT TO SCALE 42 COUNTY 55 EXHIBIT 8 TRUCK SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION ROSEMOUNT, MN LEGEND Proposed Site Location Site Traffic Distribution Inbound Site Traffic Outbound Site Traffic NOT TO SCALE 42 COUNTY 55 EXHIBIT 9 SCENARIO 1 PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT ROSEMOUNT, MN LEGEND Proposed Site Location AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (X X) NOT TO SCALE 42 COUNTY 55 EXHIBIT 10 SCENARIO 2 PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT ROSEMOUNT, MN LEGEND Proposed Site Location AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (X X) NOT TO SCALE 42 COUNTY 55 EXHIBIT 11 SHORT-TERM (2025) SCENARIO 1 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ROSEMOUNT, MN LEGEND Proposed Site Location AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (X X) NOT TO SCALE 42 COUNTY 55 EXHIBIT 12 SHORT-TERM (2025) SCENARIO 1 GEOMETRY AND INTERSECTION CONTROL ROSEMOUNT, MN LEGEND Project Site Location Study Intersections Stop Control Proposed Traffic Signal Scenario 1 Mitigation NOT TO SCALE 42 COUNTY 55 EXHIBIT 13 LONG-TERM (2045) SCENARIO 1 GEOMETRY AND INTERSECTION CONTROL ROSEMOUNT, MN LEGEND Project Site Location Study Intersections Stop Control Proposed Traffic Signal Scenario 1 Mitigation No-Build Mitigation NOT TO SCALE 42 COUNTY 55 EXHIBIT 14 LONG-TERM (2045) SCENARIO 1 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ROSEMOUNT, MN LEGEND Proposed Site Location AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (X X) NOT TO SCALE 42 COUNTY 55 EXHIBIT 15 SHORT-TERM (2025) SCENARIO 2 GEOMETRY AND INTERSECTION CONTROL ROSEMOUNT, MN * LEGEND Project Site Location Study Intersections Stop Control Proposed Traffic Signal Scenario 2 Mitigation Extend Turn Lane* * Extend Storage Length to 550 ‘ NOT TO SCALE 42 COUNTY 55 EXHIBIT 16 SHORT-TERM (2025) SCENARIO 2 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ROSEMOUNT, MN LEGEND Proposed Site Location AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (X X) NOT TO SCALE 42 COUNTY 55 EXHIBIT 17 LONG-TERM (2045) SCENARIO 2 GEOMETRY AND INTERSECTION CONTROL ROSEMOUNT, MN * LEGEND Project Site Location Study Intersections Stop Control Proposed Traffic Signal Scenario 2 Mitigation No-Build Mitigation * Extend Storage Length to 450 ‘ NOT TO SCALE 42 COUNTY 55 EXHIBIT 18 LONG-TERM (2045) SCENARIO 2 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ROSEMOUNT, MN LEGEND Proposed Site Location AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (X X) Rich Valley Redevelopment AUAR │ Appendix C - Exhibits May 2021 Appendix B: TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS Kimley-Horn : Lisle (IL)1001 Warrenville Road, Suite 350Lisle, Illinois, United States 60532331.481.7332 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: County Road 42 & US Highway 52SB RampsSite Code:Start Date: 03/31/2021Page No: 1Turning Movement DataStart TimeEastbound County Road 42Westbound County Road 42Southbound On-Ramp US Highway 52Southbound Off-Ramp US Highway 52EastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeft Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Int. Total7:00 AM0 76 90 85 2 32 00 34 0000030 48 0 51 1707:15 AM0 106 16 0 122 0 59 00 59 0000040 41 0 45 2267:30 AM0 102 10 0 112 2 40 00 42 0010160 53 0 59 2147:45 AM0 82 12 0 94 4 56 00 60 0000030 67 0 70 224Hourly Total0 366 47 0 413 8 187 00 195 00101 16 0 209 0 225 8348:00 AM0 78 60 84 1 39 00 40 0000040 35 0 39 1638:15 AM0 73 10 0 83 4 40 00 44 0000080 33 0 41 1688:30 AM0 72 80 80 0 36 00 36 0000020 37 0 39 1558:45 AM0 62 14 0 76 2 35 00 37 0000030 38 0 41 154Hourly Total0 285 38 0 323 7 150 00 157 00000 17 0 143 0 160 6409:00 AM0 53 60 59 1 31 00 32 0000091 29 0 39 1309:15 AM0 57 15 0 72 2 27 00 29 0000041 33 0 38 1399:30 AM0 62 90 71 2 36 00 38 0000070 34 0 41 1509:45 AM0 58 12 0 70 0 42 00 42 0000041 31 0 36 148Hourly Total0 230 42 0 272 5 136 00 141 00000 24 3 127 0 154 567*** BREAK ***---------------------4:00 PM0 108 24 0 132 3 47 00 50 0000080 87 0 95 2774:15 PM0 102 21 0 123 1 64 00 65 0000060 81 0 87 2754:30 PM0 93 27 0 120 3 48 00 51 0000040 95 0 99 2704:45 PM0 97 20 0 117 4 57 00 61 0000020 102 0 104 282Hourly Total0 400 92 0 492 11 216 00 227 00000 20 0 365 0 385 11045:00 PM0 89 12 0 101 3 52 00 55 0000041 99 0 104 2605:15 PM0 79 18 0 97 1 62 00 63 0000040 134 0 138 2985:30 PM0 87 80 95 3 49 00 52 0000000 90 0 90 2375:45 PM0 73 14 0 87 4 53 00 57 0000060 92 0 98 242Hourly Total0 328 52 0 380 11 216 00 227 00000 14 1 415 0 430 10376:00 PM0 117 18 0 135 4 38 00 42 0000050 47 0 52 2296:15 PM0 82 10 0 92 1 38 00 39 0000010 54 0 55 1866:30 PM0 63 12 0 75 2 36 00 38 0000000 40 0 40 1536:45 PM0 42 19 0 61 0 32 00 32 0000030 41 0 44 137Hourly Total0 304 59 0 363 7 144 00 151 0000090 182 0 191 705Grand Total0 1913 330 0 2243 49 1049 00 1098 00101 100 4 1441 0 1545 4887Approach % 0.0 85.3 14.7 0.0 - 4.5 95.5 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 - 6.5 0.3 93.3 0.0 --Total %0.0 39.1 6.8 0.0 45.9 1.0 21.5 0.0 0.0 22.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.1 29.5 0.0 31.6 -Lights0 1832 305 0 2137 31 995 00 1026 00000 59 2 1391 0 1452 4615% Lights- 95.8 92.4 - 95.3 63.3 94.9 -- 93.4 -- 0.0 - 0.0 59.0 50.0 96.5 - 94.0 94.4Mediums0 36 15 0 51 9 42 00 51 00101 11 1 34 0 46 149% Mediums- 1.9 4.5 - 2.3 18.4 4.0 -- 4.6 -- 100.0 - 100.0 11.0 25.0 2.4 - 3.0 3.0Articulated Trucks 0 45 10 0 55 9 12 00 21 00000 30 1 16 0 47 123 % Articulated Trucks - 2.4 3.0 - 2.5 18.4 1.1 -- 1.9 -- 0.0 - 0.0 30.0 25.0 1.1 - 3.0 2.5Bicycles on Road 000000000000000000000% Bicycles on Road - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 -- 0.0 -- 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 Kimley-Horn : Lisle (IL)1001 Warrenville Road, Suite 350Lisle, Illinois, United States 60532331.481.7332 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: County Road 42 & US Highway 52SB RampsSite Code:Start Date: 03/31/2021Page No: 303/31/2021 7:00 AMEnding At03/31/2021 7:00 PMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on RoadSouthbound Off-Ramp USOut In Total0 1452 14520 46 460 47 470 0 00 1545 15451391 2 59 034 1 11 016 1 30 00 0 0 01441 4 100 0R T L U 2014 0 75 48 1891 Out 1098 0 21 51 1026 In 3112 0 96 99 2917 Total Westbound County Road 4 R 0 0 0 0 0 T 1049 0 12 42 995 L 49 0 9 9 31 U 0 0 0 0 0 338 0 33825 1 2620 0 200 0 0383 1 384Out In TotalSouthbound On-Ramp USU L T R0 0 0 00 0 0 10 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 1Eastbound County Road 42Total45231278304733In2137515502243Out238676280249000000U00000L1832364501913T30515100330RTurning Movement Data Plot Kimley-Horn : Lisle (IL)1001 Warrenville Road, Suite 350Lisle, Illinois, United States 60532331.481.7332 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: County Road 42 & US Highway 52SB RampsSite Code:Start Date: 03/31/2021Page No: 4Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:00 AM)Start TimeEastbound County Road 42Westbound County Road 42Southbound On-Ramp US Highway 52Southbound Off-Ramp US Highway 52EastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeft Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Int. Total7:00 AM0 76 90 85 2 32 00 34 0000030 48 0 51 1707:15 AM0 106 16 0 122 0 59 00 59 0000040 41 0 45 2267:30 AM0 102 10 0 112 2 40 00 42 0010160 53 0 59 2147:45 AM0 82 12 0 94 4 56 00 60 0000030 67 0 70 224Total0 366 47 0 413 8 187 00 195 00101 16 0 209 0 225 834Approach % 0.0 88.6 11.4 0.0 - 4.1 95.9 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 - 7.1 0.0 92.9 0.0 --Total %0.0 43.9 5.6 0.0 49.5 1.0 22.4 0.0 0.0 23.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 1.9 0.0 25.1 0.0 27.0 -PHF0.000 0.863 0.734 0.000 0.846 0.500 0.792 0.000 0.000 0.813 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.250 0.667 0.000 0.780 0.000 0.804 0.923Lights0 344 37 0 381 1 175 00 176 00000 10 0 196 0 206 763% Lights- 94.0 78.7 - 92.3 12.5 93.6 -- 90.3 -- 0.0 - 0.0 62.5 - 93.8 - 91.6 91.5Mediums0650 11 3 11 00 14 001012090 11 37% Mediums- 1.6 10.6 - 2.7 37.5 5.9 -- 7.2 -- 100.0 - 100.0 12.5 - 4.3 - 4.9 4.4Articulated Trucks 0 16 50 21 410050000040408 34% Articulated Trucks - 4.4 10.6 - 5.1 50.0 0.5 -- 2.6 -- 0.0 - 0.0 25.0 - 1.9 - 3.6 4.1Bicycles on Road 000000000000000000000% Bicycles on Road - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 -- 0.0 -- 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 Kimley-Horn : Lisle (IL)1001 Warrenville Road, Suite 350Lisle, Illinois, United States 60532331.481.7332 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: County Road 42 & US Highway 52SB RampsSite Code:Start Date: 03/31/2021Page No: 5Peak Hour Data03/31/2021 7:00 AMEnding At03/31/2021 8:00 AMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on RoadSouthbound Off-Ramp USOut In Total0 206 2060 11 110 8 80 0 00 225 225196 0 10 09 0 2 04 0 4 00 0 0 0209 0 16 0R T L U 383 0 20 9 354 Out 195 0 5 14 176 In 578 0 25 23 530 Total Westbound County Road 4 R 0 0 0 0 0 T 187 0 1 11 175 L 8 0 4 3 1 U 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 388 1 99 0 90 0 055 1 56Out In TotalSouthbound On-Ramp USU L T R0 0 0 00 0 0 10 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 1Eastbound County Road 42Total75231260809In38111210413Out371205039600000U00000L3446160366T3755047RTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:00 AM) Kimley-Horn : Lisle (IL)1001 Warrenville Road, Suite 350Lisle, Illinois, United States 60532331.481.7332 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: County Road 42 & US Highway 52SB RampsSite Code:Start Date: 03/31/2021Page No: 6Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:30 PM)Start TimeEastbound County Road 42Westbound County Road 42Southbound On-Ramp US Highway 52Southbound Off-Ramp US Highway 52EastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeft Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Int. Total4:30 PM0 93 27 0 120 3 48 00 51 0000040 95 0 99 2704:45 PM0 97 20 0 117 4 57 00 61 0000020 102 0 104 2825:00 PM0 89 12 0 101 3 52 00 55 0000041 99 0 104 2605:15 PM0 79 18 0 97 1 62 00 63 0000040 134 0 138 298Total0 358 77 0 435 11 219 00 230 00000 14 1 430 0 445 1110Approach % 0.0 82.3 17.7 0.0 - 4.8 95.2 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 3.1 0.2 96.6 0.0 --Total %0.0 32.3 6.9 0.0 39.2 1.0 19.7 0.0 0.0 20.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.1 38.7 0.0 40.1 -PHF0.000 0.923 0.713 0.000 0.906 0.688 0.883 0.000 0.000 0.913 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.875 0.250 0.802 0.000 0.806 0.931Lights0 344 74 0 418 9 214 00 223 0000061 420 0 427 1068% Lights- 96.1 96.1 - 96.1 81.8 97.7 -- 97.0 ----- 42.9 100.0 97.7 - 96.0 96.2Mediums0820 10 040040000030609 23% Mediums- 2.2 2.6 - 2.3 0.0 1.8 -- 1.7 ----- 21.4 0.0 1.4 - 2.0 2.1Articulated Trucks 06107210030000050409 19% Articulated Trucks - 1.7 1.3 - 1.6 18.2 0.5 -- 1.3 ----- 35.7 0.0 0.9 - 2.0 1.7Bicycles on Road 000000000000000000000% Bicycles on Road - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 -- 0.0 ----- 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 Kimley-Horn : Lisle (IL)1001 Warrenville Road, Suite 350Lisle, Illinois, United States 60532331.481.7332 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: County Road 42 & US Highway 52SB RampsSite Code:Start Date: 03/31/2021Page No: 7Peak Hour Data03/31/2021 4:30 PMEnding At03/31/2021 5:30 PMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on RoadSouthbound Off-Ramp USOut In Total0 427 4270 9 90 9 90 0 00 445 445420 1 6 06 0 3 04 0 5 00 0 0 0430 1 14 0R T L U 372 0 11 11 350 Out 230 0 3 4 223 In 602 0 14 15 573 Total Westbound County Road 4 R 0 0 0 0 0 T 219 0 1 4 214 L 11 0 2 0 9 U 0 0 0 0 0 84 0 842 0 23 0 30 0 089 0 89Out In TotalSouthbound On-Ramp USU L T R0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0Eastbound County Road 42Total1052201201084In4181070435Out634105064900000U00000L344860358T7421077RTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:30 PM) Kimley-Horn : Lisle (IL)1001 Warrenville Road, Suite 350Lisle, Illinois, United States 60532331.481.7332 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: County Road 42 & US Highway 52NB RampsSite Code:Start Date: 03/31/2021Page No: 1Turning Movement DataStart TimeEastbound County Road 42Westbound County Road 42Northbound Off-Ramp US Highway 52Northbound On-Ramp US Highway 52EastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeft Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Int. Total7:00 AM58 21 00 79 0 21 20 23 12 140 17 00000 1197:15 AM79 31 00 110 0 43 40 47 15 020 17 00000 1747:30 AM72 37 00 109 0 29 20 31 15 020 17 00000 1577:45 AM50 35 00 85 0 40 70 47 17 030 20 00000 152Hourly Total 259 124 00 383 0 133 15 0 148 59 1 11 0 71 00000 6028:00 AM62 19 00 81 0 27 90 36 12 020 14 00000 1318:15 AM51 29 00 80 0 27 80 35 16 020 18 00000 1338:30 AM50 21 00 71 0 25 60 31 8020 10 00000 1128:45 AM45 20 00 65 0 25 30 28 13 020 15 00000 108Hourly Total 208 89 00 297 0 104 26 0 130 49 080 57 00000 484*** BREAK ***---------------------4:00 PM62 48 01 111 0 35 10 36 14 000 14 00000 1614:15 PM55 52 00 107 0 46 40 50 19 000 19 00000 1764:30 PM52 44 00 96 0 25 40 29 25 020 27 00000 1524:45 PM53 45 00 98 0 42 80 50 19 000 19 00000 167Hourly Total 222 189 01 412 0 148 17 0 165 77 020 79 00000 6565:00 PM53 44 00 97 0 39 30 42 15 010 16 00000 1555:15 PM49 35 00 84 0 40 50 45 20 210 23 00000 1525:30 PM46 44 00 90 0 33 20 35 19 100 20 00000 1455:45 PM38 43 00 81 0 42 60 48 15 030 18 00000 147Hourly Total 186 166 00 352 0 154 16 0 170 69 350 77 00000 599Grand Total 875 568 01 1444 0 539 74 0 613 254 4 26 0 284 00000 2341Approach % 60.6 39.3 0.0 0.1 - 0.0 87.9 12.1 0.0 - 89.4 1.4 9.2 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --Total %37.4 24.3 0.0 0.0 61.7 0.0 23.0 3.2 0.0 26.2 10.9 0.2 1.1 0.0 12.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -Lights828 527 01 1356 0 505 36 0 541 238 2 14 0 254 00000 2151% Lights94.6 92.8 - 100.0 93.9 - 93.7 48.6 - 88.3 93.7 50.0 53.8 - 89.4 ----- 91.9Mediums18 11 00 29 0 26 70 33 9150 15 00000 77% Mediums2.1 1.9 - 0.0 2.0 - 4.8 9.5 - 5.4 3.5 25.0 19.2 - 5.3 ----- 3.3Articulated Trucks 29 30 00 59 08 31 0 39 7170 15 00000 113% Articulated Trucks 3.3 5.3 - 0.0 4.1 - 1.5 41.9 - 6.4 2.8 25.0 26.9 - 5.3 ----- 4.8Bicycles on Road 000000000000000000000% Bicycles on Road 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 ----- 0.0 Kimley-Horn : Lisle (IL)1001 Warrenville Road, Suite 350Lisle, Illinois, United States 60532331.481.7332 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: County Road 42 & US Highway 52NB RampsSite Code:Start Date: 03/31/2021Page No: 203/31/2021 7:00 AMEnding At03/31/2021 6:00 PMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on RoadNorthbound On-Ramp USOut In Total866 0 86626 0 2661 0 610 0 0953 0 9530 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0R T L U 594 0 37 16 541 Out 613 0 39 33 541 In 1207 0 76 49 1082 Total Westbound County Road 4 R 74 0 31 7 36 T 539 0 8 26 505 L 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 254 2540 15 150 15 150 0 00 284 284Out In TotalNorthbound Off-Ramp USU L T R0 238 2 140 9 1 50 7 1 70 0 0 00 254 4 26Eastbound County Road 42Total2100647402238In1356295901444Out7443515079410001U82818290875L52711300568T00000RTurning Movement Data Plot Kimley-Horn : Lisle (IL)1001 Warrenville Road, Suite 350Lisle, Illinois, United States 60532331.481.7332 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: County Road 42 & US Highway 52NB RampsSite Code:Start Date: 03/31/2021Page No: 3Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:15 AM)Start TimeEastbound County Road 42Westbound County Road 42Northbound Off-Ramp US Highway 52Northbound On-Ramp US Highway 52EastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeft Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Int. Total7:15 AM79 31 00 110 0 43 40 47 15 020 17 00000 1747:30 AM72 37 00 109 0 29 20 31 15 020 17 00000 1577:45 AM50 35 00 85 0 40 70 47 17 030 20 00000 1528:00 AM62 19 00 81 0 27 90 36 12 020 14 00000 131Total263 122 00 385 0 139 22 0 161 59 090 68 00000 614Approach % 68.3 31.7 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 86.3 13.7 0.0 - 86.8 0.0 13.2 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --Total %42.8 19.9 0.0 0.0 62.7 0.0 22.6 3.6 0.0 26.2 9.6 0.0 1.5 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -PHF0.832 0.824 0.000 0.000 0.875 0.000 0.808 0.611 0.000 0.856 0.868 0.000 0.750 0.000 0.850 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.882Lights241 115 00 356 0 127 60 133 52 040 56 00000 545% Lights91.6 94.3 -- 92.5 - 91.4 27.3 - 82.6 88.1 - 44.4 - 82.4 ----- 88.8Mediums320050 11 30 14 3030600000 25% Mediums1.1 1.6 -- 1.3 - 7.9 13.6 - 8.7 5.1 - 33.3 - 8.8 ----- 4.1Articulated Trucks 19 500 24 01 13 0 14 4020600000 44% Articulated Trucks 7.2 4.1 -- 6.2 - 0.7 59.1 - 8.7 6.8 - 22.2 - 8.8 ----- 7.2Bicycles on Road 000000000000000000000% Bicycles on Road 0.0 0.0 -- 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 ----- 0.0 Kimley-Horn : Lisle (IL)1001 Warrenville Road, Suite 350Lisle, Illinois, United States 60532331.481.7332 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: County Road 42 & US Highway 52NB RampsSite Code:Start Date: 03/31/2021Page No: 4Peak Hour Data03/31/2021 7:15 AMEnding At03/31/2021 8:15 AMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on RoadNorthbound On-Ramp USOut In Total247 0 2476 0 632 0 320 0 0285 0 2850 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0R T L U 131 0 7 5 119 Out 161 0 14 14 133 In 292 0 21 19 252 Total Westbound County Road 4 R 22 0 13 3 6 T 139 0 1 11 127 L 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 560 6 60 6 60 0 00 68 68Out In TotalNorthbound Off-Ramp USU L T R0 52 0 40 3 0 30 4 0 20 0 0 00 59 0 9Eastbound County Road 42Total53519290583In3565240385Out179145019800000U2413190263L115250122T00000RTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:15 AM) Kimley-Horn : Lisle (IL)1001 Warrenville Road, Suite 350Lisle, Illinois, United States 60532331.481.7332 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: County Road 42 & US Highway 52NB RampsSite Code:Start Date: 03/31/2021Page No: 5Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:00 PM)Start TimeEastbound County Road 42Westbound County Road 42Northbound Off-Ramp US Highway 52Northbound On-Ramp US Highway 52EastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeft Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Int. Total4:00 PM62 48 01 111 0 35 10 36 14 000 14 00000 1614:15 PM55 52 00 107 0 46 40 50 19 000 19 00000 1764:30 PM52 44 00 96 0 25 40 29 25 020 27 00000 1524:45 PM53 45 00 98 0 42 80 50 19 000 19 00000 167Total222 189 01 412 0 148 17 0 165 77 020 79 00000 656Approach % 53.9 45.9 0.0 0.2 - 0.0 89.7 10.3 0.0 - 97.5 0.0 2.5 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --Total %33.8 28.8 0.0 0.2 62.8 0.0 22.6 2.6 0.0 25.2 11.7 0.0 0.3 0.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -PHF0.895 0.909 0.000 0.250 0.928 0.000 0.804 0.531 0.000 0.825 0.770 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.731 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.932Lights213 176 01 390 0 144 12 0 156 75 010 76 00000 622% Lights95.9 93.1 - 100.0 94.7 - 97.3 70.6 - 94.5 97.4 - 50.0 - 96.2 ----- 94.8Mediums45009032052000200000 16% Mediums1.8 2.6 - 0.0 2.2 - 2.0 11.8 - 3.0 2.6 - 0.0 - 2.5 ----- 2.4Articulated Trucks 5800 13 013040010100000 18% Articulated Trucks 2.3 4.2 - 0.0 3.2 - 0.7 17.6 - 2.4 0.0 - 50.0 - 1.3 ----- 2.7Bicycles on Road 000000000000000000000% Bicycles on Road 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 ----- 0.0 Kimley-Horn : Lisle (IL)1001 Warrenville Road, Suite 350Lisle, Illinois, United States 60532331.481.7332 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: County Road 42 & US Highway 52NB RampsSite Code:Start Date: 03/31/2021Page No: 6Peak Hour Data03/31/2021 4:00 PMEnding At03/31/2021 5:00 PMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on RoadNorthbound On-Ramp USOut In Total225 0 2256 0 68 0 80 0 0239 0 2390 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0R T L U 191 0 9 5 177 Out 165 0 4 5 156 In 356 0 13 10 333 Total Westbound County Road 4 R 17 0 3 2 12 T 148 0 1 3 144 L 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 760 2 20 1 10 0 00 79 79Out In TotalNorthbound Off-Ramp USU L T R0 75 0 10 2 0 00 0 0 10 0 0 00 77 0 2Eastbound County Road 42Total61014140638In3909130412Out22051022610001U213450222L176580189T00000RTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:00 PM) Kimley-Horn : Lisle (IL)1001 Warrenville Road, Suite 350Lisle, Illinois, United States 60532331.481.7332 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: County Road 42 & Conley AvenueSite Code:Start Date: 03/31/2021Page No: 1Turning Movement DataStart TimeEastbound County Road 42Westbound County Road 42Norhtbound Conley AvenueSouthbound Conley AvenueEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeft Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Int. Total12:00 AM03003010010000000202612:15 AM02002010010000000101412:30 AM01001010010000000303512:45 AM100010300300000000004Hourly Total16007060060000000606 191:00 AM2000200000000000010131:15 AM1000102002000000020251:30 AM2000204004000000010171:45 AM110020010100000000003Hourly Total61007061070000000404 182:00 AM1100200000000000030352:15 AM3100400000000000000042:30 AM2100300101000000010152:45 AM100010000000000005056Hourly Total7300 10 001010000000909 203:00 AM1200301001000000000043:15 AM0100100000000000020233:30 AM1000100000000000000013:45 AM51006020020000000202 10Hourly Total7400 11 030030000000404 184:00 AM0000000000000000040444:15 AM52007061070000000000 144:30 AM21003051060000000404 134:45 AM51006120030000000606 15Hourly Total12 400 16 1 13 20 16 0000000 14 0 14 465:00 AM54009071080000000303 205:15 AM12 500 17 0 10 20 12 0000000404 335:30 AM6800 14 0 10 00 10 1000100404 295:45 AM6400 10 0 12 10 13 0000000808 31Hourly Total29 21 00 50 0 39 40 43 1000100 19 0 19 1136:00 AM2800 10 0 14 10 15 0000000202 276:15 AM2 12 00 14 0 19 00 19 0000000303 366:30 AM3 16 00 19 0 26 20 28 0000000303 506:45 AM4 21 00 25 0 35 10 36 0000000707 68Hourly Total11 57 00 68 0 94 40 98 0000000 15 0 15 1817:00 AM8 17 00 25 0 22 30 25 0000000303 537:15 AM5 27 00 32 0 41 00 41 0000000303 767:30 AM10 28 01 39 0 28 40 32 0000010203 747:45 AM10 27 00 37 0 40 20 42 0000000 10 0 10 89 Hourly Total33 99 01 133 0 131 90 140 0000010 18 0 19 2928:00 AM5 17 00 22 0 26 10 27 0000010809 588:15 AM12 20 00 32 0 24 10 25 0000000 11 0 11 688:30 AM6 16 01 23 0 25 00 25 0000010708 568:45 AM5 16 00 21 0 22 00 22 0000000606 49Hourly Total28 69 01 98 0 97 20 99 0000020 32 0 34 2319:00 AM6 17 00 23 0 22 00 22 0000010809 549:15 AM5 21 00 26 0 25 00 25 0000000 13 0 13 649:30 AM5 30 00 35 0 20 10 21 0000000 12 0 12 689:45 AM5 18 00 23 0 29 10 30 0000020608 61Hourly Total21 86 00 107 0 96 20 98 0000030 39 0 42 24710:00 AM8 17 00 25 0 22 00 22 0000000606 5310:15 AM4 28 00 32 0 21 00 21 0000000 12 0 12 6510:30 AM3 19 00 22 0 27 00 27 0000000 15 0 15 6410:45 AM3 25 00 28 0 32 10 33 0000010708 69Hourly Total18 89 00 107 0 102 10 103 0000010 40 0 41 25111:00 AM5 29 00 34 0 24 10 25 0000000 13 0 13 7211:15 AM6 26 00 32 0 25 10 26 0000010 12 0 13 7111:30 AM4 18 00 22 0 17 00 17 0000000 16 0 16 5511:45 AM2 30 00 32 0 21 20 23 0000000707 62Hourly Total17 103 00 120 0 87 40 91 0000010 48 0 49 26012:00 PM6 19 00 25 0 31 10 32 0000000 15 0 15 7212:15 PM6 20 00 26 0 29 20 31 0000000 13 0 13 7012:30 PM6 17 00 23 0 32 00 32 0000000 12 0 12 6712:45 PM11 22 00 33 0 15 20 17 0000010809 59Hourly Total29 78 00 107 0 107 50 112 0000010 48 0 49 2681:00 PM7 31 00 38 0 23 00 23 0000010 11 0 12 731:15 PM2 29 00 31 0 24 00 24 0000010 11 0 12 671:30 PM11 40 00 51 0 27 10 28 0000000 13 0 13 921:45 PM7 32 00 39 0 32 20 34 0000020 19 0 21 94Hourly Total27 132 00 159 0 106 30 109 0000040 54 0 58 3262:00 PM6 30 00 36 0 18 10 19 0000000 12 0 12 672:15 PM6 53 00 59 0 27 00 27 0000010809 952:30 PM4 40 00 44 0 32 30 35 0000000 11 0 11 902:45 PM6 28 00 34 0 42 10 43 0000000707 84Hourly Total22 151 00 173 0 119 50 124 0000010 38 0 39 3363:00 PM8 34 00 42 0 26 00 26 0000040 13 0 17 853:15 PM1 31 00 32 0 34 00 34 0000000 11 0 11 773:30 PM5 46 00 51 0 32 00 32 0000011 10 0 12 953:45 PM7 24 00 31 0 26 00 26 0000000808 65Hourly Total21 135 00 156 0 118 00 118 0000051 42 0 48 3224:00 PM6 42 00 48 0 30 00 30 0000010809 874:15 PM6 46 00 52 0 39 00 39 100011090 10 1024:30 PM7 38 00 45 0 20 10 21 0000010 11 0 12 784:45 PM3 43 00 46 0 34 00 34 0000020 13 0 15 95Hourly Total22 169 00 191 0 123 10 124 1000150 41 0 46 3625:00 PM4 40 00 44 0 31 00 31 0000000 12 0 12 875:15 PM5 31 00 36 0 40 00 40 0000000808 845:30 PM1 43 00 44 0 27 00 27 000003070 10 815:45 PM11 34 00 45 0 36 00 36 0000010 12 0 13 94Hourly Total21 148 00 169 0 134 00 134 0000040 39 0 43 3466:00 PM4 40 00 44 0 26 00 26 0000010607 77 6:15 PM1 30 00 31 0 24 10 25 0000000202 586:30 PM2 30 00 32 0 26 00 26 0000010405 636:45 PM3 16 00 19 0 17 00 17 0000000404 40Hourly Total10 116 00 126 0 93 10 94 0000020 16 0 18 2387:00 PM5 18 00 23 0 18 00 18 0000000303 447:15 PM1 11 01 13 0 13 00 13 0000020305 317:30 PM3 22 00 25 0 11 00 11 0000000101 377:45 PM4 19 00 23 0 10 00 10 0000010203 36Hourly Total13 70 01 84 0 52 00 52 000003090 12 1488:00 PM170080 12 00 12 0000000000 208:15 PM1 18 00 19 090090000000303 318:30 PM4900 13 0 11 20 13 0000010102 288:45 PM3801 12 0 17 00 17 0000000303 32Hourly Total9 42 01 52 0 49 20 51 0000010708 1119:00 PM0 12 00 12 0 10 00 10 0000000101 239:15 PM17008050050000000101 149:30 PM06006050050000000202 139:45 PM27009020020000000000 11Hourly Total3 32 00 35 0 22 00 22 0000000404 6110:00 PM14005060060000010001 1210:15 PM03003070070000000101 1110:30 PM04004060060000000000 1010:45 PM210030410500000000008Hourly Total3 12 00 15 0 23 10 24 0000010102 4111:00 PM21003040040000000000711:15 PM04004030030000000101811:30 PM30003000000000000202511:45 PM010010100100000002024Hourly Total5600 11 080080000000505 24Grand Total 375 1633 04 2012 1 1628 48 0 1677 20002 35 1 552 0 588 4279Approach % 18.6 81.2 0.0 0.2 - 0.1 97.1 2.9 0.0 - 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 6.0 0.2 93.9 0.0 --Total %8.8 38.2 0.0 0.1 47.0 0.0 38.0 1.1 0.0 39.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 12.9 0.0 13.7 -Lights219 1572 04 1795 1 1526 38 0 1565 20002 32 1 232 0 265 3627% Lights58.4 96.3 - 100.0 89.2 100.0 93.7 79.2 - 93.3 100.0 --- 100.0 91.4 100.0 42.0 - 45.1 84.8Mediums21 46 00 67 0 58 40 62 0000000 52 0 52 181% Mediums5.6 2.8 - 0.0 3.3 0.0 3.6 8.3 - 3.7 0.0 --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.4 - 8.8 4.2Articulated Trucks 135 15 00 150 0 44 60 50 0000030 268 0 271 471% Articulated Trucks 36.0 0.9 - 0.0 7.5 0.0 2.7 12.5 - 3.0 0.0 --- 0.0 8.6 0.0 48.6 - 46.1 11.0Bicycles on Road 000000000000000000000% Bicycles on Road 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 Kimley-Horn : Lisle (IL)1001 Warrenville Road, Suite 350Lisle, Illinois, United States 60532331.481.7332 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: County Road 42 & Conley AvenueSite Code:Start Date: 03/31/2021Page No: 403/31/2021 12:00 AMEnding At04/01/2021 12:00 AMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on RoadSouthbound ConleyOut In Total257 265 52225 52 77141 271 4120 0 0423 588 1011232 1 32 052 0 0 0268 0 3 00 0 0 0552 1 35 0R T L U 1668 0 18 46 1604 Out 1677 0 50 62 1565 In 3345 0 68 108 3169 Total Westbound County Road 4 R 48 0 6 4 38 T 1628 0 44 58 1526 L 1 0 0 0 1 U 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 40 0 00 0 00 0 02 2 4Out In TotalNorhtbound ConleyU L T R0 2 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 2 0 0Eastbound County Road 42Total355917746204198In17956715002012Out17641103120218640004U219211350375L1572461501633T00000RTurning Movement Data Plot Kimley-Horn : Lisle (IL)1001 Warrenville Road, Suite 350Lisle, Illinois, United States 60532331.481.7332 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: County Road 42 & Conley AvenueSite Code:Start Date: 03/31/2021Page No: 5Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:15 AM)Start TimeEastbound County Road 42Westbound County Road 42Norhtbound Conley AvenueSouthbound Conley AvenueEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeft Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Int. Total7:15 AM5 27 00 32 0 41 00 41 0000000303 767:30 AM10 28 01 39 0 28 40 32 0000010203 747:45 AM10 27 00 37 0 40 20 42 0000000 10 0 10 898:00 AM5 17 00 22 0 26 10 27 0000010809 58Total30 99 01 130 0 135 70 142 0000020 23 0 25 297Approach % 23.1 76.2 0.0 0.8 - 0.0 95.1 4.9 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 8.0 0.0 92.0 0.0 --Total %10.1 33.3 0.0 0.3 43.8 0.0 45.5 2.4 0.0 47.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 7.7 0.0 8.4 -PHF0.750 0.884 0.000 0.250 0.833 0.000 0.823 0.438 0.000 0.845 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.575 0.000 0.625 0.834Lights24 93 01 118 0 127 70 134 0000020406 258% Lights80.0 93.9 - 100.0 90.8 - 94.1 100.0 - 94.4 ----- 100.0 - 17.4 - 24.0 86.9Mediums14005070070000000404 16% Mediums3.3 4.0 - 0.0 3.8 - 5.2 0.0 - 4.9 ----- 0.0 - 17.4 - 16.0 5.4Articulated Trucks 52007010010000000 15 0 15 23% Articulated Trucks 16.7 2.0 - 0.0 5.4 - 0.7 0.0 - 0.7 ----- 0.0 - 65.2 - 60.0 7.7Bicycles on Road 000000000000000000000% Bicycles on Road 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 ----- 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 Kimley-Horn : Lisle (IL)1001 Warrenville Road, Suite 350Lisle, Illinois, United States 60532331.481.7332 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: County Road 42 & Conley AvenueSite Code:Start Date: 03/31/2021Page No: 6Peak Hour Data03/31/2021 7:15 AMEnding At03/31/2021 8:15 AMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on RoadSouthbound ConleyOut In Total31 6 371 4 55 15 200 0 037 25 624 0 2 04 0 0 015 0 0 00 0 0 023 0 2 0R T L U 101 0 2 4 95 Out 142 0 1 7 134 In 243 0 3 11 229 Total Westbound County Road 4 R 7 0 0 0 7 T 135 0 1 7 127 L 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 0Out In TotalNorhtbound ConleyU L T R0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0Eastbound County Road 42Total25016230289In118570130Out1321116015910001U2415030L9342099T00000RTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:15 AM) Kimley-Horn : Lisle (IL)1001 Warrenville Road, Suite 350Lisle, Illinois, United States 60532331.481.7332 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: County Road 42 & Conley AvenueSite Code:Start Date: 03/31/2021Page No: 7Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:00 PM)Start TimeEastbound County Road 42Westbound County Road 42Norhtbound Conley AvenueSouthbound Conley AvenueEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeft Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Int. Total4:00 PM6 42 00 48 0 30 00 30 0000010809 874:15 PM6 46 00 52 0 39 00 39 100011090 10 1024:30 PM7 38 00 45 0 20 10 21 0000010 11 0 12 784:45 PM3 43 00 46 0 34 00 34 0000020 13 0 15 95Total22 169 00 191 0 123 10 124 1000150 41 0 46 362Approach % 11.5 88.5 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 99.2 0.8 0.0 - 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 10.9 0.0 89.1 0.0 --Total %6.1 46.7 0.0 0.0 52.8 0.0 34.0 0.3 0.0 34.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.4 0.0 11.3 0.0 12.7 -PHF0.786 0.918 0.000 0.000 0.918 0.000 0.788 0.250 0.000 0.795 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.625 0.000 0.788 0.000 0.767 0.887Lights10 168 00 178 0 118 00 118 1000150 37 0 42 339% Lights45.5 99.4 -- 93.2 - 95.9 0.0 - 95.2 100.0 --- 100.0 100.0 - 90.2 - 91.3 93.6Mediums310040500500000000009% Mediums 13.6 0.6 -- 2.1 - 4.1 0.0 - 4.0 0.0 --- 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 2.5Articulated Trucks 90009001010000000404 14% Articulated Trucks 40.9 0.0 -- 4.7 - 0.0 100.0 - 0.8 0.0 --- 0.0 0.0 - 9.8 - 8.7 3.9Bicycles on Road 000000000000000000000% Bicycles on Road 0.0 0.0 -- 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 --- 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 Kimley-Horn : Lisle (IL)1001 Warrenville Road, Suite 350Lisle, Illinois, United States 60532331.481.7332 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: County Road 42 & Conley AvenueSite Code:Start Date: 03/31/2021Page No: 8Peak Hour Data03/31/2021 4:00 PMEnding At03/31/2021 5:00 PMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on RoadSouthbound ConleyOut In Total10 42 523 0 310 4 140 0 023 46 6937 0 5 00 0 0 04 0 0 00 0 0 041 0 5 0R T L U 174 0 0 1 173 Out 124 0 1 5 118 In 298 0 1 6 291 Total Westbound County Road 4 R 1 0 1 0 0 T 123 0 0 5 118 L 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 0 00 0 00 0 00 1 1Out In TotalNorhtbound ConleyU L T R0 1 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 1 0 0Eastbound County Road 42Total3349130356In178490191Out15654016500000U1039022L168100169T00000RTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:00 PM) Kimley-Horn : Lisle (IL)1001 Warrenville Road, Suite 350Lisle, Illinois, United States 60532331.481.7332 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: County Road 42 & 142nd StreetEastSite Code:Start Date: 03/31/2021Page No: 1Turning Movement DataStart TimeEastbound County Road 42Westbound County Road 42Southbound 142nd Street EastEastboundWestboundSouthboundLeftThruU-Turn App. TotalThruRightU-Turn App. TotalLeftRightU-Turn App. Total Int. Total7:00 AM0180182410250000437:15 AM0240244600460000707:30 AM0260263210330101607:45 AM032032351036200270Hourly Total010001001373014021032438:00 AM0180182901300101498:15 AM0200202100210000418:30 AM0130132100210000348:45 AM018018272029000047Hourly Total06906998211010101171*** BREAK ***-------------4:00 PM0450452800282002754:15 PM0460463900390000854:30 PM0350352110221001584:45 PM043043360036210382Hourly Total016901691241012551063005:00 PM0430432500250000685:15 PM0290294100412002725:30 PM0460462910300000765:45 PM034034381039200275Hourly Total01520152133201354004291Grand Total04900490492815011130141005Approach %0.0100.00.0-98.21.60.2-78.621.40.0--Total %0.048.80.048.849.00.80.149.91.10.30.01.4-Lights047704774716047792011965% Lights-97.3-97.395.775.00.095.281.866.7-78.696.0Mediums011011192021010133% Mediums-2.2-2.23.925.00.04.20.033.3-7.13.3Articulated Trucks0202101220026% Articulated Trucks-0.4-0.40.20.0100.00.418.20.0-14.30.6Bicycles on Road0000100100001% Bicycles on Road-0.0-0.00.20.00.00.20.00.0-0.00.1 Kimley-Horn : Lisle (IL)1001 Warrenville Road, Suite 350Lisle, Illinois, United States 60532331.481.7332 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: County Road 42 & 142nd StreetEastSite Code:Start Date: 03/31/2021Page No: 203/31/2021 7:00 AMEnding At03/31/2021 6:00 PMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on RoadSouthbound 142nd StreetOut In Total6 11 172 1 30 2 20 0 08 14 222 9 01 0 00 2 00 0 03 11 0R L U 502 0 5 11 486 Out 501 1 2 21 477 In 1003 1 7 32 963 Total Westbound County Road 4 R 8 0 0 2 6 T 492 1 1 19 471 U 1 0 1 0 0 Eastbound County Road 42Total9503131985In4771120490Out473201149500000U00000L4771120490TTurning Movement Data Plot Kimley-Horn : Lisle (IL)1001 Warrenville Road, Suite 350Lisle, Illinois, United States 60532331.481.7332 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: County Road 42 & 142nd StreetEastSite Code:Start Date: 03/31/2021Page No: 3Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:15 AM)Start TimeEastbound County Road 42Westbound County Road 42Southbound 142nd Street EastEastboundWestboundSouthboundLeftThruU-Turn App. TotalThruRightU-Turn App. TotalLeftRightU-Turn App. Total Int. Total7:15 AM0240244600460000707:30 AM0260263210330101607:45 AM0320323510362002708:00 AM018018290130010149Total01000100142211452204249Approach %0.0100.00.0-97.91.40.7-50.050.00.0--Total %0.040.20.040.257.00.80.458.20.80.80.01.6-PHF0.0000.7810.0000.7810.7720.5000.2500.7880.2500.5000.0000.5000.889Lights093093132201340202229% Lights-93.0-93.093.0100.00.092.40.0100.0-50.092.0Mediums0505100010000015% Mediums-5.0-5.07.00.00.06.90.00.0-0.06.0Articulated Trucks0202001120025% Articulated Trucks-2.0-2.00.00.0100.00.7100.00.0-50.02.0Bicycles on Road0000000000000% Bicycles on Road-0.0-0.00.00.00.00.00.00.0-0.00.0 Kimley-Horn : Lisle (IL)1001 Warrenville Road, Suite 350Lisle, Illinois, United States 60532331.481.7332 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: County Road 42 & 142nd StreetEastSite Code:Start Date: 03/31/2021Page No: 4Peak Hour Data03/31/2021 7:15 AMEnding At03/31/2021 8:15 AMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on RoadSouthbound 142nd StreetOut In Total2 2 40 0 00 2 20 0 02 4 62 0 00 0 00 2 00 0 02 2 0R L U 103 0 5 5 93 Out 145 0 1 10 134 In 248 0 6 15 227 Total Westbound County Road 4 R 2 0 0 0 2 T 142 0 0 10 132 U 1 0 1 0 0 Eastbound County Road 42Total2271520244In93520100Out134100014400000U00000L93520100TTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:15 AM) Kimley-Horn : Lisle (IL)1001 Warrenville Road, Suite 350Lisle, Illinois, United States 60532331.481.7332 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: County Road 42 & 142nd StreetEastSite Code:Start Date: 03/31/2021Page No: 5Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:00 PM)Start TimeEastbound County Road 42Westbound County Road 42Southbound 142nd Street EastEastboundWestboundSouthboundLeftThruU-Turn App. TotalThruRightU-Turn App. TotalLeftRightU-Turn App. Total Int. Total4:00 PM0450452800282002754:15 PM0460463900390000854:30 PM0350352110221001584:45 PM043043360036210382Total01690169124101255106300Approach %0.0100.00.0-99.20.80.0-83.316.70.0--Total %0.056.30.056.341.30.30.041.71.70.30.02.0-PHF0.0000.9180.0000.9180.7950.2500.0000.8010.6250.2500.0000.5000.882Lights01680168121101225005295% Lights-99.4-99.497.6100.0-97.6100.00.0-83.398.3Mediums0101200201014% Mediums-0.6-0.61.60.0-1.60.0100.0-16.71.3Articulated Trucks0000000000000% Articulated Trucks-0.0-0.00.00.0-0.00.00.0-0.00.0Bicycles on Road0000100100001% Bicycles on Road-0.0-0.00.80.0-0.80.00.0-0.00.3 Kimley-Horn : Lisle (IL)1001 Warrenville Road, Suite 350Lisle, Illinois, United States 60532331.481.7332 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: County Road 42 & 142nd StreetEastSite Code:Start Date: 03/31/2021Page No: 6Peak Hour Data03/31/2021 4:00 PMEnding At03/31/2021 5:00 PMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on RoadSouthbound 142nd StreetOut In Total1 5 60 1 10 0 00 0 01 6 70 5 01 0 00 0 00 0 01 5 0R L U 174 0 0 1 173 Out 125 1 0 2 122 In 299 1 0 3 295 Total Westbound County Road 4 R 1 0 0 0 1 T 124 1 0 2 121 U 0 0 0 0 0 Eastbound County Road 42Total289401294In168100169Out12130112500000U00000L168100169TTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:00 PM) Kimley-Horn : Lisle (IL)1001 Warrenville Road, Suite 350Lisle, Illinois, United States 60532331.481.7332 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: County Road 42 & State Highway55Site Code:Start Date: 03/31/2021Page No: 1Turning Movement DataStart TimeEastbound County Road 42Northbound MN Highway 55Southbound MN Highway 55EastboundNorthboundSouthboundLeftRightU-Turn App. TotalLeftThruU-Turn App. TotalThruRightU-Turn App. Total Int. Total7:00 AM118019248501092820301587:15 AM0240244210501473320352067:30 AM125026358501205410552017:45 AM32903233760109412043184Hourly Total59601011343510485156701637498:00 AM41501928710993610371558:15 AM02002019630824020421448:30 AM01301321590804910501438:45 AM3170202257079334037136Hourly Total76507290250034015880166578*** BREAK ***-------------4:00 PM3410442566091115301182534:15 PM2480503856094149101502944:30 PM0350352361084125001252444:45 PM043043355509013620138271Hourly Total5167017212123803595256053110625:00 PM1380392174095162201642985:15 PM23003240620102159101602945:30 PM1450462945074107101082285:45 PM2360383839077811082197Hourly Total614901551282200348509505141017Grand Total234770500473105901532134826013743406Approach %4.695.40.0-30.969.10.0-98.11.90.0--Total %0.714.00.014.713.931.10.045.039.60.80.040.3-Lights164690485459100501464130116013173266% Lights69.698.3-97.097.094.9-95.696.561.5-95.995.9Mediums2709133204530703791% Mediums8.71.5-1.82.73.0-2.92.226.9-2.72.7Articulated Trucks510612202317302049% Articulated Trucks21.70.2-1.20.22.1-1.51.311.5-1.51.4Bicycles on Road0000000000000% Bicycles on Road0.00.0-0.00.00.0-0.00.00.0-0.00.0 Kimley-Horn : Lisle (IL)1001 Warrenville Road, Suite 350Lisle, Illinois, United States 60532331.481.7332 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: County Road 42 & State Highway55Site Code:Start Date: 03/31/2021Page No: 203/31/2021 7:00 AMEnding At03/31/2021 6:00 PMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on RoadSouthbound MN HighwayOut In Total1021 1317 233834 37 7127 20 470 0 01082 1374 245616 1301 07 30 03 17 00 0 026 1348 0R T U1770 1464 323437 45 8218 23 410 0 01825 1532 3357Out In TotalNorthbound MN HighwayU L T0 459 10050 13 320 1 220 0 00 473 1059Eastbound County Road 42Total96029100999In485960500Out475204049900000U1625023L469710477RTurning Movement Data Plot Kimley-Horn : Lisle (IL)1001 Warrenville Road, Suite 350Lisle, Illinois, United States 60532331.481.7332 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: County Road 42 & State Highway55Site Code:Start Date: 03/31/2021Page No: 3Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:00 AM)Start TimeEastbound County Road 42Northbound MN Highway 55Southbound MN Highway 55EastboundNorthboundSouthboundLeftRightU-Turn App. TotalLeftThruU-Turn App. TotalThruRightU-Turn App. Total Int. Total7:00 AM118019248501092820301587:15 AM0240244210501473320352067:30 AM125026358501205410552017:45 AM32903233760109412043184Total5960101134351048515670163749Approach %5.095.00.0-27.672.40.0-95.74.30.0--Total %0.712.80.013.517.946.90.064.820.80.90.021.8-PHF0.4170.8280.0000.7890.7980.8360.0000.8250.7220.8750.0000.7410.909Lights291093130337046714230145705% Lights40.094.8-92.197.096.0-96.391.042.9-89.094.1Mediums0404450913301629% Mediums0.04.2-4.03.01.4-1.98.342.9-9.83.9Articulated Trucks31040909110215% Articulated Trucks60.01.0-4.00.02.6-1.90.614.3-1.22.0Bicycles on Road0000000000000% Bicycles on Road0.00.0-0.00.00.0-0.00.00.0-0.00.0 Kimley-Horn : Lisle (IL)1001 Warrenville Road, Suite 350Lisle, Illinois, United States 60532331.481.7332 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: County Road 42 & State Highway55Site Code:Start Date: 03/31/2021Page No: 4Peak Hour Data03/31/2021 7:00 AMEnding At03/31/2021 8:00 AMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on RoadSouthbound MN HighwayOut In Total339 145 4845 16 2112 2 140 0 0356 163 5193 142 03 13 01 1 00 0 07 156 0R T U233 467 70017 9 262 9 110 0 0252 485 737Out In TotalNorthbound MN HighwayU L T0 130 3370 4 50 0 90 0 00 134 351Eastbound County Road 42Total2261150242In93440101Out13371014100000U20305L9141096RTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:00 AM) Kimley-Horn : Lisle (IL)1001 Warrenville Road, Suite 350Lisle, Illinois, United States 60532331.481.7332 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: County Road 42 & State Highway55Site Code:Start Date: 03/31/2021Page No: 5Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:15 PM)Start TimeEastbound County Road 42Northbound MN Highway 55Southbound MN Highway 55EastboundNorthboundSouthboundLeftRightU-Turn App. TotalLeftThruU-Turn App. TotalThruRightU-Turn App. Total Int. Total4:15 PM2480503856094149101502944:30 PM0350352361084125001252444:45 PM0430433555090136201382715:00 PM138039217409516220164298Total316401671172460363572505771107Approach %1.898.20.0-32.267.80.0-99.10.90.0--Total %0.314.80.015.110.622.20.032.851.70.50.052.1-PHF0.3750.8540.0000.8350.7700.8310.0000.9550.8830.6250.0000.8800.929Lights316401671142390353565505701090% Lights100.0100.0-100.097.497.2-97.298.8100.0-98.898.5Mediums00002608300311% Mediums0.00.0-0.01.72.4-2.20.50.0-0.51.0Articulated Trucks0000110240046% Articulated Trucks0.00.0-0.00.90.4-0.60.70.0-0.70.5Bicycles on Road0000000000000% Bicycles on Road0.00.0-0.00.00.0-0.00.00.0-0.00.0 Kimley-Horn : Lisle (IL)1001 Warrenville Road, Suite 350Lisle, Illinois, United States 60532331.481.7332 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: County Road 42 & State Highway55Site Code:Start Date: 03/31/2021Page No: 6Peak Hour Data03/31/2021 4:15 PMEnding At03/31/2021 5:15 PMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on RoadSouthbound MN HighwayOut In Total242 570 8126 3 91 4 50 0 0249 577 8265 565 00 3 00 4 00 0 05 572 0R T U729 353 10823 8 114 2 60 0 0736 363 1099Out In TotalNorthbound MN HighwayU L T0 114 2390 2 60 1 10 0 00 117 246Eastbound County Road 42Total286210289In167000167Out11921012200000U30003L164000164RTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:15 PM) Rich Valley Redevelopment AUAR │ Appendix C - Traffic Analysis May 2021 Appendix C: SITE PLANS 140th St E Conley Ave")42 540,000 Square Feet Office/Warehouse 800,000 Square Feet Office/Warehouse 800,000 Square Feet Office/Warehouse Aerial Image Courtesy of NearMap (9/27/2020) Legend Project Site Boundary Approximate Proposed Shared Drive Proposed Land Use Office/Warehouse [0 200 400 Feet Alternative 1. Scannell Max Build Map Rosemount, MN 140th St E Conley Ave")42 250,000 Square Feet Office/Warehouse 190,000 Square Feet General Commercial 540,000 Square Feet Office/Warehouse 225,000 Square Feet General Commercial 250,000 Square Feet Office/Warehouse Aerial Image Courtesy of NearMap (9/27/2020) Legend Project Site Boundary Approximate Proposed Shared Drive Proposed Land Use General Commercial Office/Warehouse [0 200 400 Feet Alternative 2. City Comp Plan Map Rosemount, MN Rich Valley Redevelopment AUAR │ Appendix C - Exhibits May 2021 Appendix D: SITE-SPECIFIC TRIP GENERATION Time In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total 00:00 15 95 110 12 7 19 0 0 0 0 27 102 129 00:30 0 19 19 13 9 22 0 0 0 0 13 28 41 01:00 6 29 35 13 10 23 0 0 0 0 19 39 58 01:30 7 0 7 12 9 21 0 0 0 0 19 9 28 02:00 0 0 0 10 11 21 0 0 0 0 10 11 21 02:30 0 0 0 9 9 18 0 0 0 0 9 9 18 03:00 0 0 0 6 9 15 0 0 0 0 6 9 15 03:30 0 0 0 5 11 16 0 0 0 0 5 11 16 04:00 2 60 62 5 8 13 0 0 0 0 7 68 75 04:30 3 74 77 6 4 10 0 0 0 0 9 78 87 05:00 4 15 19 5 4 9 0 0 0 0 9 19 28 05:30 138 0 138 5 6 11 0 0 2 2 143 7 150 06:00 242 0 242 5 6 11 0 0 7 7 246 13 259 06:30 145 6 151 5 6 11 0 0 10 10 150 23 173 07:00 117 7 124 4 5 9 0 19 19 121 31 152 07:30 83 0 83 3 5 8 0 38 38 87 43 130 08:00 66 0 66 3 6 9 0 0 48 48 69 55 124 08:30 80 0 80 3 7 10 0 0 74 74 83 82 165 09:00 19 0 19 2 8 10 0 0 71 71 21 79 100 09:30 3 0 3 2 8 10 0 0 36 36 5 44 49 10:00 3 0 3 2 8 10 0 0 31 31 5 39 44 10:30 2 2 4 2 7 9 0 2 17 19 6 26 32 11:00 0 8 8 2 6 8 0 2 12 14 4 25 29 11:30 0 9 9 2 4 6 0 2 5 7 3 18 21 12:00 0 3 3 2 4 6 0 3 3 6 6 11 17 12:30 0 7 7 2 2 4 0 7 2 9 9 11 20 13:00 0 10 10 3 2 5 0 10 3 13 14 16 30 13:30 6 17 23 3 3 6 0 17 2 19 26 22 48 14:00 78 92 170 4 3 7 0 24 2 26 106 97 203 14:30 88 113 201 2 2 4 0 28 2 30 118 117 235 15:00 18 54 72 3 2 5 0 35 0 35 56 55 111 15:30 0 41 41 5 2 7 0 38 0 38 43 43 86 16:00 0 44 44 5 2 7 0 40 0 40 45 46 91 16:30 0 47 47 6 2 8 42 0 42 47 49 96 17:00 0 55 55 5 2 7 45 0 45 50 57 107 17:30 6 43 49 6 3 9 0 31 0 31 44 46 90 18:00 7 30 37 8 2 10 0 22 0 22 37 33 70 18:30 76 31 107 10 4 14 0 19 0 19 105 35 140 19:00 95 92 187 9 6 15 0 10 0 10 114 98 212 19:30 19 100 119 9 7 16 0 3 0 3 31 108 139 20:00 0 20 20 6 8 14 0 2 0 2 8 28 36 20:30 0 0 0 8 6 14 0 0 0 0 8 6 14 21:00 0 2 2 10 6 16 0 2 0 2 11 7 18 21:30 0 0 0 10 9 19 0 0 0 0 10 9 19 22:00 0 0 0 8 10 18 0 0 0 0 8 10 18 22:30 6 0 6 9 12 21 0 0 0 0 15 12 27 23:00 183 6 189 9 10 19 0 0 0 0 192 16 208 23:30 74 461 535 10 5 15 0 0 0 0 84 464 548 Total 1,592 1,592 3,184 288 288 576 384 384 768 2,264 2,264 4,528 Autos Trailers Vans Total Rich Valley Redevelopment AUAR │ Appendix C - Traffic Analysis May 2021 Appendix E: SIMTRAFFIC REPORTS SimTraffic Performance Report Existing (2021) AM Peak Hour 04/09/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 1: US 52 SB Ramps & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 3.7 1.2 Total Del/Veh (s)0.8 1.1 5.9 1.0 10.7 3.9 1.8 2: US 52 NB Ramps & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 3.9 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)3.3 0.3 1.2 0.6 24.6 2.5 3.9 3: CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 4.1 0.5 Total Del/Veh (s)1.5 0.3 0.5 0.1 6.5 2.4 0.8 4: CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.7 0.4 0.2 3.0 1.1 0.6 5: Minnesota 55 & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.8 0.3 3.5 1.1 Total Del/Veh (s)12.9 0.6 3.2 3.0 1.2 1.4 0.2 1.9 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4 Total Del/Veh (s)5.2 Queuing and Blocking Report Existing (2021) AM Peak Hour 04/09/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 Intersection: 1: US 52 SB Ramps & CSAH 42 Movement WB SB SB Directions Served L LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 48 60 90 Average Queue (ft)5 13 38 95th Queue (ft)26 45 67 Link Distance (ft)696 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)485 430 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: US 52 NB Ramps & CSAH 42 Movement EB WB WB NB NB Directions Served L T R LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 88 2 12 102 64 Average Queue (ft)42 0 0 39 15 95th Queue (ft)77 1 6 81 44 Link Distance (ft)712 703 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)485 300 275 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Movement EB SB SB Directions Served L L R Maximum Queue (ft) 68 25 65 Average Queue (ft)11 4 34 95th Queue (ft)40 18 67 Link Distance (ft)772 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 100 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Queuing and Blocking Report Existing (2021) AM Peak Hour 04/09/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 3 Intersection: 4: CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Movement SB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 45 Average Queue (ft)6 95th Queue (ft)24 Link Distance (ft)520 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Minnesota 55 & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB NB SB Directions Served L R L T Maximum Queue (ft) 65 65 64 4 Average Queue (ft)10 31 27 0 95th Queue (ft)42 56 51 3 Link Distance (ft)725 876 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)260 365 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 SimTraffic Performance Report Existing (2021) PM Peak Hour 04/22/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 1: US 52 SB Ramps & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 3.2 0.0 0.0 1.1 3.5 1.6 Total Del/Veh (s)0.8 1.1 3.4 1.5 12.4 8.1 3.8 2: US 52 NB Ramps & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 4.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)2.9 0.4 1.1 0.3 19.6 2.4 3.7 3: CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 4.0 0.7 Total Del/Veh (s)1.9 0.3 0.5 5.8 2.3 0.9 4: CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT SBL All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)1.0 0.9 3.1 1.0 5: Minnesota 55 & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 3.3 0.7 0.7 3.0 0.8 Total Del/Veh (s)43.0 22.7 12.3 2.7 1.7 0.2 6.4 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.5 Total Del/Veh (s)9.2 Queuing and Blocking Report Existing (2021) PM Peak Hour 04/22/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 Intersection: 1: US 52 SB Ramps & CSAH 42 Movement WB SB SB Directions Served L LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 31 72 142 Average Queue (ft)5 18 72 95th Queue (ft)21 55 119 Link Distance (ft)696 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)485 430 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: US 52 NB Ramps & CSAH 42 Movement EB WB WB NB NB Directions Served L T R LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 74 2 12 110 50 Average Queue (ft)34 0 0 44 6 95th Queue (ft)66 1 6 89 28 Link Distance (ft)712 703 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)485 300 275 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Movement EB SB SB Directions Served L L R Maximum Queue (ft) 66 26 58 Average Queue (ft)8 8 25 95th Queue (ft)37 27 47 Link Distance (ft)772 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 100 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Queuing and Blocking Report Existing (2021) PM Peak Hour 04/22/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 3 Intersection: 4: CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Movement SB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 20 Average Queue (ft)2 95th Queue (ft)12 Link Distance (ft)520 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Minnesota 55 & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB NB SB Directions Served L R L R Maximum Queue (ft) 36 177 156 4 Average Queue (ft)4 84 49 0 95th Queue (ft)20 151 108 3 Link Distance (ft)725 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)260 365 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 SimTraffic Performance Report Short-Term (2025) Background AM Peak Hour 04/09/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 1: US 52 SB Ramps & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 3.7 1.2 Total Del/Veh (s)0.9 1.0 5.5 1.0 11.6 4.2 1.9 2: US 52 NB Ramps & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 3.9 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)3.8 0.5 1.3 0.6 27.7 3.1 4.4 3: CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 4.1 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)1.4 0.3 0.5 0.0 6.7 2.6 0.8 4: CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.8 0.5 0.4 6.0 1.8 0.7 5: Minnesota 55 & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 3.3 0.8 0.3 3.5 1.1 Total Del/Veh (s)22.4 0.5 3.5 3.5 1.4 1.8 0.2 2.4 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4 Total Del/Veh (s)6.2 Queuing and Blocking Report Short-Term (2025) Background AM Peak Hour 04/09/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 Intersection: 1: US 52 SB Ramps & CSAH 42 Movement EB WB SB SB Directions Served R L LT R Maximum Queue (ft)2 47 69 77 Average Queue (ft)0 7 16 37 95th Queue (ft)1 31 50 61 Link Distance (ft)696 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)250 485 430 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: US 52 NB Ramps & CSAH 42 Movement EB WB WB NB NB Directions Served L T R LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 118 3 23 104 54 Average Queue (ft)49 0 1 42 13 95th Queue (ft)92 2 9 85 39 Link Distance (ft)712 703 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)485 300 275 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Movement EB SB SB Directions Served L L R Maximum Queue (ft) 57 25 70 Average Queue (ft)9 4 33 95th Queue (ft)35 18 70 Link Distance (ft)772 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 100 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Queuing and Blocking Report Short-Term (2025) Background AM Peak Hour 04/09/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 3 Intersection: 4: CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Movement SB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 42 Average Queue (ft)5 95th Queue (ft)24 Link Distance (ft)520 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Minnesota 55 & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB NB NB Directions Served L R L T Maximum Queue (ft) 87 69 62 10 Average Queue (ft)19 33 30 0 95th Queue (ft)61 59 56 8 Link Distance (ft)725 1413 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)260 365 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 SimTraffic Performance Report Short-Term (2025) Background PM Peak Hour 04/22/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 1: US 52 SB Ramps & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 3.5 1.5 Total Del/Veh (s)1.0 0.9 5.2 1.6 19.3 9.5 4.4 2: US 52 NB Ramps & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.8 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)3.6 0.5 1.2 0.4 24.8 3.1 4.5 3: CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 4.1 0.7 Total Del/Veh (s)1.8 0.4 0.6 7.8 2.5 0.9 4: CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT SBL All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)1.0 0.9 2.6 1.0 5: Minnesota 55 & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 3.4 0.7 0.8 2.8 0.9 Total Del/Veh (s)67.2 27.6 13.1 2.8 1.8 0.6 7.3 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.6 Total Del/Veh (s)10.5 Queuing and Blocking Report Short-Term (2025) Background PM Peak Hour 04/22/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 Intersection: 1: US 52 SB Ramps & CSAH 42 Movement EB WB SB SB Directions Served R L LT R Maximum Queue (ft)2 49 79 194 Average Queue (ft)0 9 21 84 95th Queue (ft)2 32 60 151 Link Distance (ft)696 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)250 485 430 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: US 52 NB Ramps & CSAH 42 Movement EB WB WB NB NB Directions Served L T R LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 96 4 9 121 53 Average Queue (ft)40 0 0 50 9 95th Queue (ft)79 2 2 98 38 Link Distance (ft)712 703 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)485 300 275 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Movement EB SB SB Directions Served L L R Maximum Queue (ft) 63 26 63 Average Queue (ft)8 6 25 95th Queue (ft)37 24 48 Link Distance (ft)772 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 100 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Queuing and Blocking Report Short-Term (2025) Background PM Peak Hour 04/22/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 3 Intersection: 4: CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Movement SB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 19 Average Queue (ft)3 95th Queue (ft)14 Link Distance (ft)520 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Minnesota 55 & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L R L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 43 221 127 9 15 17 Average Queue (ft)10 93 55 0 1 1 95th Queue (ft)34 185 102 7 7 7 Link Distance (ft)725 1413 876 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)260 365 300 Storage Blk Time (%)1 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 SimTraffic Performance Report Long-Term (2045) Background AM Peak Hour 05/27/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 1: US 52 SB Ramps & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5 2.9 0.0 0.0 1.1 3.6 1.1 Total Del/Veh (s)2.3 1.1 10.6 1.4 77.9 8.1 7.1 2: US 52 NB Ramps & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 467.0 460.4 44.8 Total Del/Veh (s)10.2 0.9 1.8 0.9 960.1 333.2 58.8 3: CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.4 4.0 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)3.7 0.6 1.2 0.1 15.8 3.8 1.7 4: CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.8 0.6 0.6 5.4 1.7 0.8 5: Minnesota 55 & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.1 2.9 0.3 0.1 3.7 0.8 Total Del/Veh (s)61.0 0.9 3.1 4.7 0.9 0.9 0.1 3.3 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)25.3 Total Del/Veh (s)39.2 Queuing and Blocking Report Long-Term (2045) Background AM Peak Hour 05/27/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 Intersection: 1: US 52 SB Ramps & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB WB SB SB Directions Served T R L LT R Maximum Queue (ft)3 15 67 236 112 Average Queue (ft)0 1 14 100 59 95th Queue (ft)2 11 45 207 99 Link Distance (ft)1105 696 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)250 485 430 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: US 52 NB Ramps & CSAH 42 Movement EB WB WB NB NB Directions Served L T R LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 213 4 32 752 400 Average Queue (ft)97 0 3 598 130 95th Queue (ft)172 3 16 916 427 Link Distance (ft)712 703 Upstream Blk Time (%)65 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)485 300 275 Storage Blk Time (%)90 Queuing Penalty (veh)45 Intersection: 3: CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Movement EB SB SB Directions Served L L R Maximum Queue (ft) 92 42 95 Average Queue (ft)34 5 46 95th Queue (ft)71 25 84 Link Distance (ft)772 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 100 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Queuing and Blocking Report Long-Term (2045) Background AM Peak Hour 05/27/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 3 Intersection: 4: CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Movement SB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 39 Average Queue (ft)6 95th Queue (ft)26 Link Distance (ft)520 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Minnesota 55 & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB NB Directions Served L R L Maximum Queue (ft) 174 137 94 Average Queue (ft)47 37 40 95th Queue (ft)148 110 74 Link Distance (ft)713 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)260 365 Storage Blk Time (%)2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 48 SimTraffic Performance Report Long-Term (2045) Background PM Peak Hour 05/27/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 1: US 52 SB Ramps & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5 2.5 0.0 0.0 2.4 4.7 1.7 Total Del/Veh (s)2.3 1.3 11.7 2.0 184.1 29.2 14.2 2: US 52 NB Ramps & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 781.8 764.9 70.2 Total Del/Veh (s)11.9 0.9 1.6 1.0 1148.5 525.6 66.3 3: CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8 0.0 0.1 0.6 3.9 0.6 Total Del/Veh (s)4.0 0.7 1.3 12.2 4.4 1.7 4: CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT SBL All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)1.1 1.0 3.7 1.1 5: Minnesota 55 & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.2 0.2 2.7 0.5 Total Del/Veh (s)175.6 0.9 8.2 16.0 2.3 0.9 0.9 6.3 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)33.1 Total Del/Veh (s)43.4 Queuing and Blocking Report Long-Term (2045) Background PM Peak Hour 05/27/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 Intersection: 1: US 52 SB Ramps & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB WB SB SB Directions Served T R L LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 10 4 78 490 471 Average Queue (ft)0 0 22 155 204 95th Queue (ft)7 2 51 442 433 Link Distance (ft)1105 696 Upstream Blk Time (%)2 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)250 485 430 Storage Blk Time (%)5 7 Queuing Penalty (veh)33 4 Intersection: 2: US 52 NB Ramps & CSAH 42 Movement EB WB WB NB NB Directions Served L T R LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 250 4 29 753 400 Average Queue (ft)91 0 1 693 87 95th Queue (ft)171 2 9 818 357 Link Distance (ft)712 703 Upstream Blk Time (%)85 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)485 300 275 Storage Blk Time (%)99 Queuing Penalty (veh)20 Intersection: 3: CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Movement EB SB SB Directions Served L L R Maximum Queue (ft) 94 41 99 Average Queue (ft)30 7 41 95th Queue (ft)76 29 74 Link Distance (ft)772 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 100 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Queuing and Blocking Report Long-Term (2045) Background PM Peak Hour 05/27/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 3 Intersection: 4: CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Movement SB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 24 Average Queue (ft)5 95th Queue (ft)19 Link Distance (ft)520 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Minnesota 55 & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L R L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 119 137 181 13 4 17 Average Queue (ft)39 59 73 0 0 0 95th Queue (ft)102 106 138 6 0 5 Link Distance (ft)713 874 874 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)260 365 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 57 SimTraffic Performance Report Long-Term (2045) Background AM Peak Hour with Mitigation 05/27/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 1: US 52 SB Ramps & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5 2.9 0.0 0.0 1.1 3.5 1.1 Total Del/Veh (s)37.1 4.2 41.5 22.5 19.6 8.4 25.4 2: US 52 NB Ramps & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 3.9 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)24.0 9.1 21.7 10.3 28.8 6.6 18.4 3: CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.1 4.0 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s)8.8 4.1 1.3 0.2 13.4 3.4 3.5 4: CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.8 1.1 0.9 6.2 1.3 1.0 5: Minnesota 55 & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.1 2.9 0.2 0.1 3.4 0.7 Total Del/Veh (s)17.7 0.8 4.4 14.0 3.5 13.9 2.8 8.0 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.2 Total Del/Veh (s)34.1 Queuing and Blocking Report Long-Term (2045) Background AM Peak Hour with Mitigation 05/27/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 Intersection: 1: US 52 SB Ramps & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB Directions Served T T R L T T LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 538 475 53 113 226 218 142 192 Average Queue (ft)321 199 14 32 119 118 47 67 95th Queue (ft)470 390 35 85 206 202 112 135 Link Distance (ft)1105 1105 533 533 696 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)250 485 430 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Intersection: 2: US 52 NB Ramps & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served L T T T T R LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 431 154 102 168 157 109 170 91 Average Queue (ft)211 57 14 84 73 39 68 28 95th Queue (ft)376 122 57 144 130 90 135 65 Link Distance (ft)533 533 712 712 703 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)485 300 275 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Movement EB SB SB Directions Served L L R Maximum Queue (ft) 138 28 92 Average Queue (ft)43 3 43 95th Queue (ft)95 16 77 Link Distance (ft)772 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 100 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Queuing and Blocking Report Long-Term (2045) Background AM Peak Hour with Mitigation 05/27/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 3 Intersection: 4: CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Movement SB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 53 Average Queue (ft)7 95th Queue (ft)31 Link Distance (ft)520 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Minnesota 55 & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L R L T T T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 114 89 142 99 84 130 60 76 Average Queue (ft)34 37 78 27 25 60 17 10 95th Queue (ft)86 66 124 69 62 102 47 41 Link Distance (ft)713 1415 1415 874 874 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)260 365 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 SimTraffic Performance Report Long-Term (2045) Background PM Peak Hour With Mitigation 05/27/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 1: US 52 SB Ramps & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5 2.6 0.0 0.0 1.6 3.4 1.3 Total Del/Veh (s)37.0 5.6 34.6 19.2 19.5 18.5 25.2 2: US 52 NB Ramps & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 4.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)25.8 11.0 17.9 7.7 27.4 6.8 17.0 3: CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9 0.0 0.1 0.4 3.9 0.7 Total Del/Veh (s)8.8 6.3 1.4 20.3 4.6 4.7 4: CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT SBL All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)1.0 1.4 6.1 1.2 5: Minnesota 55 & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.2 0.2 2.8 0.5 Total Del/Veh (s)25.1 1.6 10.3 29.0 5.2 13.8 4.3 13.1 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3 Total Del/Veh (s)34.3 Queuing and Blocking Report Long-Term (2045) Background PM Peak Hour With Mitigation 05/27/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 Intersection: 1: US 52 SB Ramps & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB Directions Served T T R L T T LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 531 474 54 81 212 199 140 423 Average Queue (ft)319 233 22 33 119 101 37 184 95th Queue (ft)464 409 46 71 200 183 99 344 Link Distance (ft)1105 1105 533 533 696 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)250 485 430 Storage Blk Time (%)1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)1 0 Intersection: 2: US 52 NB Ramps & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served L T T T T R LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 351 185 126 151 152 103 143 65 Average Queue (ft)176 83 31 76 70 34 70 16 95th Queue (ft)314 160 95 129 125 77 121 48 Link Distance (ft)533 533 712 712 703 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)485 300 275 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Movement EB SB SB Directions Served L L R Maximum Queue (ft) 97 46 97 Average Queue (ft)31 9 42 95th Queue (ft)77 32 78 Link Distance (ft)772 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 100 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Queuing and Blocking Report Long-Term (2045) Background PM Peak Hour With Mitigation 05/27/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 3 Intersection: 4: CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Movement SB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 19 Average Queue (ft)6 95th Queue (ft)19 Link Distance (ft)520 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Minnesota 55 & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L R L T T T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 61 144 218 85 75 276 227 35 Average Queue (ft)17 65 103 31 22 164 123 9 95th Queue (ft)45 120 175 68 54 245 215 31 Link Distance (ft)713 1415 1415 874 874 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)260 365 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 1 SimTraffic Performance Report Short-Term (2025) Scenario 1 AM Peak Hour 04/14/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 1: US 52 SB Ramps & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 3.0 0.0 0.0 626.2 637.8 237.5 Total Del/Veh (s)2.6 1.1 7.3 1.2 291.9 53.3 58.3 2: US 52 NB Ramps & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.6 4.1 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)6.5 1.8 1.3 1.1 155.6 12.0 11.6 3: CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 4.0 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s)3.7 1.3 0.7 0.2 16.6 3.8 1.6 4: CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.6 0.5 0.3 4.0 1.6 0.6 5: Minnesota 55 & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.1 3.2 0.9 0.3 3.7 1.2 Total Del/Veh (s)17.7 0.7 3.1 3.7 1.5 1.6 0.2 2.4 6: CSAH 42 & South Access Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 3.9 0.6 Total Del/Veh (s)4.0 0.6 4.4 4.2 24.1 3.4 3.5 7: West Access & 140th Street Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT NBL All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.1 0.3 4.5 0.7 8: East Access & 140th Street Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.7 0.2 0.7 0.3 4.3 2.5 0.9 SimTraffic Performance Report Short-Term (2025) Scenario 1 AM Peak Hour 04/14/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)134.3 Total Del/Veh (s)40.9 Queuing and Blocking Report Short-Term (2025) Scenario 1 AM Peak Hour 04/14/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 3 Intersection: 1: US 52 SB Ramps & CSAH 42 Movement EB WB SB SB Directions Served R L LT R Maximum Queue (ft)7 84 760 560 Average Queue (ft)0 23 737 556 95th Queue (ft)5 66 758 633 Link Distance (ft)696 Upstream Blk Time (%)95 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)250 485 430 Storage Blk Time (%)100 Queuing Penalty (veh)270 Intersection: 2: US 52 NB Ramps & CSAH 42 Movement EB WB WB NB NB Directions Served L T R LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 142 20 37 343 156 Average Queue (ft)61 1 3 129 65 95th Queue (ft)108 11 18 358 197 Link Distance (ft)712 703 Upstream Blk Time (%)1 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)485 300 275 Storage Blk Time (%)9 Queuing Penalty (veh)10 Intersection: 3: CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Movement EB WB SB SB Directions Served L R L R Maximum Queue (ft) 74 11 25 98 Average Queue (ft)26 0 3 44 95th Queue (ft)62 8 17 83 Link Distance (ft)772 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 100 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Queuing and Blocking Report Short-Term (2025) Scenario 1 AM Peak Hour 04/14/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 4 Intersection: 4: CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Movement SB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 50 Average Queue (ft)9 95th Queue (ft)33 Link Distance (ft)520 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Minnesota 55 & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB NB Directions Served L R L Maximum Queue (ft) 59 67 85 Average Queue (ft)16 31 32 95th Queue (ft)51 56 65 Link Distance (ft)725 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)260 365 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 6: CSAH 42 & South Access Movement EB WB SB SB Directions Served L R L R Maximum Queue (ft) 111 12 30 85 Average Queue (ft)46 1 4 42 95th Queue (ft)83 6 22 69 Link Distance (ft)764 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 200 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Queuing and Blocking Report Short-Term (2025) Scenario 1 AM Peak Hour 04/14/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 5 Intersection: 7: West Access & 140th Street Movement NB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 69 Average Queue (ft)15 95th Queue (ft)53 Link Distance (ft)717 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: East Access & 140th Street Movement WB NB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue (ft) 21 31 Average Queue (ft)1 10 95th Queue (ft)9 33 Link Distance (ft)1090 727 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 280 SimTraffic Performance Report Short-Term (2025) Scenario 1 PM Peak Hour 04/14/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 1: US 52 SB Ramps & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 3.0 0.0 0.0 9.5 10.9 4.1 Total Del/Veh (s)2.3 1.1 6.2 2.2 130.2 15.8 16.0 2: US 52 NB Ramps & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 3.9 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)9.7 1.6 1.5 1.6 73.4 5.7 8.1 3: CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 4.0 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)7.2 0.9 1.1 20.6 5.1 1.9 4: CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT WBR SBL All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)1.1 0.9 0.9 4.1 1.1 5: Minnesota 55 & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 3.4 0.7 0.8 3.0 1.0 Total Del/Veh (s)71.0 39.5 14.3 2.8 1.8 0.6 9.8 6: CSAH 42 & South Access Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 3.6 1.4 Total Del/Veh (s)2.2 0.4 5.0 2.7 11.0 5.5 3.7 7: West Access & 140th Street Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT NBL All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.6 4.8 1.6 8: East Access & 140th Street Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.1 0.4 0.1 4.6 2.6 1.6 SimTraffic Performance Report Short-Term (2025) Scenario 1 PM Peak Hour 04/14/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)3.2 Total Del/Veh (s)19.7 Queuing and Blocking Report Short-Term (2025) Scenario 1 PM Peak Hour 04/14/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 3 Intersection: 1: US 52 SB Ramps & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB WB SB SB Directions Served T R L LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 12 4 93 534 361 Average Queue (ft)0 0 36 253 143 95th Queue (ft)6 3 74 568 382 Link Distance (ft)1105 696 Upstream Blk Time (%)6 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)250 485 430 Storage Blk Time (%)11 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)57 1 Intersection: 2: US 52 NB Ramps & CSAH 42 Movement EB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served L T T R LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 166 2 4 57 226 81 Average Queue (ft)66 0 0 9 93 31 95th Queue (ft)119 2 3 34 186 67 Link Distance (ft)712 712 703 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)485 300 275 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Intersection: 3: CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Movement EB WB SB SB Directions Served L T L R Maximum Queue (ft) 102 4 34 83 Average Queue (ft)35 0 7 37 95th Queue (ft)87 3 26 67 Link Distance (ft)794 772 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 100 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Queuing and Blocking Report Short-Term (2025) Scenario 1 PM Peak Hour 04/14/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 4 Intersection: 4: CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Movement SB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 30 Average Queue (ft)8 95th Queue (ft)25 Link Distance (ft)520 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Minnesota 55 & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB NB SB SB Directions Served L R L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 216 341 159 23 9 Average Queue (ft)18 120 63 1 1 95th Queue (ft)126 266 125 12 6 Link Distance (ft)725 876 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)260 365 300 Storage Blk Time (%)6 Queuing Penalty (veh)1 Intersection: 6: CSAH 42 & South Access Movement EB SB SB Directions Served L L R Maximum Queue (ft) 66 48 135 Average Queue (ft)24 13 66 95th Queue (ft)58 41 111 Link Distance (ft)781 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 200 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Queuing and Blocking Report Short-Term (2025) Scenario 1 PM Peak Hour 04/14/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 5 Intersection: 7: West Access & 140th Street Movement NB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 70 Average Queue (ft)25 95th Queue (ft)61 Link Distance (ft)782 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: East Access & 140th Street Movement NB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 45 Average Queue (ft)20 95th Queue (ft)46 Link Distance (ft)920 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 59 SimTraffic Performance Report Short-Term (2025) Scenario 1 AM Peak Hour with Mitigation 04/14/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 1: US 52 SB Ramps & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 2.9 0.0 0.0 1.2 3.4 1.1 Total Del/Veh (s)26.7 3.9 50.8 16.4 34.2 6.5 23.0 2: US 52 NB Ramps & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.5 3.9 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)39.3 10.3 14.5 9.1 44.4 7.6 18.6 3: CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 4.0 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s)7.9 5.3 0.7 0.2 22.9 4.0 4.2 4: CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.7 0.5 0.4 3.6 2.0 0.7 5: Minnesota 55 & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.9 0.3 3.9 1.2 Total Del/Veh (s)20.9 0.8 3.5 3.7 1.5 1.6 0.3 2.4 6: CSAH 42 & South Access Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 3.9 0.5 Total Del/Veh (s)5.8 1.1 5.0 4.0 26.7 3.5 4.6 7: West Access & 140th Street Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT NBL All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.1 0.4 4.3 0.7 8: East Access & 140th Street Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)0.5 0.2 0.6 0.1 3.9 2.3 0.9 SimTraffic Performance Report Short-Term (2025) Scenario 1 AM Peak Hour with Mitigation 04/14/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.6 Total Del/Veh (s)29.5 Queuing and Blocking Report Short-Term (2025) Scenario 1 AM Peak Hour with Mitigation 04/14/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 3 Intersection: 1: US 52 SB Ramps & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB Directions Served T T R L T T LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 353 278 56 164 140 143 464 95 Average Queue (ft)203 116 13 46 63 68 245 45 95th Queue (ft)313 250 38 116 117 119 422 79 Link Distance (ft)1105 1105 533 533 696 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)250 485 430 Storage Blk Time (%)0 1 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 2 Intersection: 2: US 52 NB Ramps & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served L T T T T R LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 451 280 175 115 97 191 142 126 Average Queue (ft)231 129 54 39 43 66 60 45 95th Queue (ft)371 226 133 85 88 148 117 93 Link Distance (ft)533 533 712 712 703 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)485 300 275 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 Intersection: 3: CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Movement EB WB SB SB Directions Served L R L R Maximum Queue (ft) 101 4 45 95 Average Queue (ft)33 0 4 45 95th Queue (ft)76 3 25 80 Link Distance (ft)772 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 100 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Queuing and Blocking Report Short-Term (2025) Scenario 1 AM Peak Hour with Mitigation 04/14/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 4 Intersection: 4: CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Movement SB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 43 Average Queue (ft)9 95th Queue (ft)30 Link Distance (ft)520 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Minnesota 55 & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB NB SB Directions Served L R L R Maximum Queue (ft) 76 74 84 4 Average Queue (ft)16 33 34 0 95th Queue (ft)54 59 66 3 Link Distance (ft)725 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)260 365 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 6: CSAH 42 & South Access Movement EB WB SB SB Directions Served L R L R Maximum Queue (ft) 143 23 30 97 Average Queue (ft)64 1 5 44 95th Queue (ft)118 7 23 73 Link Distance (ft)764 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 200 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Queuing and Blocking Report Short-Term (2025) Scenario 1 AM Peak Hour with Mitigation 04/14/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 5 Intersection: 7: West Access & 140th Street Movement NB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 74 Average Queue (ft)16 95th Queue (ft)57 Link Distance (ft)717 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: East Access & 140th Street Movement WB NB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue (ft) 11 31 Average Queue (ft)0 11 95th Queue (ft)6 36 Link Distance (ft)1090 727 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 3 SimTraffic Performance Report Short-Term (2025) Scenario 1 PM Peak Hour with Mitigation 04/14/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 1: US 52 SB Ramps & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 3.4 1.4 Total Del/Veh (s)31.3 4.5 45.4 13.8 23.5 11.9 20.4 2: US 52 NB Ramps & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 3.9 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s)29.1 6.3 23.8 11.5 42.4 6.7 18.3 3: CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 3.9 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)11.9 2.2 1.2 19.4 6.1 2.7 4: CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT WBR SBL All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)1.1 0.9 0.7 4.3 1.1 5: Minnesota 55 & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 3.4 0.7 0.7 3.1 1.0 Total Del/Veh (s)113.1 29.5 13.9 2.9 1.8 0.5 8.6 6: CSAH 42 & South Access Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 3.5 1.3 Total Del/Veh (s)2.7 0.6 5.4 3.3 9.7 5.9 4.0 7: West Access & 140th Street Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT NBL All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.5 4.3 1.5 8: East Access & 140th Street Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.0 0.4 0.1 4.4 2.5 1.4 SimTraffic Performance Report Short-Term (2025) Scenario 1 PM Peak Hour with Mitigation 04/14/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.8 Total Del/Veh (s)26.9 Queuing and Blocking Report Short-Term (2025) Scenario 1 PM Peak Hour with Mitigation 04/14/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 3 Intersection: 1: US 52 SB Ramps & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB Directions Served T T R L T T LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 325 265 59 219 120 115 204 229 Average Queue (ft)199 108 19 68 53 39 90 107 95th Queue (ft)309 235 43 147 103 94 176 187 Link Distance (ft)1105 1105 533 533 696 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)250 485 430 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Intersection: 2: US 52 NB Ramps & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served L T T T T R LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 375 156 110 173 152 228 166 83 Average Queue (ft)122 55 9 83 84 92 68 24 95th Queue (ft)282 123 52 148 144 182 136 62 Link Distance (ft)533 533 712 712 703 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)485 300 275 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Intersection: 3: CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Movement EB WB SB SB Directions Served L T L R Maximum Queue (ft) 131 9 51 96 Average Queue (ft)39 0 7 41 95th Queue (ft)100 6 30 78 Link Distance (ft)794 772 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 100 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Queuing and Blocking Report Short-Term (2025) Scenario 1 PM Peak Hour with Mitigation 04/14/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 4 Intersection: 4: CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Movement SB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 26 Average Queue (ft)8 95th Queue (ft)24 Link Distance (ft)520 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Minnesota 55 & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L R L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 102 215 138 9 21 13 Average Queue (ft)15 103 62 0 1 1 95th Queue (ft)66 188 111 6 12 8 Link Distance (ft)725 1413 876 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)260 365 300 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Intersection: 6: CSAH 42 & South Access Movement EB SB SB Directions Served L L R Maximum Queue (ft) 79 39 142 Average Queue (ft)26 15 69 95th Queue (ft)63 41 113 Link Distance (ft)781 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 200 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Queuing and Blocking Report Short-Term (2025) Scenario 1 PM Peak Hour with Mitigation 04/14/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 5 Intersection: 7: West Access & 140th Street Movement NB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 70 Average Queue (ft)24 95th Queue (ft)59 Link Distance (ft)782 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: East Access & 140th Street Movement NB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 36 Average Queue (ft)18 95th Queue (ft)43 Link Distance (ft)920 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 SimTraffic Performance Report Long-Term (2045) Scenario 1 AM Peak Hour with Mitigation 05/27/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 1: US 52 SB Ramps & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5 2.7 0.0 0.0 1.6 3.3 1.1 Total Del/Veh (s)38.5 5.5 47.5 7.9 40.7 13.1 27.0 2: US 52 NB Ramps & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.6 3.7 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s)30.3 8.1 44.1 14.2 54.5 14.2 23.5 3: CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 4.0 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)31.5 22.2 35.6 4.0 25.4 6.0 26.9 4: CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.7 1.2 1.0 5.3 2.1 1.0 5: Minnesota 55 & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.1 2.8 0.3 0.1 3.5 0.8 Total Del/Veh (s)19.1 0.8 4.3 14.2 3.6 14.8 3.4 8.6 6: CSAH 42 & South Access Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.3 3.9 0.5 Total Del/Veh (s)13.0 2.2 5.9 3.3 54.5 3.9 7.3 7: West Access & 140th Street Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT NBL All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)0.4 0.2 0.2 4.5 0.7 8: East Access & 140th Street Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)0.4 0.3 0.7 0.2 4.4 2.6 0.8 SimTraffic Performance Report Long-Term (2045) Scenario 1 AM Peak Hour with Mitigation 05/27/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4 Total Del/Veh (s)52.5 Queuing and Blocking Report Long-Term (2045) Scenario 1 AM Peak Hour with Mitigation 05/27/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 3 Intersection: 1: US 52 SB Ramps & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB Directions Served T T R L T T LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 584 512 52 151 118 118 605 486 Average Queue (ft)324 243 17 53 29 18 325 102 95th Queue (ft)525 459 39 121 79 65 516 263 Link Distance (ft)1105 1105 533 533 696 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)250 485 430 Storage Blk Time (%)1 3 Queuing Penalty (veh)1 10 Intersection: 2: US 52 NB Ramps & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served L T T T T R LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 448 349 125 321 330 235 160 164 Average Queue (ft)261 105 30 188 196 82 81 67 95th Queue (ft)418 230 91 296 303 169 145 137 Link Distance (ft)533 533 712 712 703 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)485 300 275 Storage Blk Time (%)0 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 2 0 Intersection: 3: CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB Directions Served L T T T T R L R Maximum Queue (ft) 243 335 265 293 319 32 20 111 Average Queue (ft)118 189 117 152 183 7 2 46 95th Queue (ft)210 292 224 241 288 27 13 96 Link Distance (ft)712 712 794 794 772 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 100 Storage Blk Time (%)1 1 1 Queuing Penalty (veh)2 0 0 Queuing and Blocking Report Long-Term (2045) Scenario 1 AM Peak Hour with Mitigation 05/27/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 4 Intersection: 4: CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Movement SB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 51 Average Queue (ft)12 95th Queue (ft)37 Link Distance (ft)520 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Minnesota 55 & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L R L T T T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 117 77 176 91 78 135 107 56 Average Queue (ft)32 36 88 29 22 64 23 10 95th Queue (ft)85 63 144 72 61 111 66 37 Link Distance (ft)713 1415 1415 874 874 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)260 365 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 6: CSAH 42 & South Access Movement EB B16 B16 WB SB SB Directions Served L T R L R Maximum Queue (ft) 268 808 164 20 39 90 Average Queue (ft)130 46 6 1 4 43 95th Queue (ft)227 352 119 10 21 70 Link Distance (ft)794 794 764 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)1 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 200 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Queuing and Blocking Report Long-Term (2045) Scenario 1 AM Peak Hour with Mitigation 05/27/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 5 Intersection: 7: West Access & 140th Street Movement NB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 66 Average Queue (ft)16 95th Queue (ft)54 Link Distance (ft)717 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: East Access & 140th Street Movement WB NB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue (ft) 16 31 Average Queue (ft)1 10 95th Queue (ft)7 33 Link Distance (ft)1090 727 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 16 SimTraffic Performance Report Long-Term (2045) Scenario 1 PM Peak Hour with Mitigation 05/27/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 1: US 52 SB Ramps & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5 2.6 0.0 0.0 2.5 4.1 1.5 Total Del/Veh (s)45.6 7.0 44.7 9.5 33.6 37.9 31.9 2: US 52 NB Ramps & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 3.9 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)25.0 8.3 38.5 18.3 43.7 9.8 23.0 3: CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6 0.0 0.0 0.9 3.8 0.5 Total Del/Veh (s)29.8 15.0 34.1 18.4 13.0 23.9 4: CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT WBR SBL All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)1.0 1.4 1.1 5.6 1.2 5: Minnesota 55 & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.2 0.2 2.8 0.5 Total Del/Veh (s)25.7 0.9 11.9 30.0 5.4 15.4 4.5 14.3 6: CSAH 42 & South Access Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.8 3.6 1.0 Total Del/Veh (s)5.9 1.6 6.2 6.0 21.7 7.4 5.0 7: West Access & 140th Street Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT NBL All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.5 4.5 1.4 8: East Access & 140th Street Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.1 0.6 0.1 4.3 2.6 1.4 SimTraffic Performance Report Long-Term (2045) Scenario 1 PM Peak Hour with Mitigation 05/27/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.7 Total Del/Veh (s)49.9 Queuing and Blocking Report Long-Term (2045) Scenario 1 PM Peak Hour with Mitigation 05/27/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 3 Intersection: 1: US 52 SB Ramps & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB Directions Served T T R L T T LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 538 488 74 243 105 80 474 513 Average Queue (ft)350 273 26 109 62 36 165 287 95th Queue (ft)489 444 53 201 103 77 383 505 Link Distance (ft)1105 1105 533 533 696 Upstream Blk Time (%)2 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)250 485 430 Storage Blk Time (%)2 7 Queuing Penalty (veh)3 12 Intersection: 2: US 52 NB Ramps & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served L T T T T R LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 403 192 118 326 364 376 204 92 Average Queue (ft)179 84 18 219 212 149 91 35 95th Queue (ft)310 166 75 302 304 276 166 82 Link Distance (ft)533 533 712 712 703 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)485 300 275 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 2 Intersection: 3: CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Movement EB EB EB WB WB SB SB Directions Served L T T T T L R Maximum Queue (ft) 238 260 256 346 444 192 124 Average Queue (ft)97 129 61 185 250 19 76 95th Queue (ft)189 214 162 298 394 95 131 Link Distance (ft)712 712 794 794 772 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 100 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 4 0 5 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Long-Term (2045) Scenario 1 PM Peak Hour with Mitigation 05/27/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 4 Intersection: 4: CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Movement SB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 26 Average Queue (ft)9 95th Queue (ft)24 Link Distance (ft)520 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Minnesota 55 & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L R L T T T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 67 183 206 99 73 309 305 44 Average Queue (ft)14 80 109 32 21 175 138 10 95th Queue (ft)41 142 186 73 60 268 241 34 Link Distance (ft)713 1415 1415 874 874 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)260 365 300 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Intersection: 6: CSAH 42 & South Access Movement EB B16 WB SB SB Directions Served L T T L R Maximum Queue (ft) 107 143 4 47 179 Average Queue (ft)42 10 0 13 80 95th Queue (ft)88 143 3 39 138 Link Distance (ft)794 7101 781 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 200 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Queuing and Blocking Report Long-Term (2045) Scenario 1 PM Peak Hour with Mitigation 05/27/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 5 Intersection: 7: West Access & 140th Street Movement NB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 74 Average Queue (ft)24 95th Queue (ft)60 Link Distance (ft)782 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: East Access & 140th Street Movement NB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 45 Average Queue (ft)21 95th Queue (ft)45 Link Distance (ft)920 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 19 SimTraffic Performance Report Short-Term (2025) Scenario 2 AM Peak Hour 04/15/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 1: US 52 SB Ramps & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 2.9 0.0 0.0 517.4 536.9 183.9 Total Del/Veh (s)2.7 1.1 7.5 1.3 312.2 52.3 57.2 2: US 52 NB Ramps & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.5 3.9 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)6.5 1.7 1.3 1.1 48.2 5.1 4.9 3: CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 4.1 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)4.2 1.2 0.7 0.1 27.3 3.9 1.5 4: CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.7 0.5 0.3 4.2 1.4 0.7 5: Minnesota 55 & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.1 3.2 1.0 0.2 3.6 1.3 Total Del/Veh (s)24.7 0.6 3.7 4.2 1.7 1.8 0.3 2.9 6: CSAH 42 & South Access Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 3.8 0.8 Total Del/Veh (s)4.7 0.7 5.7 3.4 24.6 4.0 4.7 7: West Access & 140th Street Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT NBL All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.2 4.1 0.4 8: East Access & 140th Street Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.6 0.1 4.0 2.3 0.7 SimTraffic Performance Report Short-Term (2025) Scenario 2 AM Peak Hour 04/15/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)105.2 Total Del/Veh (s)38.3 Queuing and Blocking Report Short-Term (2025) Scenario 2 AM Peak Hour 04/15/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 3 Intersection: 1: US 52 SB Ramps & CSAH 42 Movement EB WB WB SB SB Directions Served R L T LT R Maximum Queue (ft)2 97 4 760 560 Average Queue (ft)0 31 0 736 537 95th Queue (ft)1 74 3 760 719 Link Distance (ft)533 696 Upstream Blk Time (%)92 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)250 485 430 Storage Blk Time (%)100 Queuing Penalty (veh)270 Intersection: 2: US 52 NB Ramps & CSAH 42 Movement EB WB WB NB NB Directions Served L T R LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 127 8 41 153 90 Average Queue (ft)54 0 3 60 44 95th Queue (ft)97 3 18 121 74 Link Distance (ft)712 703 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)485 300 275 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Movement EB WB SB SB Directions Served L R L R Maximum Queue (ft) 79 5 34 85 Average Queue (ft)28 0 4 39 95th Queue (ft)66 3 20 76 Link Distance (ft)772 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 100 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Queuing and Blocking Report Short-Term (2025) Scenario 2 AM Peak Hour 04/15/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 4 Intersection: 4: CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Movement SB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 49 Average Queue (ft)11 95th Queue (ft)35 Link Distance (ft)520 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Minnesota 55 & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB NB SB Directions Served L R L R Maximum Queue (ft) 75 80 85 13 Average Queue (ft)18 34 36 0 95th Queue (ft)57 62 68 5 Link Distance (ft)725 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)260 365 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 6: CSAH 42 & South Access Movement EB WB SB SB Directions Served L R L R Maximum Queue (ft) 140 32 75 91 Average Queue (ft)56 1 23 45 95th Queue (ft)109 12 57 73 Link Distance (ft)764 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 200 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Queuing and Blocking Report Short-Term (2025) Scenario 2 AM Peak Hour 04/15/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 5 Intersection: 7: West Access & 140th Street Movement NB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 59 Average Queue (ft)7 95th Queue (ft)38 Link Distance (ft)717 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: East Access & 140th Street Movement WB NB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue (ft) 10 40 Average Queue (ft)0 9 95th Queue (ft)6 32 Link Distance (ft)1090 727 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 270 SimTraffic Performance Report Short-Term (2025) Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour 04/15/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 1: US 52 SB Ramps & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 2.7 0.0 0.0 1456.3 1475.2 615.2 Total Del/Veh (s)2.7 1.2 10.7 1.3 473.1 71.6 48.0 2: US 52 NB Ramps & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 3.7 5.6 0.7 Total Del/Veh (s)10.8 2.1 1.4 1.8 193.9 22.5 14.8 3: CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 4.0 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s)15.2 1.9 1.1 60.7 7.5 2.7 4: CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT WBR SBL All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)1.2 1.2 0.9 4.3 1.3 5: Minnesota 55 & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 3.3 1.1 0.7 2.9 1.2 Total Del/Veh (s)154.1 49.2 24.8 3.8 2.1 0.6 15.0 6: CSAH 42 & South Access Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1161.3 1173.8 548.8 Total Del/Veh (s)10.0 1.7 7.6 6.2 640.8 176.1 78.1 7: West Access & 140th Street Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT NBL All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.3 4.4 1.0 8: East Access & 140th Street Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.6 0.1 4.5 2.4 1.1 SimTraffic Performance Report Short-Term (2025) Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour 04/15/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)530.6 Total Del/Veh (s)71.8 Queuing and Blocking Report Short-Term (2025) Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour 04/15/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 3 Intersection: 1: US 52 SB Ramps & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB WB WB SB SB Directions Served T R L T LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 10 6 97 21 760 560 Average Queue (ft)0 0 47 1 734 524 95th Queue (ft)4 4 87 9 758 747 Link Distance (ft)1105 533 696 Upstream Blk Time (%)95 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)250 485 430 Storage Blk Time (%)100 Queuing Penalty (veh)515 Intersection: 2: US 52 NB Ramps & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served L T T T R LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 146 56 2 13 62 387 252 Average Queue (ft)59 2 0 0 8 194 92 95th Queue (ft)120 41 2 8 35 512 262 Link Distance (ft)533 712 712 703 Upstream Blk Time (%)5 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)485 300 275 Storage Blk Time (%)15 Queuing Penalty (veh)21 Intersection: 3: CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Movement EB WB SB SB Directions Served L T L R Maximum Queue (ft) 123 9 42 94 Average Queue (ft)27 0 10 37 95th Queue (ft)86 5 33 73 Link Distance (ft)794 772 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 100 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Queuing and Blocking Report Short-Term (2025) Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour 04/15/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 4 Intersection: 4: CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Movement SB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 19 Average Queue (ft)5 95th Queue (ft)19 Link Distance (ft)520 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Minnesota 55 & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L R L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 276 358 301 47 62 13 Average Queue (ft)32 149 121 2 5 1 95th Queue (ft)193 309 240 34 32 7 Link Distance (ft)725 1413 876 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)260 365 300 Storage Blk Time (%)0 10 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 0 Intersection: 6: CSAH 42 & South Access Movement EB WB SB SB Directions Served L R L R Maximum Queue (ft) 268 52 835 300 Average Queue (ft)116 10 799 250 95th Queue (ft)218 33 820 433 Link Distance (ft)781 Upstream Blk Time (%)94 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 200 Storage Blk Time (%)0 95 16 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 794 28 Queuing and Blocking Report Short-Term (2025) Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour 04/15/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 5 Intersection: 7: West Access & 140th Street Movement NB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 66 Average Queue (ft)15 95th Queue (ft)50 Link Distance (ft)782 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: East Access & 140th Street Movement NB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 31 Average Queue (ft)12 95th Queue (ft)36 Link Distance (ft)920 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 1361 SimTraffic Performance Report Short-Term (2025) Scenario 2 AM Peak Hour with Mitigation 04/15/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 1: US 52 SB Ramps & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 2.8 0.0 0.0 1.2 3.4 1.0 Total Del/Veh (s)17.9 2.6 53.6 8.7 50.7 8.2 20.8 2: US 52 NB Ramps & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.6 3.8 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)37.4 12.1 42.2 12.2 36.7 6.0 25.0 3: CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 4.0 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)10.7 5.5 1.0 0.3 27.4 4.8 4.3 4: CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.7 1.2 1.1 6.2 1.6 1.1 5: Minnesota 55 & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 3.2 1.1 0.3 3.7 1.3 Total Del/Veh (s)20.6 0.8 5.1 14.4 4.9 15.6 5.6 9.4 6: CSAH 42 & South Access Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 3.7 0.7 Total Del/Veh (s)40.4 10.7 41.8 12.6 27.1 1.9 27.9 7: West Access & 140th Street Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT NBL All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.1 0.2 4.0 0.5 8: East Access & 140th Street Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)0.4 0.1 0.6 0.2 4.0 2.3 0.7 SimTraffic Performance Report Short-Term (2025) Scenario 2 AM Peak Hour with Mitigation 04/15/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.7 Total Del/Veh (s)44.5 Queuing and Blocking Report Short-Term (2025) Scenario 2 AM Peak Hour with Mitigation 04/15/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 3 Intersection: 1: US 52 SB Ramps & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB Directions Served T T R L T T LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 297 234 37 177 97 93 444 116 Average Queue (ft)164 61 9 75 24 24 255 54 95th Queue (ft)263 175 25 149 72 68 392 91 Link Distance (ft)1105 1105 533 533 696 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)250 485 430 Storage Blk Time (%)0 1 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 2 Intersection: 2: US 52 NB Ramps & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served L T T T T R LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 358 310 228 193 182 244 143 114 Average Queue (ft)205 144 80 97 103 73 57 42 95th Queue (ft)300 228 178 163 161 152 118 85 Link Distance (ft)533 533 712 712 703 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)485 300 275 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Intersection: 3: CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Movement EB SB SB Directions Served L L R Maximum Queue (ft) 117 26 107 Average Queue (ft)41 4 41 95th Queue (ft)92 18 80 Link Distance (ft)772 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 100 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Queuing and Blocking Report Short-Term (2025) Scenario 2 AM Peak Hour with Mitigation 04/15/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 4 Intersection: 4: CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Movement SB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 45 Average Queue (ft)10 95th Queue (ft)32 Link Distance (ft)520 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Minnesota 55 & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L R L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 92 93 179 110 148 56 Average Queue (ft)16 41 84 35 66 10 95th Queue (ft)57 75 145 83 119 35 Link Distance (ft)725 1413 876 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)260 365 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 6: CSAH 42 & South Access Movement EB EB WB WB SB Directions Served L T T R L Maximum Queue (ft) 445 375 288 78 48 Average Queue (ft)225 74 135 25 14 95th Queue (ft)385 235 228 57 37 Link Distance (ft)592 7102 764 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)6 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 10 2 0 Queuing and Blocking Report Short-Term (2025) Scenario 2 AM Peak Hour with Mitigation 04/15/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 5 Intersection: 7: West Access & 140th Street Movement NB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 64 Average Queue (ft)12 95th Queue (ft)51 Link Distance (ft)717 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: East Access & 140th Street Movement WB NB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue (ft)5 30 Average Queue (ft)0 7 95th Queue (ft)4 28 Link Distance (ft)1090 727 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 13 SimTraffic Performance Report Short-Term (2025) Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour with Mitigation 04/15/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 1: US 52 SB Ramps & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 2.8 0.0 0.0 2.2 3.7 1.3 Total Del/Veh (s)52.3 7.8 35.0 9.1 45.3 20.2 31.3 2: US 52 NB Ramps & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.7 3.7 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s)50.5 13.1 16.0 11.8 44.4 9.2 18.7 3: CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 4.0 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)69.0 7.4 6.0 63.7 13.6 8.9 4: CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT WBR SBL All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)1.5 2.2 1.5 8.3 2.0 5: Minnesota 55 & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 1.1 3.5 5.1 2.3 Total Del/Veh (s)40.7 2.6 37.3 48.1 8.0 49.3 18.2 39.0 6: CSAH 42 & South Access Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 3.4 1.4 Total Del/Veh (s)40.9 8.4 46.5 27.8 43.8 5.7 24.3 7: West Access & 140th Street Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT NBL All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.1 0.4 4.1 1.0 8: East Access & 140th Street Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.5 0.2 4.3 2.3 1.2 SimTraffic Performance Report Short-Term (2025) Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour with Mitigation 04/15/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)2.5 Total Del/Veh (s)61.1 Queuing and Blocking Report Short-Term (2025) Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour with Mitigation 04/15/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 3 Intersection: 1: US 52 SB Ramps & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB Directions Served T T R L T T LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 491 439 58 258 162 130 624 514 Average Queue (ft)305 243 23 131 77 62 334 165 95th Queue (ft)436 377 47 222 147 122 530 320 Link Distance (ft)1105 1105 533 533 696 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)250 485 430 Storage Blk Time (%)2 4 Queuing Penalty (veh)3 19 Intersection: 2: US 52 NB Ramps & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served L T T T T R LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 354 262 207 193 156 269 153 144 Average Queue (ft)231 165 112 94 87 107 73 60 95th Queue (ft)335 248 193 165 142 210 136 112 Link Distance (ft)533 533 712 712 703 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)485 300 275 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Intersection: 3: CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Movement EB EB EB WB WB SB SB Directions Served L T T T T L R Maximum Queue (ft) 191 301 137 146 196 83 115 Average Queue (ft)82 55 14 43 73 12 45 95th Queue (ft)161 198 72 107 160 38 88 Link Distance (ft)712 712 794 794 772 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 100 Storage Blk Time (%)1 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Queuing and Blocking Report Short-Term (2025) Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour with Mitigation 04/15/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 4 Intersection: 4: CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Movement SB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 30 Average Queue (ft)7 95th Queue (ft)22 Link Distance (ft)520 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Minnesota 55 & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L R L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 151 359 366 210 794 374 Average Queue (ft)18 195 219 51 491 30 95th Queue (ft)120 326 332 122 825 194 Link Distance (ft)725 1413 876 Upstream Blk Time (%)5 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)260 365 300 Storage Blk Time (%)0 5 0 29 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 1 1 4 Intersection: 6: CSAH 42 & South Access Movement EB EB B16 WB WB SB SB Directions Served L T T T R L R Maximum Queue (ft) 480 654 106 243 170 206 67 Average Queue (ft)360 152 6 108 70 100 6 95th Queue (ft)522 500 64 204 141 182 40 Link Distance (ft)593 794 7101 781 Upstream Blk Time (%)2 Queuing Penalty (veh)21 Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 200 Storage Blk Time (%) 20 0 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 51 2 7 Queuing and Blocking Report Short-Term (2025) Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour with Mitigation 04/15/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 5 Intersection: 7: West Access & 140th Street Movement NB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 64 Average Queue (ft)14 95th Queue (ft)46 Link Distance (ft)782 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: East Access & 140th Street Movement WB NB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue (ft)5 36 Average Queue (ft)0 13 95th Queue (ft)4 37 Link Distance (ft)1172 920 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 109 SimTraffic Performance Report Long-Term (2045) Scenario 2 AM Peak Hour with Mitigation 05/27/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 1: US 52 SB Ramps & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 2.7 0.0 0.0 2.7 3.5 1.2 Total Del/Veh (s)17.1 3.3 46.0 10.7 53.6 11.0 20.9 2: US 52 NB Ramps & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.6 3.8 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)50.3 6.4 31.8 15.9 46.8 10.9 24.2 3: CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 4.0 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)19.0 7.5 11.3 6.7 32.7 8.8 10.3 4: CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)1.0 2.0 0.6 4.3 1.7 1.5 5: Minnesota 55 & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.1 2.8 0.3 0.1 3.6 0.9 Total Del/Veh (s)17.0 0.9 4.7 12.7 3.7 15.4 2.6 8.4 6: CSAH 42 & South Access Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.5 3.8 0.6 Total Del/Veh (s)41.9 4.1 28.7 9.1 33.6 2.0 23.5 7: West Access & 140th Street Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT NBL All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.3 4.3 0.5 8: East Access & 140th Street Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.1 0.6 0.1 4.8 2.3 0.7 SimTraffic Performance Report Long-Term (2045) Scenario 2 AM Peak Hour with Mitigation 05/27/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.6 Total Del/Veh (s)45.8 Queuing and Blocking Report Long-Term (2045) Scenario 2 AM Peak Hour with Mitigation 05/27/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 3 Intersection: 1: US 52 SB Ramps & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB SB SB Directions Served T T R L T T L LT R R Maximum Queue (ft) 359 285 33 156 121 146 336 345 157 74 Average Queue (ft)174 95 3 69 57 79 185 149 69 17 95th Queue (ft)302 225 14 140 105 124 311 267 126 54 Link Distance (ft)1086 1086 527 527 695 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)250 485 400 430 430 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 1 0 Intersection: 2: US 52 NB Ramps & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served L T T T T R LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 505 437 247 222 228 293 181 164 Average Queue (ft)329 91 49 114 117 98 70 58 95th Queue (ft)485 259 134 175 176 209 140 118 Link Distance (ft)527 527 712 712 703 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 2 Storage Bay Dist (ft)485 300 275 Storage Blk Time (%)1 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 4 0 0 1 Intersection: 3: CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB Directions Served L T T T T R L R Maximum Queue (ft) 189 182 164 88 136 31 26 110 Average Queue (ft)94 78 74 31 57 2 3 49 95th Queue (ft)171 149 140 74 114 16 15 96 Link Distance (ft)712 712 1441 1441 772 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 100 Storage Blk Time (%)1 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Queuing and Blocking Report Long-Term (2045) Scenario 2 AM Peak Hour with Mitigation 05/27/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 4 Intersection: 4: CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Movement SB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 46 Average Queue (ft)9 95th Queue (ft)29 Link Distance (ft)520 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Minnesota 55 & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L R L L T T T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 100 102 140 96 86 83 130 98 70 Average Queue (ft)31 40 81 30 28 27 62 20 14 95th Queue (ft)78 77 127 70 67 65 105 59 47 Link Distance (ft)705 1416 1416 862 862 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)260 365 365 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 6: CSAH 42 & South Access Movement EB EB EB WB WB SB Directions Served L L T T R L Maximum Queue (ft) 262 268 46 319 68 62 Average Queue (ft)168 187 7 188 18 17 95th Queue (ft)237 255 30 288 48 49 Link Distance (ft)1441 1441 7090 759 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 Queuing and Blocking Report Long-Term (2045) Scenario 2 AM Peak Hour with Mitigation 05/27/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 5 Intersection: 7: West Access & 140th Street Movement NB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 65 Average Queue (ft)10 95th Queue (ft)46 Link Distance (ft)717 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: East Access & 140th Street Movement WB NB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue (ft)5 31 Average Queue (ft)0 10 95th Queue (ft)4 33 Link Distance (ft)1090 727 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 7 SimTraffic Performance Report Long-Term (2045) Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour with Mitigation 05/27/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 1: US 52 SB Ramps & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5 2.4 0.0 0.0 2.9 3.8 1.3 Total Del/Veh (s)37.7 7.8 48.4 6.1 41.7 26.7 27.4 2: US 52 NB Ramps & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.8 3.7 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s)50.6 10.0 20.4 15.6 46.4 14.8 20.0 3: CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 3.8 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s)51.0 5.8 19.3 52.0 27.3 15.2 4: CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT WBR SBL All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)1.5 3.2 0.8 8.6 2.2 5: Minnesota 55 & CSAH 42 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 3.0 0.3 0.2 2.8 0.7 Total Del/Veh (s)41.4 12.3 19.7 3.0 16.0 3.9 13.7 6: CSAH 42 & South Access Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.3 0.7 2.2 3.5 1.3 Total Del/Veh (s)43.5 9.2 39.9 16.6 43.7 5.9 23.7 7: West Access & 140th Street Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT NBL All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.1 0.2 4.3 1.1 8: East Access & 140th Street Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.3 0.5 0.1 4.2 2.2 1.0 SimTraffic Performance Report Long-Term (2045) Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour with Mitigation 05/27/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.9 Total Del/Veh (s)51.8 Queuing and Blocking Report Long-Term (2045) Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour with Mitigation 05/27/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 3 Intersection: 1: US 52 SB Ramps & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB SB SB Directions Served T T R L T T L LT R R Maximum Queue (ft) 461 410 53 328 140 110 348 412 314 296 Average Queue (ft)310 256 14 188 21 26 170 221 195 148 95th Queue (ft)427 375 39 314 98 78 292 357 282 263 Link Distance (ft)1086 1086 527 527 695 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)250 485 400 430 430 Storage Blk Time (%)3 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)5 0 3 Intersection: 2: US 52 NB Ramps & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served L T T T T R LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 409 204 210 338 386 317 205 178 Average Queue (ft)265 113 95 131 125 130 95 77 95th Queue (ft)378 188 168 251 255 256 173 141 Link Distance (ft)527 527 712 712 703 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)485 300 275 Storage Blk Time (%)0 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)2 3 0 Intersection: 3: CSAH 42 & Conley Avenue Movement EB EB EB WB WB SB SB Directions Served L T T T T L R Maximum Queue (ft) 265 259 229 248 362 229 125 Average Queue (ft)116 58 45 110 142 45 91 95th Queue (ft)218 175 145 218 272 164 141 Link Distance (ft)712 712 1443 1443 772 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 100 Storage Blk Time (%)1 0 1 0 15 Queuing Penalty (veh) 4 0 0 0 2 Queuing and Blocking Report Long-Term (2045) Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour with Mitigation 05/27/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 4 Intersection: 4: CSAH 42 & 142nd Street Movement SB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 21 Average Queue (ft)7 95th Queue (ft)22 Link Distance (ft)520 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Minnesota 55 & CSAH 42 Movement EB EB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L R L L T T T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 59 240 220 159 72 52 303 259 39 Average Queue (ft)17 113 115 45 12 9 184 144 9 95th Queue (ft)43 202 182 109 48 35 275 240 32 Link Distance (ft)705 1416 1416 862 862 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)260 365 365 300 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 Intersection: 6: CSAH 42 & South Access Movement EB EB EB WB WB SB SB Directions Served L L T T R L R Maximum Queue (ft) 311 327 205 379 134 196 158 Average Queue (ft)186 202 87 210 57 102 16 95th Queue (ft)284 296 176 346 110 179 80 Link Distance (ft)1443 1443 7089 776 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 200 Storage Blk Time (%)0 1 2 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 3 3 2 0 Queuing and Blocking Report Long-Term (2045) Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour with Mitigation 05/27/2021 Rosemount AUAR SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 5 Intersection: 7: West Access & 140th Street Movement NB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 67 Average Queue (ft)19 95th Queue (ft)56 Link Distance (ft)782 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: East Access & 140th Street Movement NB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 31 Average Queue (ft)12 95th Queue (ft)36 Link Distance (ft)920 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 29 Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR August 2021 Appendix D Responses to Agency Comments 1. Introduction Pursuant to Minnesota Rules, part 4410.3610, subpart 5c, the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) shall revise the environmental analysis document based on comments received during the comment period. The RGU shall include in the document a section specifically responding to each timely, substantive comment received that indicates in what way the comment has been addressed. The 30-day Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR ) comment period began June 22, 2021, and comments were accepted through July 22, 2021. Six comment letters were received from government agencies. Responses to those comments are included in the following sections, and copies of the comment letters are included in Appendix E. 2. Dakota County Comment Response Geology, Soils, and Topography/Land Forms, (Item 10) The geologic description is inaccurate based on the geology from the attached well records show that there are alternating layers of sand, clay, and gravel to the first bedrock, Prairie du Chien Group. The top of the Prairie du Chien is at 133 feet at the south end of the site and 78 at the north end of the site. All three wells at the site are completed in the Prairie du Chien and the depth to the Jordan Sandstone is unknown. Comment noted. Applicable updates have been made to the Final AUAR. Water Resources (Item 11) Well construction records for the two irrigation and one water supply well are attached. The Well and Boring Sealing record for a domestic well that was sealed on the property in 1991 is also attached. All wells should be sealed by a licensed well contractor prior to demolition activities. Water Resources (Item 11) and mitigation plan in the Final AUAR has been revised to state that all wells will be sealed following Minnesota Department of Health and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency MPCA protocol. Comment Response Solid Wastes, Hazardous Wastes, and Storage Tanks (Item 12) A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was completed for the AUAR subject property. The ESA identified recognized environmental concerns. The County is not aware of any additional known or suspected sites from those identified. The County recommends following MN Department of Agriculture guidelines for golf courses to evaluate the potential for contamination from the historic uses of fungicide and herbicide https://www.mda.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/inline- files/golfcoursecontamination.pdf. The Phase II ESA should include evaluation of the property for impacts from historic fungicide and herbicide use. Comment noted. The Phase II Environmental Site Assessment will include the evaluation of historic uses. Historic Properties (Item 14) This section looks incomplete, the last sentence ends with “Error! Reference source not found.” This is a technical error intended to be a reference link to Appendix B. This was corrected in the Final AUAR. Comment Response Transportation (Item 18) The Rich Valley Golf AUAR is a large development and we are concerned that it may have significant impacts for County Road 42. The projected 8,595 (Scenario 1) or 21,000 new trips (Scenario 2) at this location will be difficult to accommodate given that County Road 42 is only a two-lane highway. This is an increase of two to four times the traffic volumes that are on County Road 42 today. The proposed addition of turn lanes and signals may not be adequate or the applicable actions to meet the safety and mobility needs for the corridor. A broader planning vision is required to accommodate this level of development, including the cumulative impacts from adjacent development. The city and the county have used this approach before and are currently working on a vision for County 42 on the west side of Highway 52 as part of the County Road 42 Visioning study. We have the following specific concerns: The recommendation of a full action traffic signal installation at Conley Avenue does not meet the county’s ½ mile spacing guidelines for a full access. To meet this criterion, the access would need to shift to the east, otherwise the Conley Avenue access location may become a limited access (potentially right-in/right-out) only in the future. The mitigation plan places a focus on the addition of turn lanes and of up to five traffic signals (Scenario 2) to improve operation during the peak hour, including a new signal at a new full access location for the development along CSAH 42. We do not support adding signals along CSAH 42 to address peak hour level of service failures. We have additional concerns for the potential of adding multiple dual left turns in the long-term without addressing the overall roadway needs of this existing 2-lane roadway segment. In many cases traffic signals will not improve safety and will impact overall mobility along County Road 42. The Developer will continue to work with the City of Rosemount and Dakota County to implement the mitigation strategies outlined in the Final AUAR and will work with Dakota County on implementing additional mitigation strategies as needed. Comment Response The AUAR only focuses on the level of service for the peak hours; traffic volumes and operation throughout the day will be considered when assessing the need for additional traffic control. This is because traffic signals tend to be the locations with the highest number and most severe crashes system wide. For this reason, county staff evaluates actual traffic conditions based on full day activity rather than only focusing on the peak hour as provided for in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices to determine justification for traffic control changes. Comment noted. We suggest the following improvements: The AUAR should place more focus on CSAH 42 access management. CSAH 42 is functionally classified as a principal arterial highway. County access spacing guidelines for a principal arterial highway is for full movement intersections at ½ mile intervals. The proposed full access location east of Highway 52 should be planned at the ½ mile location. Access spacing guidelines are likely to result in Conley Avenue, which is less than 800 feet from the Highway 52 northbound ramp, to become a right-in/right-out access in the future. The AUAR should include an internal roadway network that serves and supports the entire planned commercial area. An additional consideration should include the potential need for east-west connections besides only CSAH 42 to cross Highway 52. This is identified in the city’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 8, Figure 4 at 140th street. The AUAR should consider other traffic control measures and geometric designs to accommodate the entire planned commercial area. This should include: • The need for a divided median on CSAH 42 to accommodate left turn lanes and median restrictions to accommodate development access. • The need for left turn lanes and right turn lanes at the appropriate full access location on CSAH 42 (approximately ½ mile from Highway 52). A divided highway section may need to be considered to provide for the access management and safely accommodate U-turns and left turns along the corridor. Accesses to the development were determined using the Dakota County Access Spacing Guidelines. It is understood that Conley Avenue may need to have reduced access in the future. The Developer will continue to work with Dakota County to implement the mitigation strategies outlined in the Final AUAR and will work with Dakota County on implementing additional mitigation strategies as needed. Comment Response The AUAR should consider Highway 55 assessment and recommendations for changes. This should specifically include potential geometric changes at the Highway 55 and CSAH 42 intersection. The recommendations identified several considerations for this intersection, none of which including signalizing the intersection. Please refer to the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s Highway 55 Road Safety Audit Report for additional details at https://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/safety/rsa/highway-55- road-safety-audit-report-final.pdf The AUAR Traffic Impact Analysis addressed the potential changes in Highway 55 Road Safety Audit Report. However, since the RSA did not provide a timeline or preferred mitigation solution, the AUAR analysis did not include the RSA mitigation. It should be noted that the mitigation required at CSAH 42 & Highway 55 is primarily background traffic and the proposed AUAR development is not anticipated to be the driving force behind the mitigation at the intersection. Other Potential Environmental Impacts (Item 20) There is a one reference in the AUAR to monitoring wells at the site in Table on page 50. There are no other references to existing or proposed monitoring wells. We believe they may mean to state that the two irrigation and one domestic well will be properly sealed by a licensed well contractor, “abandoned” is not the proper term. Comment noted. Applicable updates have been made to the Final AUAR. 3. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Comment Response Water Resources (Item 11) 1. Page 27, Stormwater - If infiltration is not feasible, please consider using stormwater ponds as a source of water for landscape irrigation. Comment noted. This approach will be evaluated as the AUAR study area redevelops. Comment Response 2. Page 27, Stormwater - The planned increase in impervious surfaces will also increase the amount of road salt used in the project area. Chloride released into local lakes and streams does not break down, and instead accumulates in the environment, potentially reaching levels that are toxic to aquatic wildlife and plants. Consider promoting local business and city participation in the Smart Salting Training offered through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. There are a variety of classes available for road applicators, sidewalk applicators, and property managers. More information and resources can be found at this website. Many winter maintenance staff who have attended the Smart Salting training — both from cities and counties and from private companies — have used their knowledge to reduce salt use and save money for their organizations. We also encourage cities and counties to provide public outreach to reduce the overuse of chloride. Comment noted. The City currently monitors for chloride in some ponds as part of its water quality management program. Additionally, through the City’s snow plowing policy and MS4 permit, they are selective on where deicing chemicals are used. The maintenance staff are current on Smart Salting Certifications and the city does education on reducing salt to the public. 3. Page 28, Water Appropriation - Rich Valley Golf Course currently has two DNR Water Appropriation Permits for irrigating the golf course grounds: DNR Water Appropriation Permit 1992-6040 and 1989-6010. The owner of the property will need to either transfer these DNR Water Appropriation Permits to the new owners of the property, or terminate the DNR Water Appropriation Permits if the wells will not be used. If the wells will not be used, the wells should be sealed and the sealings sent to the DNR when the termination of the permit is requested. Comment noted. The wells will be sealed and the sealings sent to the DNR if the termination of the permit is requested. Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources (Rare Features) (Item 13) 4. Page 37-38, State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species - The DNR concurs with the assessment that negative impacts to known occurrences of rare features are not anticipated. Please contact NHIS Review Specialist, Samantha Bump (Samantha.Bump@state.mn.us), if plans change and tree and shrub removal will occur during Loggerhead Shrike breeding season, April through July. Comment noted. Comment Response 5. Page 38, Effects to Wildlife Habitat - We appreciate that native plants and seed mixes will be incorporated into landscaping and stormwater features as much as possible to provide pollinator habitat. Comment noted. 4. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Comment Response Water Resources (Item 11) Wastewater The wastewater discussion should include information about the capability of the existing sewer system to accept the increased wastewater flow and if any expansion of the existing sewer is required for the Project. Comment noted. The design wastewater flow calculations are listed under Item 11 of the in the Final AUAR. Stormwater The Draft AUAR stormwater section should include not just the permanent stormwater treatment plans, but also specific erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be utilized during construction to prevent transport of sediment offsite. The City is also encouraged to require use of green infrastructure practices as part of the stormwater management plan that mimic the natural hydrology of the site and reduce the amount of stormwater generated from new impervious surfaces. Additional practices may include limiting the amount of new impervious surfaces through use of narrower streets and sidewalks, incorporation of bioinfiltration areas and/or tree trenches within parking areas and use of permeable pavements, which also help to reduce chloride use. Also, maximize open space and tree canopy on the site. Comment noted. Developers will evaluate and implement alternative stormwater management infrastructure as redevelopment occurs with the AUAR study area as appropriate. Comment Response The surface water section must also identify receiving waters within one mile of the site and any water impairments of the receiving waters. If there are construction-related impairments, include additional BMPs required during construction. Comment noted. A statement regarding waterbodies identified by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) Part 303d Impaired Waters List has been added to the AUAR. The cumulative impacts section should include discussion about potential environmental impacts of adding additional impervious surfaces from the urban expansion, such as potential downstream water quality effects of increased urban pollutants and increased flows and how these might be mitigated. The development scenarios are proposing increased impervious surfaces within the AUAR study area. The proposed development includes stormwater management techniques to minimize impacts to downstream waters. As noted in the stormwater section, the proposed treatment will minimize water quality effects of increased urban pollutants for the City of Rosemount. Surface Water Section 8 of the Draft AUAR does not include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 Permit or MPCA 401 Water Quality Certification. However, Section 11 of the Draft AUAR indicates that approximately 2.18 acres of wetlands are located within the Project study area and are listed in Table 7. These wetlands appear to be constructed ponds within the golf course. Significant impacts to these existing ponds are anticipated and the removal of these wetlands will require the purchase of wetland banking credits for compensatory wetland mitigation. If after further review and comment the USACE Section 404 permit is then required, the MPCA 401 will also be required as well. For further information about the 401 Water Quality Certification process, please contact Bill Wilde at 651-757-2825 or william.wilde@state.mn.us. Comment noted. A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit and a MPCA Section 401 permit have been added to the list of required permits within the AUAR. Comment Response Solid Wastes, Hazardous Wastes, and Storage Tanks (Item 12) Please note that golf courses have the potential for contamination from past pesticide use (including mercury) and from past storage and handling of pesticides and fertilizers. Information regarding soil sampling is available on the Minnesota Department of Agriculture website at: Guidance Document 30 - Soil Sampling at Golf Courses for Contamination | Minnesota Department of Agriculture. Comment noted. Other Potential Environmental Impacts (Item 20) Chloride (salt) is a growing issue for lakes, streams, and groundwater around the state. Chloride can come from both de-icing salt and water softener salt. For the proposed Project, the MPCA recommends smart salting practices for de-icing streets and driveways during the winter weather months and water softening best practices be used year-round. Additional resources are available at https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/statewide-chloride-resources. Comment noted. The City currently monitors for chloride in some ponds as part of its water quality management program. Additionally, through the City’s snow plowing policy and MS4 permit, they are selective on where deicing chemicals are used. The maintenance staff are current on Smart Salting Certifications and the city does education on reducing salt to the public. 5. Metropolitan Council Comment Response Permits and Approvals Required (Item 8) As described below in the Item. 9 – Land use, a comprehensive plan amendment will be required if Scenario 1 is the preferred alternative for development. Comment noted. This action is listed in Table 3: Permits and Approvals Required. Comment Response Land Use (Item 9) The Draft AUAR discusses two development scenarios. Scenario 1 describes a “max development” alternative, with 2,140,000 sq. ft. of warehouse and office. Scenario 2 is the “Comprehensive Plan” scenario with 1,455,000 sq. ft. of commercial and warehouse and office space. The Draft AUAR study site is a small part of Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) #727 (the area north of Hwy 42, east of Highway 52, and west of Highway 55). TAZ allocations for 2040 have been prepared by the City. The City’s 2040 Plan expects TAZ #727 will gain +800 jobs during 2020-2040. This allocation may be insufficient considering the AUAR scenarios. Should the AUAR area be fully redeveloped as described in the development scenarios, then Council staff would recommend increasing the TAZ allocation in this area. Comment noted. If this occurs, the City will coordinate with the Metropolitan Council to increase the TAZ allocations. The City’s adopted 2040 Plan guides the northern portion of the site as Light Industrial, and the southern portion of the proposed site as Commercial. If Scenario 1 is the preferred alternative, the southern portion of this site will need to be required to allow the proposed uses identified in the Draft AUAR materials. All proposed land uses must be consistent with the City’s adopted 2040 Plan. Comment noted. A comprehensive plan amendment has been added to the list of required permits within the AUAR. Water Resources (Item 11) The Draft AUAR states that, “As part of this proposed development, a city sanitary sewer trunk main will be extended from existing MCES sanitary sewer lift station L74 north of 104th Street…” The underlined text above is incorrect, and should be amended to the state the following, “As part of this proposed development, a city sanitary sewer trunk main will be extended from existing MCES interceptor sanitary sewer lift station on L74, property north of 140th Street through the proposed development and stubbed to the south side of CR 42.” Comment noted. This sentence has been re- worded in the Final AUAR. Comment Response This section states that, “Alternative stormwater management methods that may be considered to provide adequate stormwater rate, volume, and quality controls include underground stormwater filtration, underground stormwater re-use, surface biofiltration, white roofs, and landscaping/shading of parking lot and surface stormwater management areas.” Council staff recommend considering the use of surface parking lot canopies with green roofs with solar installation capability, integrated into those surface parking lot canopies. Also, we recommend considering the use of green roofs on the rooftops of future developments. Green roofs reduce thermal loading, increase building energy efficiency, support stormwater retention and detention needs, mitigate the urban heat island effect, improve air quality, and provide habitat to help replace the proposed 100+ acres of new impervious surfaces being brought to the study area. Solar panels reduce pollution that would otherwise be generated by the region’s primarily carbon- fuel-based energy system. Comment noted. Developers will evaluate and implement alternative stormwater management infrastructure as redevelopment occurs with the AUAR study area as appropriate. Air (Item 16) Council staff recommend city staff consider the integration of Electric Vehicles (EV), or EV-ready, charging infrastructure at this proposed development to support and help offset the air emissions produced by the projected 8,595 – 21,465 daily trips. Great Plains Institute’s “Becoming Electric Vehicle Ready” guideline document (https://www.driveelectricmn.org/becoming-ev-ready/) may be helpful. Comment noted. If appropriate, developers will consider EV or E-ready infrastructure as redevelopment occurs with the AUAR study area. Transportation (Item 18) The proposed mitigation plans for US Highway 52 mentioned on Table 12 of the Draft AUAR will need to be reviewed and analyzed by MNDOT. Comment noted. Any improvements will be reviewed by the appropriate public entity. Coordination with MNDOT is ongoing. 6. Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office Comment Response Historic Resources (Item 14) Based on our review of the documentation, we conclude that there are no properties listed in 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 license or permit, it should be submitted to our office by the responsible federal agency. Comment noted. Thank you for your comment. 7. Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization Comment Response Land Use (Item 9) Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization: The VRWJPO suggests adding language under this section for clarity on the VRWJPO’s regulatory role in redevelopment of the site. Based on the regulatory framework in the VRWJPO regarding water and natural resources, the City has chosen to adopt the VRWJPO Standards into the City’s ordinances, so approvals related to the VRWJPO Standards will be handled by the City. Thank you for your comment, applicable updates have been made to the Final AUAR. Comment Response Water Resources (Item 11) Existing regional basins 3049 and 1814 are identified within this section, but there is no mention of them prior to this section. We recommend identifying these regional basins so it’s clear where these basins are located. If the basins are the two existing ponds on site that have been identified, then this should be clearly stated and/or shown in the exhibits. These regional basins include the two existing ponds and the Final AUAR has been revised to state this. This section indicates that municipal water supply will provide the developed site with water. In Section 11, a. ii. three existing wells are identified within the AUAR area. We suggest providing details regarding the discontinuation of use for these three wells and well sealing, as applicable. Water Resources (Item 11) and mitigation plan in the Final AUAR has been revised to state that all wells will be sealed following Minnesota Department of Health and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency MPCA protocol. This section indicates that if three feet of separation cannot be provided to existing groundwater, alternative stormwater methods will be implemented. We concur with this methodology but disagree with some of the approaches listed. Underground infiltration would not be compatible with a groundwater that interferes with the ability to achieve surface infiltration. Similarly, temperature of stormwater runoff is a less significant concern at this location given the lack of proximity of the site to the Vermillion River or its tributaries. While there may be other benefits to implementing white roofs and landscaping/shading practices for purposes of energy efficiency, implementing these practices to mitigate the temperature of stormwater runoff may not be as justified as investing in other practices that target volume control. Comment noted. Developers will evaluate and implement appropriate stormwater management infrastructure as redevelopment occurs with the AUAR study area. Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR August 2021 Appendix E Agency Comment Letters Study Physical Development Division  P 952‐891‐7000   F 952‐891‐7031   W www.dakotacounty.us  A Dakota County Western Service Center  •  14955 Galaxie Ave.  •  Apple Valley  •  MN 55124  July 21, 2021  Kyle Klatt  City of Rosemount  2875 145th St W  Rosemount, MN 55068  Thank you for the opportunity to review the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for Rich Valley Golf Club.  County Physical Development staff reviewed the document and offer the following comments for consideration.  Environmental Resources  Environmental Resources staff conducted a review of the Rich Valley Golf Club Draft AUAR request and has the  following comments:  10.Geology, Soils, and Topography/Land Forms, a., Page 17 The geologic description is  inaccurate based on the geology from the attached well records show that there are alternating layers of sand, clay, and gravel to the first bedrock, Prairie du Chien Group. The top of the Prairie du Chien is at 133 feet at the south end of the site and 78 at the north end of the site. All three wells at the site are completed in the Prairie du Chien and the depth to the Jordan Sandstone is unknown. 11.Water Resources, a. ii.,  Pages 21‐22 Well construction records for the two irrigation and one water supply well are attached.  The Well and Boring Sealing record for a domestic well that was sealed on the property in 1991 is also attached. All wells should be sealed by a licensed well contractor prior to demolition activities. 12.Solid Wastes, Hazardous Wastes, and Storage Tanks, a., Pages 31‐35 A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was completed for the AUAR subject property. The ESA identified recognized environmental concerns.  The County is not aware of any additional known or suspected sites from those identified.  The County recommends following MN Department of Agriculture guidelines for golf courses to evaluate the potential for contamination from the historic uses of fungicide and herbicide https://www.mda.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/inline‐files/golfcoursecontamination.pdf. The Phase II ESA should include evaluation of the property for impacts from historic fungicide and herbicide use. 14.Historic Properties, Page 39 This section looks incomplete, the last sentence ends with “Error! Reference source not found.” Physical Development Division  P 952‐891‐7000   F 952‐891‐7031   W www.dakotacounty.us  A Dakota County Western Service Center  •  14955 Galaxie Ave.  •  Apple Valley  •  MN 55124  20.Other Potential Environmental Impacts, Page 51 There is a one reference in the AUAR to monitoring wells at the site in Table on page 50.  There are no other references to existing or proposed monitoring wells. We believe they may mean to state that the two irrigation and one domestic well will be properly sealed by a licensed well contractor, “abandoned” is not the proper term. Contact Environmental Resources at 952‐891‐7000 or environ@co.dakota.mn.us for additional information.   Transportation   The Rich Valley Golf AUAR is a large development and we are concerned that it may have significant impacts for  County Road 42. The projected 8,595 (Scenario 1) or  21,000 new trips (Scenario 2) at this location will be difficult  to accommodate given that County Road 42 is only a two‐lane highway. This is an increase of two to four times the  traffic volumes that are on County Road 42 today. The proposed addition of turn lanes and signals may not be  adequate or the applicable actions to meet the safety and mobility needs for the corridor. A broader planning  vision is required to accommodate this level of development, including the cumulative impacts from adjacent   Physical Development Division  P 952‐891‐7000   F 952‐891‐7031   W www.dakotacounty.us  A Dakota County Western Service Center  •  14955 Galaxie Ave.  •  Apple Valley  •  MN 55124  development. The city and the county have used this approach before and are currently working on a vision for  County 42 on the west side of Highway 52 as part of the County Road 42 Visioning study.  We have the following specific concerns:  •The recommendation of a full action traffic signal installation at Conley Avenue does not meet the county’s ½ mile spacing guidelines for a full access.  To meet this criterion, the access would need to shift to the east, otherwise the Conley Avenue access location may become a limited access (potentially right‐ in/right‐out) only in the future. The mitigation plan places a focus on the addition of turn lanes and of up to five traffic signals (Scenario 2) to improve operation during the peak hour, including a new signal at a new full access location for the development along CSAH 42.  We do not support adding signals along CSAH 42 to address peak hour level of service failures.  We have additional concerns for the potential of adding multiple dual left turns in the long‐term without addressing the overall roadway needs of this existing 2‐lane roadway segment.  In many cases traffic signals will not improve safety and will impact overall mobility along County Road 42. •The AUAR only focuses on the level of service for the peak hours; traffic volumes and operation throughout the day will be considered when assessing the need for additional traffic control. This is because traffic signals tend to be the locations with the highest number and most severe crashes system wide.  For this reason, county staff evaluates actual traffic conditions based on full day activity rather than only focusing on the peak hour as provided for in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices to determine justification for traffic control changes We suggest the following improvements:  •The AUAR should place more focus on CSAH 42 access management.  CSAH 42 is functionally classified as a principal arterial highway.  County access spacing guidelines for a principal arterial highway is for full movement intersections at ½ mile intervals.  The proposed full access location east of Highway 52 should be planned at the ½ mile location.  Access spacing guidelines are likely to result in Conley Avenue, which is less than 800 feet from the Highway 52 northbound ramp, to become a right‐in/right‐out access in the future. •The AUAR should include an internal roadway network that serves and supports the entire planned commercial area.  An additional consideration should include the potential need for east‐west connections besides only CSAH 42 to cross Highway 52.  This is identified in the city’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 8, Figure 4 at 140th street. •The AUAR should consider other traffic control measures and geometric designs to accommodate the entire planned commercial area.  This should include: o The need for a divided median on CSAH 42 to accommodate left turn lanes and median restrictions to accommodate development access. o The need for left turn lanes and right turn lanes at the appropriate full access location on CSAH 42 (approximately ½ mile from Highway 52).  A divided highway section may need to be considered to provide for the access management and safely accommodate U‐turns and left turns along the corridor. •The AUAR should consider Highway 55 assessment and recommendations for changes.  This should specifically include potential geometric changes at the Highway 55 and CSAH 42 intersection.  The recommendations identified several considerations for this intersection, none of which including signalizing the intersection.  Please refer to the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s Highway 55 Road Safety Audit Report for additional details at https://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/safety/rsa/highway‐55‐road‐safety‐audit‐report‐final.pdf Physical Development Division  P 952‐891‐7000   F 952‐891‐7031   W www.dakotacounty.us  A Dakota County Western Service Center  •  14955 Galaxie Ave.  •  Apple Valley  •  MN 55124  If you have questions or comments about the above suggested improvements, Dakota County Transportation staff  is available to work with the city and the developer to explore site specific mitigation efforts on CSAH 42 and also  to discuss safety and mobility for the overall corridor.   If you have any questions relating to our comments, please contact me at 952‐891‐7007 or  Steven.Mielke@co.dakota.mn.us   Sincerely,  Steven C. Mielke, Director  Physical Development Division  cc:   Commissioner Joe Atkins, District 5           Matt Smith, County Manager  STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Ranae Number Sec!ian No. 18 ; .30 WATER WELL RECORD MINNESOTA UNIQUE WEUN0.1 � /j 3 8 5 2 5 Mi■-Slal•lal56A.OJ-.08 • fo,Wtlllf"S-,,-. ·p '-t • ,._ . Fraction l :I � 'A 'A 4. WEU.·DEPTH (a,n,pletedl 1.$4 ft. ,/,.., Dimnce and Directian Iran Raad lntmeclian c.- Ml and City of Well Location ·_. �-. L--15:. 5-Y:: C,. !"•euct N "th "'X."' I i I I Addi�N -�,---;· -t-1-t- 111111. 5. DRll.LING METHOD I□ Cable tool 40Revaw 70Dmen ICD l>q 20 lfollow ral 5IJ Air 80 Bc.-ed II□ �60Jetted !ICJl'mnrla-6. DRll.LING FLUID =-----------i l l I I ·-•--i--..:-,-w I I I ' E �-W--:--t-T I : I l&•i. _._ � - � --�- 1 I I I I Block Number I.al Nwnber ex parcel 4 & Ci.t7 11 - W M 21 7. USE !Jffomestic :a!Hh;ption 30Tes1 w,n t------.....:.l .::;1111::;;·•=----· --------------------�8. CASING 2. PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME 1i:Liaci. 20Galv. Addraa 40 Monitari111 5IJ Public 60Municipal 70 Air CondiliDni!II 80 Heat Pump 90 Industry IOCJ Cclmmacial 11□---- 40 Thfflllled 5IJ W,lded HEIGHT: Ay:Below Surf __ ........._-=--ft. Drive Shoe? ves.!. No...._ 3. FORMATION LOG COWR HARDNESS Gt FROM TO FORMATION 30 Plaat' 6 . 6078 1n.10 10 in.to as in. to ft. ft. ft. Weight Weight W•isht lbs.flt. !llJt lbs.flt. �l a t. lbs.flt. �I t. l-!.'f!!!l!.....1so!!!?!:u�nm!!!::!!'!Dc1!!!!!_1:::R����L_--..+:!��-1-�-1-..L........1 9. SCREEN looae 0 Make ________ _ :.,open�s i-,..;;;CJ�q=-&-..::1gra::..:......_:val __ �,,...,�P�1-=v._:s+--m:1.xad-----+---�;__-+-1_2--1 Typ, _________ _loom s ft.ID. 154 ft. Di Slat/Gaua,, ____________ _ 12 Blg paval 01"8llge 34. Set between __ ft. and __ ft. l..efl8I FITTINGS: 88 t--------'=-=---------'"------l,-----==------1,------1---+----4 loose Date Measured 5/23/88 tight S1 hrs. pumping _ _.?i:;.,$.,0.,._ ____ s.p.m. ____ ft_ after ____ hrs. pumping _______ s-p.m . .53 1,....:==-------___.::����--4....!li!C::...::L-----4...::::�;:;,:_--4_::::=:....4-...:S::.:9� 12. HEAD WELL COMPLETION I□ Pitl,ss adaplff. manufactur,r _______ _ S9 20 Basement offset 30 At least 12" ah<M sround 4CJ Plastic casing protection_ d3. WELL GROUTED? Ull?lnal ____ _j�L�!2.W�ll1BiL_l..J1Bi....--l___5;!1..j_Jil....J □No I □ Neat Cement 20 Bentonite 30 -----------�--1;..._ ____ ......:,_L=-�=---1...a=---�l-====-l,......;:;.L.-+--=-� Grout material CQ;l;g9 from� 1e,___j)___ ft. cu. yds __ _ Bocks 11. REMARKS. EU:VAT1ON . soURc Ei DA • . Lot-Block / 4 . 0 Plat Book / 5 · [D.,-fflro: From Owner '6-�1� F i · rom Neighbor I 7 · Other_s rrf.p WJE.I _ _Q__�an't Locate State Why 14. NEAREST SOURCES OF POSSIBIE CONTAMINATION ___ mrecrion ------..,....,.---'YI" Yes □No -------------□ Not installed ___________ HP ___ VollL...-- ft. capacity This well was drilled under my jurisdiction and this report is true to the best of my knowlats,e and belid. s.p.m. -----,.H:JdH11�8tili&epjfffAAVl8!eBl�..,,,_ler ____ ri,,1e &/1 Q/88 ( II. I ■ AllllftllUP -·· .I STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH .------2'ill-t-----7llt}--c.:=:11""._..,f.11-------, WATER WEL-1. 1lEC8RD MINNESOTA UNIQUE WEU NO. I 4 60141 I County Name t},. J _~ I MiHODla Slai.la l56A.0J-.08 far Waln Sa,yl, . . 'A 4. WEU DEPTH (completed> ~.~A 5. DRILLING"MET~OD OCableTool I Date of Completion It. ?-9'~·J'? □Dus I Sllow exact IOC8b0n Ill well in section grid with "X." Sketch map of well loa1110n. I I N , , Addition Name G~&; a J ~ -:3:!- 0 HallowKod .,Ji!1Gary a Reverse □Air □Jelled a Driven a Bored □----- 3. ·-,--....--.l-1-.&.-~-' ~~,. I I I I C.(c.-b W ·-f--1-,--!-~-E Block Number If)' UetJ/ /p"$e./ J ._l ' -t-T 1--~--:-----1.ll,,_ ti> • A - i--..-1 --+--,-;----..,.:---, --t ~lmi. Lot Number -t Jlt 9 -•-, --, --,--~ I I ' I I /'IS~~r.e.. t---I r,,ilt ----- FORMATION LOG Mailing Address if different than property address indicated above. COWR TO 6. DRILLING FLUID 7. USE □Domestic ~tion a Test Well 8. CASING J;jl'lllack 0 Threaded □Galv. ,1!1"9,'elded a Plastic a 1,,/ in. to 1.-l,.< in. to in. to - . - a Monitoring 0 Public OMunicipal a Power "Auger n. □Heat Pump □Industry a Commercial 0 Air Conditioning □----- ft. It. It. HEIGHT: Above/Below -S~rfai:e / IL Drive Shoe? y.,,L No__ Weigh1A'7z lbs.tit. Weight ___ _ lbs.tit. Weight ___ _ 1~./11. HOLE DIAM. kn. ,o.JJJj; __jn. tc,____lt. __jn_ tc,____lt. 9. SCREEN Make < -.-~/J -. g L. • ..JI.J. o' -I l---"~~1A.~,~~~~------+----A:;;iZ.J! ~ __ !1,/~,L~· •4--.=::_~.!:...._....,.J..__:3~---4--,l;~ll,(6,:.--I Type ________ l_~_ro~_z_n_~_~ - a 1 ~ I Slot/Gauze ______________ _ It.to. 43(.> ft. Diam. Lengt• /) ~ ---• ~~ hn rL.,. ~-......:-<::....~~-CJ:<ll"'~a!/:.. 1 ,1..! C....,-!!~y:;-~~L----11---ll'Ci_l;.,'.da:l.!!:...L.~S.-'~ ,_--F/:l:!:'.:_µ!J:6!,J~--P~~:s:!-1 Set between ___ ft_ and ___ ft. FITTINGS: 11 C ~ ,, J /, . J..-. 1'. --, 10. STAJ1C ~R LEVEL 1------'f'~-U•, "'=~-..,~1.-----------+-------+/¥~..:l,6-~::::....V..+-~,o~...:,~,µ:/:.Ji!/J:_-1 ---~S--J~--~--'t-~ □above Date Measured ..r A land surface 1----'/ . .dld,,,.~.-'4-~C/~<,.J.j_0:J_t!!:1::l/)L!.~!.d~~-~·!!:··lJ,.~l-6.),1""4;~z..,-"-".'-----ll-..,L.~!i!Y,~'}~~~(j~•_j•:...J_·_.~(Ei_n'..._'_J,/t.B.~!.2J:..~_Jt--:--:-11=-=P=UM==PIN::G=LE""11""'~E"'a~;;;;t~"'be:lo:w:l:and:=•=urf:a=ce-~-rs-.p-u-m-p-ing-_-_-_-:_-:::~~~=====-g-.p-.m-.---l 11 /'} I I It. after hrs. pumping ________ g.p.m. l--~/,a!:5-~-~'·!!!:~-L-/1.~-:iw:;"·~-~-c:::...-1-....1'3::ll!,.,~--~-~:.._~#~~:....::::::.._~ll~.n..~<~~~C3~.J~1-2.""'H,-::E-,-,AD,...,WE""" . ..,.L.,...L..,.CO..,.M""'P,,..,LE""'T"'IO""N,---------------,.---f j £ J OPitlessadapter manulacturer _________ Model A · I/ .-, J / I , " A .,, I □ Basement offset O At least 12"' above ground Y.. #'# _. T.J · -~ .,. f¥ · 1,/~ M. <A □ Plastic casing pr:otection_ 13. WELL GROUTED? !B"f'es O No O Neat Cement ~ntonite O ____________ _ Grout material _______ from __Q__ ,aLM: It. cu. ydsR_ 14. NEAREST SOURCES OF POSSIBIE CONTAMINA~ ~feet __N_direction ---'<--1<~:;pc,:=e._----'lype 1----------------t-------t-----+---t-----t Well disinfected upon completion? Jl'f.,s O No 1---------------+---------1----+---+------l l---------------+---------1----+---+-----I ·ll~ a s«ond shul, if nmkd LOCAL COPY 1460141 15. PUMP Date installed _______________ JJ'f(o, installed Manufacturer's name-------------------- Model number _____________ HP ___ Volt.,___ Length of drop pipe, ________ ft. Capacity ______ g.p.m. Material of drop pipe -------------------- Type: a Submersible O L.S. Turbine O Reciprocating □Jet a Centrifugal a ________________ _ 16. ABANDONEOWELLS Unused well on property? O Yes O No Sealed 0 Permanent a Temporary a Not sealed 18. WATER WELL CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION -This well was drilled under my jurisdiction and this report is true to the best of my Address .£,7-/ ~-.lvJ,r,?,.._,;..._;, Li'!FB"'i=~=~ , , Lic~No. Signed ~ ., Da,•..,_•_ /~Representattue -------------,,:---:--:c-c,-:------Dat.•~---- Name of Drtller IIE-01205-03(Rev. 9188) 5/74 30M 7178 30M 7/78 30M 2/82 IOM -,r •· --•--.... -·· .... -... -~ -::i11ilNESQ_T~ IJ_Nl{/Ut" !"tL-f'NO. ·I I I. LOCATION OF =• LI .; 'WATER WELL RECORD .••4·75,934 County Name I AQl-7006 Minnesota Slolu/es /56A.0l-.08 · /or Wat,·r Sample · · .... _... ... -ih STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPAiri:MENT 9F HEA,!-TA·. :,_,..,~_ • •. Township Name ro~;; Num~'f an;;umM Sec;No. rr;/4 4. WELL DEPTH (completed! I Date of, C~m;letion Resemount Ntm'' 147 ft. ,.,,,. -8/2/91 Numerical Street Address and City of Well Location or Distance trom Road Intersection. 5. DRILLING METHOD D Reverse , ,-~-~ DrJn '146 □Drt 3758 140th Street E., Rosemount, MN 55068 D Cable Tool ---la Snow exacl location of well in section grid with "X." Sketch map of well location. D Hollow~od □Air Q Bored D N JtKotary I -~~ I I Addition Name □Jelled '· D Power Auger -.. --,L_ ·-,--I I 6. DRILLING FLUID ' I I I ~,.¢1 ·1tt, Bentonite I 1' t,lCIP u)ell . --~ -_.,_ --,-,-Block Number 7. USE I w I I I ' E ,., I ' T \}noe l □ Domestic D Monitoring D Heat Pump _.,__ --f-I -,-I Lot Number Q(rrigation D Public D Industry I y_,mi. : I I 1 D Test Well 0 Municipal □ Commercial __ ,_ I ,--,--,--c;o. Rc:i. :5~ D Air Conditioning D ' I 1---I mile ------i 8. CASING HEIGHT~elow HOLE DIAM. 2. PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME Mailing Address if different than propeny address QO!lack D Threaded indicated above. Surface fl. Ray Rahn OGalv. ]{Welded Drive Shoe? Yesx_ No_ Rich Valley Golf D Plastic D Course Well #2 10 in. to 83 fl. Weight 40 lbs.th. 1.6n. lo 8311 3. FORMATION LOG COLOR HARDNESS Qt FROM TO in. to ft, Weight lbs.th. ....8n. 11A'L1. FORMATION in. to fl, Weight lbs.lft. __jn. to--1t. Top Soil mack Soft 0 2 9. SCRF;EN I Or'openM 147 from Ct. 10. ft. Make Sand/Coarse Gravel Yellow Med 2 42 Type Diam. Slot/Gauze Length FITTINGS: Goarse Gravel/Boulders Tan Med 42 67 Set between ___ ft. and ___ ft. Clay /Coarse Gravel Red Med 67 80 IO. STATIC WATER LEVEL 30.5 ft. i,a,.1ow D above Date Measured 7/.9/!J] land surface ... II. PUMPING LEVEL (below land surface) Limestone ,. \o.\c· Yellow Hard 80 147 34 4 300 :--ft. af1er hrs. pumping g.p.m. ft. after hrs. pumping g.p.m. 12. HEAD WELL COMPLETION 0 Pitless adapter manufacturer Model :□ Basement.offset Jj Al least 12·· above ground □ Plastic casing protection ___ 13. WELL GROUTED? 'XYes D No 0 Neal Cement QOkn1onitl' D Grout material Bentonite from __Q__ 10_83__ fl. cu. yds.~ ------, ___ ------·--- l•I. NEAKEST SOURCES OF POSSIBLE CONTAMINATION _15..__feet _____B,_ direction Fuel Storage type Well disinfected upon completion? c:Kes □No 15. PUMP Date installed 8-2-91 □ Not installed Manufacturer's name Anerican Turbine PumpCo. Model number M10L30 HP~ Volts 230 3 PH Length of drop pipe 50 fl. Capacity 300 g.p.m. ·Material of drop pipe 6° mack TUrbine catumn Type: D Submersible Xt.s, Turbine 0 Reciprocating □Jet D Centrifugal D 16. ABANDONED WEI..LS Unused well on property? ilves □No - Use a second sheet. if ~eded Sealed D Permanent D Temporary D Nol sealed 17. REMARKS. ELEVATION, SOURCE OF DATA, etc. ; · 18. WATER WELL CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION ® rn D w This well was drilled under my jurisdiction and this report is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. Maher Well Drilling, Ine. 19301 licensl!e Bwiness Name license No. Address 17530 Red Wing Blvd. Hastinqs Signed 7c:?2??J?~~ Dal .. ~= __ i Terry Auihorl2ed Represenlaltue Maher/Myron Johnson D;t• 7/9/91 Name of Driller 1475934 S/74 30M LOCAL COPY 7/76 30M . 7/78 30M HE-01205-0J(Rev. 9/88) 2/82 10M STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH q/ -q L { ( ABANDONED Wfil RECORD -.-o L 3 0 '-/ 1, LOCATION OF WELL· MINNESOTA UNIQUE WELL NO. , I County Name [)AKDTA -=#'q/-C/l./1 I (leave blank If not known) Township Naa,e Township Nua,ber Range Nua,ber Section No. Fraction 4. WELL DEPTH (coa,pleted) Date sealed @ E .. i. of .. I./ 3 ft. RO 5£ fv1 Ow.IT' //5' or /8 or 30 t,/£ NE J,,/111 q-30-q, s © Numerical Street Address and City of Well Location or Distance froa, Road 5. DRILLING METHOD (if known) Intersection 10 Cable tool 0 Reverse 711 Driven llQ Dug !,150 lt/o-t!i 5T. /<05€MouAIT ,M,J 2[J Ho 11 ow Rod OA1r 0 Bored ii[] I Show exact location of well 3[J Rotary 60 Jetted !l[J Power Auger ( in section grid with •x•) Sketch a,ap of well location 6. OBSTRUCTIONS H C() Lo 36 We 11 obstructed O Yes ■ Ho -!><. I ' Obstructions rta11ved O Yes O No If obstructions cannot be -l • . . -. -~ .. \__ .-!) I ' r1110ved, contact HOH I I .. ; .. 1_:_ "' .l!!!2.!:!. sealfng • w -.. -. -E • I • 117 . ' I ' r l>,.,..,t. 7. USE .. -.. .. -. -> -l ■Domstic 0 Monitoring 0 Heat Loop ' ' ' I a....:. 3 ~IT ~ l ::c .. 20 Irrigation 0 Public !l[J Industry .. , .. .. . , .. -., .. -... - ' ' . (Hou~] 0 Test Well 60 Municipal 110 Co11111ercial s 7[] Air Conditioning 10 t---larit. Z. PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME Ha11ing Address if different than 8. CASING(S) property address Indicated above 10 Slack 4[J Threaded 0 fl.A'/ RAHN z■Galv. 0 Welded O Plastic 60 Stainless Steel HARDNESS OF .;i. in. to 3,'1 ft. J. F0RHA Tl ON LOG COLOR FORNATION FROM TO If not known, indicate fora,atlon log fro■ new well or nearby well. in. to ft. 5 At.JD/ hl!AI/ EL MED. D I.J 3, 9. SCREEN fro■ 3'1 ft. to _!l,l_ ft. ■ Screened we 11 ( If known) D Open Hole fro■ --ft. to --ft. 10. STATIC WATER LEVEL 30 ft,■ below 0 above land surface Date Measured B-.:ll-'11 II. WELLHEAD COMPLETION 10 Pitless Adapter 0 Found Buried ZO Basemnt offset 0 JII Well Pit 16. REMARKS, ELEVATION, SOURCE OF DATA -CASINGS REMOVED, CASINGS PERFORATED, ETC, 12. GROUTING INFORMATION l■ Neat Ce■1nt · 2[J Bentonite 0 Grout 111teri11flleA'f CE/\1 .froa, .Jl..to!Jl ft. cu. yds_:,f_ -- - 13. NEAREST SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION loo feet #J direction e rrl 5€W£2... type Well disinfected before sealing? • Yes 14. PUMP ■ Re110v1d O Not Present Type: 10 Submersible 0 LS, Turbine 0 Reciprocating 2[J Jet 0 Centr1fug1l • STlDKE • Roi> 15. EXISTING WELLS (Please sketch loCltions of abandoned and act1ve wells in remarks section or on back.) Other unused well(s) on property? D Yes ■No Abandoned: 0 Permanent 0 Tea,porary O Not sealed 17. WATER WELL CONTRACTORS CERTIFICATION This well was se1led under a,y jurisdiction and this report is true to the best of my knowledge and belief, "1 A 1-1 € R. WEU.. De. lLLtAlb ,~c. /'130/ J LI cenm Bu~ n~O NW, 'J<.~ f: }NI-,. P, license No. LIii). Address HA<..TJN b, HtJ $"_~03~ . t..J-10 -12 Signecf"7;aa£ ·14¥14..4,4 Date IA. N !!!,. AJQ.~ tJ Date OFFICIAL ABANOONED WELL RECORD (Hay be used for Property Transfer) Na■1 of Driller IlfPCll2'AIJ2': rILB ran D1lllD 1 Simmons, Koehl From: Collins, Melissa (DNR) <Melissa.Collins@state.mn.us> Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2021 4:02 PM To: Klatt, Kyle <Kyle.Klatt@ci.rosemount.mn.us> Cc:ScottM@scannellproperties.com Subject: Rich Valley Golf Club Draft AUAR - DNR Comments Dear Kyle Klatt, Thank you for the opportunity to review the Rich Valley Golf Club Draft AUAR. The DNR respectfully submits the following comments for your consideration: 1.Page 27, Stormwater. If infiltration is not feasible, please consider using stormwater ponds as a source of water for landscape irrigation. 2.Page 27, Stormwater. The planned increase in impervious surfaces will also increase the amount of road salt used in the project area. Chloride released into local lakes and streams does not break down, and instead accumulates in the environment, potentially reaching levels that are toxic to aquatic wildlife and plants. Consider promoting local business and city participation in the Smart Salting Training offered through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. There are a variety of classes available for road applicators, sidewalk applicators, and property managers. More information and resources can be found at this website. Many winter maintenance staff who have attended the Smart Salting training — both from cities and counties and from private companies — have used their knowledge to reduce salt use and save money for their organizations. We also encourage cities and counties to provide public outreach to reduce the overuse of chloride. Here are some educational resources for residents as well as a sample ordinance regarding chloride use. 3.Page 28, Water Appropriation. Rich Valley Golf Course currently has two DNR Water Appropriation Permits for irrigating the golf course grounds: DNR Water Appropriation Permit 1992-6040 and 1989- 6010. The owner of the property will need to either transfer these DNR Water Appropriation Permits to the new owners of the property, or terminate the DNR Water Appropriation Permits if the wells will not be used. If the wells will not be used, the wells should be sealed and the sealings sent to the DNR when the termination of the permit is requested. 4.Page 37-38, State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species. The DNR concurs with the assessment that negative impacts to known occurrences of rare features are not anticipated. Please contact NHIS Review Specialist, Samantha Bump (Samantha.Bump@state.mn.us), if plans change and tree and shrub removal will occur during Loggerhead Shrike breeding season, April through July. 5.Page 38, Effects to Wildlife Habitat. We appreciate that native plants and seed mixes will be incorporated into landscaping and stormwater features as much as possible to provide pollinator habitat. Please let me know if you have any questions. A confirmation of receipt would be most appreciated. 2 Thank you, Melissa Collins Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist | Ecological and Water Resources Pronouns: She/her Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, MN 55106 Phone: 651-259-5755 Email:melissa.collins@state.mn.us mndnr.gov July 21, 2021 Kyle Klatt Senior Planner City of Rosemount 2875 145th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 RE: Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review Dear Kyle Klatt: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment project (Project) in the City of Rosemount (City), Dakota County, Minnesota. The Project consists of conversion of a golf course to a mixed-use development. Regarding matters for which the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has regulatory responsibility or other interests, the MPCA staff has the following comments for your consideration. Water Resources (Item 11) Wastewater The wastewater discussion should include information about the capability of the existing sewer system to accept the increased wastewater flow and if any expansion of the existing sewer is required for the Project. Stormwater • The Draft AUAR stormwater section should include not just the permanent stormwater treatment plans, but also specific erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be utilized during construction to prevent transport of sediment offsite. The City is also encouraged to require use of green infrastructure practices as part of the stormwater management plan that mimic the natural hydrology of the site and reduce the amount of stormwater generated from new impervious surfaces. Additional practices may include limiting the amount of new impervious surfaces through use of narrower streets and sidewalks, incorporation of bioinfiltration areas and/or tree trenches within parking areas and use of permeable pavements, which also help to reduce chloride use. Also, maximize open space and tree canopy on the site. • The surface water section must also identify receiving waters within one mile of the site and any water impairments of the receiving waters. If there are construction-related impairments, include additional BMPs required during construction. • The cumulative impacts section should include discussion about potential environmental impacts of adding additional impervious surfaces from the urban expansion, such as potential downstream water quality effects of increased urban pollutants and increased flows and how these might be mitigated. Please direct questions regarding Construction Stormwater Permit requirements to Roberta Getman at 507-206-2629 or roberta.getman@state.mn.us. Kyle Klatt Page 2 July 21, 2021 Surface Water Section 8 of the Draft AUAR does not include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 Permit or MPCA 401 Water Quality Certification. However, Section 11 of the Draft AUAR indicates that approximately 2.18 acres of wetlands are located within the Project study area and are listed in Table 7. These wetlands appear to be constructed ponds within the golf course. Significant impacts to these existing ponds are anticipated and the removal of these wetlands will require the purchase of wetland banking credits for compensatory wetland mitigation. If after further review and comment the USACE Section 404 permit is then required, the MPCA 401 will also be required as well. For further information about the 401 Water Quality Certification process, please contact Bill Wilde at 651-757-2825 or william.wilde@state.mn.us. Contamination Please note that golf courses have the potential for contamination from past pesticide use (including mercury) and from past storage and handling of pesticides and fertilizers. Information regarding soil sampling is available on the Minnesota Department of Agriculture website at: Guidance Document 30 - Soil Sampling at Golf Courses for Contamination | Minnesota Department of Agriculture. Other Potential Environmental Impacts (Item 20) Chloride (salt) is a growing issue for lakes, streams, and groundwater around the state. Chloride can come from both de-icing salt and water softener salt. For the proposed Project, the MPCA recommends smart salting practices for de-icing streets and driveways during the winter weather months and water softening best practices be used year-round. Additional resources are available at https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/statewide-chloride-resources. We appreciate the opportunity to review this Project. Please be aware that this letter does not constitute approval by the MPCA of any or all elements of the Project for the purpose of pending or future permit action(s) by the MPCA. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the Project proposer to secure any required permits and to comply with any requisite permit conditions. If you have any questions concerning our review of this Draft AUAR, please contact me by email at karen.kromar@state.mn.us or by telephone at 651-757-2508. Sincerely, Karen Kromar This document has been electronically signed. Karen Kromar Project Manager Environmental Review Unit Resource Management and Assistance Division KK/WW/RG:vs cc: Dan Card, MPCA, St. Paul Roberta Getman, MPCA, Rochester Bill Wilde, MPCA, St. Paul July 21, 2021 Kyle Klatt, Senior Planner City of Rosemount 2875 145th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 RE: City of Rosemount – Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) – Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment Metropolitan Council Review File No. 22581-1 Metropolitan Council District No. 15 Dear Kyle Klatt: Metropolitan Council staff completed its review of the Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment Draft AUAR to determine its accuracy and completeness in addressing regional concerns. Staff concludes that the Draft AUAR is complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns and does not raise major issues of consistency with Council policies. However, staff offers the following comments for your consideration: Item 8. Permits and Approvals (Jerome Benner II, 651-602-1494) As described below in the Item. 9 – Land use, a comprehensive plan amendment will be required if Scenario 1 is the preferred alternative for development. Item 9. Land Use – Forecasts (Todd Graham, 651-602-1322) The Draft AUAR discusses two development scenarios. Scenario 1 describes a “max development” alternative, with 2,140,000 sq. ft. of warehouse and office. Scenario 2 is the “Comprehensive Plan” scenario with 1,455,000 sq. ft. of commercial and warehouse and office space. The Draft AUAR study site is a small part of Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) #727 (the area north of Hwy 42, east of Highway 52, and west of Highway 55). TAZ allocations for 2040 have been prepared by the City. The City ’s 2040 Plan expects TAZ #727 will gain +800 jobs during 2020-2040. This allocation may be insufficient considering the AUAR scenarios. Should the AUAR area be fully redeveloped as described in the development scenarios, then Council staff would recommend increasing the TAZ allocation in this area. Item 9. Land Use (Jerome Benner II, 651-602-1322) The City’s adopted 2040 Plan guides the northern portion of the site as Light Industrial, and the southern portion of the proposed site as Commercial. If Scenari o 1 is the preferred alternative, the southern portion of this site will need to be reguided to allow the proposed uses identified in the Draft AUAR materials. All proposed land uses must be consistent with the City’s adopted 2040 Plan. Item 11. Water Resources – Wastewater (Roger Janzig, roger.janzig@metc.state.mn.us) The Draft AUAR states that, “As part of this proposed development, a city sanitary sewer trunk main will be extended from existing MCES sanitary sewer lift station L74 north of 104th Street…” The underlined text above is incorrect, and should be amended to the state the following, “As part of this proposed development, a city sanitary sewer trunk main will be extended from existing MCES interceptor sanitary sewer lift station on L74, property north of 140th Street through the proposed development and stubbed to the south side of CR 42.” Page - 2 | July 21, 2021 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Item 11. Water Resources – Stormwater (Cameran Bailey, 651-602-1212) This section states that, “Alternative stormwater management methods that may be considered to provide adequate stormwater rate, volume, and quality controls include underground stormwater filtration, underground stormwater re-use, surface biofiltration, white roofs, and landscaping/shading of parking lot and surface stormwater management areas.” Council staff recommend considering the use of surface parking lot canopies with green roofs with solar installation capability, integrated into those surface parking lot canopies. Also, we recommend considering the use of green roofs on the rooftops of future developments. Green roofs reduce thermal loading, increase building energy efficiency, support stormwater retention and detention needs, mitigate the urban heat island effect, improve air quality, and provide habitat to help replace the proposed 100+ acres of new impervious surfaces being brought to the study area. Solar panels reduce pollution that would otherwise be generated by the region’s primarily carbon-fuel -based energy system. Item 16. Stationary Source and Vehicle Emissions (Cameran Bailey, 651-602-1212) Council staff recommend city staff consider the integration of Electric Vehicles (EV), or EV -ready, charging infrastructure at this proposed development to support and help offset the air emissions produced by the projected 8,595 – 21,465 daily trips. Great Plains Institute’s “Becoming Electric Vehicle Ready” guideline document (https://www.driveelectricmn.org/becoming-ev -ready/) may be helpful. Item 18. Transportation (Russ Owen, 651-602-1724) The proposed mitigation plans for US Highway 52 mentioned on Table 12 of the Draft AUAR will need to be reviewed and analyzed by MNDOT. The Council will not take formal action on the Draft AUAR. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Jerome Benner II, Principal Reviewer, at 651-602-1494 or via email at jerome.benner@metc.state.mn.us. As always, you can also contact your Sector Representative, Patrick Boylan, at 651-602-1438 or via email at patrick.boylan@metc.state.mn.us. Sincerely, Angela R. Torres, AICP, Manager Local Planning Assistance CC: Tod Sherman, Development Reviews Coordinator, MnDOT - Metro Division Phillip Sterner, Metropolitan Council District No. 15 Judy Sventek, Water Resources Manager Patrick Boylan, Sector Representative Jerome Benner II, Principal Reviewer Reviews Coordinator N:\CommDev\LPA\Communities\Rosemount\Letters\Rosemount 2021 Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment Draft AUAR 22581-1.docx MINNESOTA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE 50 Sherburne Avenue ▪ Administration Building 203 ▪ Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 ▪ 651-201-3287 mn.gov/admin/shpo ▪ mnshpo@state.mn.us AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND SERVICE PROVIDER July 21, 2021 Kyle Klatt Senior Planner City of Rosemount 2875 145th St W Rosemount, MN 55068 RE: Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment – Draft AUAR T115 R18 30, Rosemount, Dakota County SHPO Number: 2021-2240 Dear Kyle Klatt: Thank you for providing this office with the Draft AUAR for the Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment. Based on our review of the project information, we conclude that there are no properties listed in 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 license or permit, it should be submitted to our office by the responsible federal agency. Please contact Kelly Gragg-Johnson, Environmental Review Specialist, at kelly.graggjohnson@state.mn.us if you have any questions regarding our review of this project. Sincerely, Sarah J. Beimers Environmental Review Program Manager Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization 4100 220th Street West, Suite 103, Farmington, Minnesota 55024 | 952.891.7000 | Fax 952.891.7588 June 29, 2021 Kyle Klatt Senior Planner City of Rosemount 2875 145th St W. Rosemount, MN 55068 RE: Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR Comments The Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization (VRWJPO) appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the redevelopment of the Rich Valley Golf Club. Staff have reviewed the AUAR and have the following comments: • Page 13, Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization—The VRWJPO suggests adding language under this section for clarity on the VRWJPO’s regulatory role in redevelopment of the site. Based on the regulatory framework in the VRWJPO regarding water and natural resources, the City has chosen to adopt the VRWJPO Standards into the City’s ordinances, so approvals related to the VRWJPO Standards will be handled by the City. • Page 25, Section 11, b. iv. Existing regional basins 3049 and 1814 are identified within this section, but there is no mention of them prior to this section. We recommend identifying these regional basins so it’s clear where these basins are located. If the basins are the two existing ponds on site that have been identified, then this should be clearly stated and/or shown in the exhibits. • Page 25-26, Section 11, b. v. This section indicates that municipal water supply will provide the developed site with water. In Section 11, a. ii. three existing wells are identified within the AUAR area. We suggest providing details regarding the discontinuation of use for these three wells and well sealing, as applicable. • Page 26, Section 11, b. vi. The VRWJPO understands that preserving wetlands may be inconsistent with the anticipated land use for this site, but it appears there is no plan to go through Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act sequencing with regards to the two existing wetlands on site. We recommend following sequencing rather than just assuming the wetlands will be filled. • Page 27, Section 11, e. This section indicates that if three feet of separation cannot be provided to existing groundwater, alternative stormwater methods will be implemented. We concur with this methodology but disagree with some of the approaches listed. Underground infiltration would not be compatible with a groundwater that interferes with the ability to achieve surface infiltration. Similarly, temperature of stormwater runoff is a less significant concern at this location given the lack of proximity of the site to the Vermillion River or its tributaries. While there may be other benefits to implementing white roofs and landscaping/shading practices for purposes of energy efficiency, implementing these practices to mitigate the temperature of Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization 2 stormwater runoff may not be as justified as investing in other practices that target volume control. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment AUAR. Sincerely, Mark Ryan Travis Thiel VRWJPO Water Resources Engineer Senior Watershed Specialist September 8, 2021 Kyle Klatt, Senior Planner City of Rosemount 2875 145th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 RE: City of Rosemount – Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review (FAUAR) – Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment Metropolitan Council Review File No. 22581-2 Metropolitan Council District No. 15 Dear Kyle Klatt: Council staff has conducted a review of this Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review (F AUAR) and Mitigation Plan to determine its accuracy and completeness in addressing regional concerns. Council staff commented on the draft AUAR in its July 21, 2021 letter. The staff review has concluded that the F AUAR addresses previous comments and is complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns and raises no major issues of consistency with Council policies. The Council does not object to the FAUAR. However, staff wishes to reiterate the following comments: Item 11. Water Resources – Wastewater (Roger Jan zig, roger.janzig@metc.state.mn.us) The AUAR reflects a proposed project location that may have an impact on multiple Metropolitan Council Interceptors in multiple locations. To assess the potential impacts to our interceptor system; prior to initiating any project at this location, prelimin ary plans (including the method and means of providing wastewater service) need to be sent to Tim Wedin, Interceptor Engineering Assistant Manager (651-602 -4571) at the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services. There are specific processes that must be followed before encroachment on our property or a direct connection to our Interceptor can be made. Before encroachment on our property an Encroachment Agreement will be required, and before direct connection to the Metropolitan Council Interceptor a Sewer Connection Permit will be required. To obtain a Sewer Connection Permit or an Encroachment Agreement Application, contact Tim Wedin, Interceptor Engineering Assistant Manager (651-602-4571) at the Metropolitan Council Environmental Service. Furthermo re, The AUAR states that, “As part of the proposed development, a city sanitary sewer trunk main will be extended from the existing MCES interceptor sanitary sewer lift station on L74, located on property north of 140th Street through the proposed developmen t and stubbed to the south side of CR 42.” T he AUAR should be corrected to state, “As part of the proposed development, a city sanitary sewer trunk main will be extended from the existing MCES interceptor sanitary sewer on the lift station L74 property north of 140th Street Page - 2 | September 8, 2021 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL through the proposed development and stubbed to the south side of CR 42.” This will conclude the Council’s review of the F AUAR. The Council will take no formal action on the FAUAR. If you have any questions regarding the review or need further inf ormation, please contact Jerome Benner II, Principal Reviewer, at 651-602-1494 or via email at jerome.benner@metc.state.mn.us. As always, you can also contact your Sector Representative, Patrick Boylan, at 651-602-1438 or via email at patri ck.boylan @met c.state.mn.us. Sincerely, Angela R. Torres, AICP, Manager Local Planning Assistance CC: Tod Sherman, Development Reviews Coordinator, MnDOT Metro Division Phillip Sterner, Metropolitan Council District No. 15 Patri ck Boylan, Sector Representative Jerome Benner II, Principal Reviewer Reviews Coordinator N:\CommDev\LPA\Communities\Rosemount\Letters\Rosemount 2021 Rich Valley Golf Club Redevelopment Final AUAR 22581-2.doc Metropolitan District 1500 County Road B-2 West Roseville, MN 55113 An equal opportunity employer September 8, 2021 Kyle Klatt Senior Planner City of Rosemount 2875 145th St W. Rosemount, MN 55068 SUBJECT: Rich Valley Golf Club AUAR MnDOT Review #AUAR21-004 NE quadrant of US 52 and CSAH 42 Control Section: 1906 Rosemount, Dakota County Dear Kyle Klatt, Thank you for submitting the Rich Valley Golf Club AUAR. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has reviewed the document, received 8/25/21, and has the following comments: Due to the concept level nature of an AUAR the information determined in the traffic impact study can only be considered as a general indication of environmental impact. The development scenarios many times change after the AUAR is completed, therefore rendering the traffic analysis incomplete. Review of the AUAR does not constitute approval of a regional analysis and is not a specific approval for roadway improvements. When the detailed site plans are developed the traffic analysis should reflect the proposed development. Our agency would request the opportunity to review any updated information, as well as meet with the city and developer to discuss traffic issues. South Area Comments 1. The City should be aware of multiple studies and projects in the US 52/MN 55/CSAH 42 triangle with potential impact to this AUAR: a. MnDOT and Dakota County completed a partnership study of this area in 2002. This summary document discusses the preferred options of eliminating the ‘substandard Highway 52/55 interchange’ and constructing a system interchange at US 52/CSAH 42. Also discussed are the realignment of MN 55 to form a continuous east-west facility with CSAH 42, turnback of the existing MN 55 section from US 52 to CSAH 42 to local control as a collector road, access spacing along the MN 55/CSAH 42 corridor, and a local road connection on the south side of the railroad tracks under US 52. https://www.co.dakota.mn.us/Transportation/TransportationStudies/Documents/Hwy524 255RegionalCorridorStudy.pdf. b. Funds have been appropriated to MnDOT and Dakota County to re-study the US 52/MN 55 and CSAH 42 triangle, including the area covered by this AUAR. That study will Page 2 of 3 occur in the relatively near future and will re-examine the recommendations of the 2002 partnership study as well as new information about the future of the area. c. The Highway 55 Road Safety Audit Report was completed in March 2021. Table 8 on page 31 provides a list of possible intersection improvement strategies to the area. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/safety/rsa/highway-55-road-safety-audit-report- final.pdf d. Three temporary signals are planned for the US 52/CSAH 42 interchange intersections and the MN 55/CSAH 42 intersection. These signals will be installed as part of the MN 55/Doyle Path project, SP 1910-56. The proposed construction timeframe is July to October 2022. The three signals will then be removed following the US 52 Unbonded Overlay project, SP 1906-71. The proposed construction timeframe is May 2023 to November 2024. Signal removals would likely occur in 2024 toward the end of the project. 2. MnDOT agrees with Dakota County’s comments on access spacing. The proposed accesses shown in the Traffic Impact Analysis do not meet CSAH 42’s access spacing guidelines; Conley Ave should not be a full access intersection and the south access should move further east to meet half mile spacing. MnDOT also supports exploring an east-west connection across US 52 parallel to the Union Pacific railroad crossing to the north. The potential for an interchange at this location also needs to be considered, which would affect access spacing. 3. New traffic signals on MnDOT highways will need fiber interconnect. Fiber is not currently available on MN 55 in this area. If the MN 55/CSAH 42 intersection is signalized, fiber would need to be extended for approximately 15,000 feet from US 52 to serve the new permanent signal system. Please contact Bryant Ficek, South Area Engineer, at 651-443-2564 or bryant.ficek@state.mn.us for questions regarding these comments. Review Submittal Options MnDOT’s goal is to complete reviews within 30 calendar days. Review materials received electronically can be processed more rapidly. Do not submit files via a cloud service or SharePoint link. In order of preference, review materials may be submitted as: 1. Email documents and plans in PDF format to metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us. Attachments may not exceed 20 megabytes per email. Documents can be zipped as well. If multiple emails are necessary, number each message. 2. For files over 20 megabytes, upload the PDF file(s) to MnDOT’s web transfer client site at: https://mft.dot.state.mn.us. Contact MnDOT Planning development review staff using the same email above for uploading instructions, and send an email listing the file name(s) after the document(s) has/have been uploaded. 3. A flash drive or hard copy can be sent to the address below. Please notify development review staff via the above email if this submittal method is used. MnDOT Metro District Planning Section Development Reviews Coordinator 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 Page 3 of 3 You are welcome to contact me at (651) 234-7792, or david.kratz@state.mn.us with any questions. Sincerely, David Kratz Senior Planner Copy sent via email: Jason Swenson, Water Resources Buck Craig, Permits Ben Klismith, Right of Way Anna Kojic, Right of Way Almin Ramic, Traffic Jason Junge, Transit Mohamoud Mire, South Area Support Bryant Ficek, Area Engineer Ryan Wilson, Area Manager Mackenzie Turner Barger, Ped/Bike Jesse Thornsen, Ped/Bike Lance Schowalter, Design Derek Lehrke, Signals Kevin Schwartz, Signals Michael Fairbanks, Signals David Elvin, Planning Cameron Muhic, Planning Tod Sherman, Planning Steven Mielke, Dakota County Russell Owen, Metropolitan Council