HomeMy WebLinkAboutX-C-01 Walden at Hastings EAW - Negative Declaration on the Need for an EIS
City Council Memorandum
To: Mayor Fasbender & City Councilmembers
From: John Hinzman, Community Development Director
Date: February 5, 2024
Item: Resolution: Recording a Negative Declaration on the Need to Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement for Walden at Hastings
Council Action Requested:
The City Council is asked to take the following actions related to the Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Walden at Hastings, a 511-unit residential housing
development consisting of single family, twin home, town home, apartment, and senior
housing. The project is generally located east of TH 316 and Michael Avenue.
1) Review the findings of the EAW and public comments received.
2) Adopt the attached resolution recording a negative declaration on the need to
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Adoption of the resolution
would conclude environmental review of the property and allow for consideration
of future development applications.
A simple majority of Council is necessary for action. The EAW does not authorize
approval of the development. Separate applications for land use entitlements including
rezoning, plat, and site plan would be considered upon conclusion of environmental
review.
History:
On December 4, 2023 the City Council authorized distribution of the EAW for public
comment.
EAW – Environmental Assessment Worksheet:
The environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) is a brief document designed to lay
out the basic facts of a project necessary to determine if an environmental impact
statement (EIS) is required for the proposed project. In addition to the legal purpose of
the EAW in determining the need for an EIS, the EAW also provides permit
information, informs the public about the project, and helps identify ways to protect the
environment. The EAW is not meant to approve or deny a project, but instead act as a
source of information to guide other approvals and permitting decisions. The proposed
number of proposed housing units’ triggers completion of the EAW per state rules. The
EAW was prepared by the developer’s engineer SEH and reviewed by City Staff.
X-C-01
Determination of EIS
MN Rule 4410.1700 provides direction on how to reach an appropriate decision on
whether an EIS is necessary as follows:
• Threshold: An EIS shall be ordered for projects that have the potential for
significant environmental effects.
• Criteria for Determining Significant Environmental Effects
o Type, extent, and reversibility of effects
o Cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects
o Extent to which environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing
public regulatory authority
o Extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as
a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public
agencies or the project proposer.
• Insufficient Information: If information is lacking to make a decision the City
may:
o Make a positive declaration and order an EIS
o Postpone the decision for 30 days to obtain lacking information
EAW Public Comments:
The 30 day period for submittal of public comments expired on January 11, 2024.
Comments were received from the following parties:
Comments received within the review period:
1) Scott T. Sandkamp, Landowner
2) Steven Engstrom, Landowner
3) Jake Hauck, Landowner
4) Kelly (no last name provided), Landowner
5) Georg T Fischer, Dakota County
6) Chris Green, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
7) Sarah Beimers, Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
8) Jeff Dunn, Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization (VRWJPO)
9) John Reynolds, Minnesota Indian Affairs Council (MIAC)
10) Melissa Collins, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
11) Angela Torres, Metropolitan Council
Comments received outside of the review period
12) Jennifer Tworzyanski, Office of State Archaeologist (OSA) – Received 1/29/24
13) Cameron Muhic, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MN DOT) – Received
1/31/24
Responses to EAW Comments:
Responses to individual EAW comments are attached and have been prepared by the
developer’s engineer SEH and reviewed by the City of Hastings. In general, several
areas of concern were identified in the received comments:
1) Location of a refuse\dump (Dakota County)
2) Estimate of wastewater volume (MN DNR)
X-C-01
3) Stormwater infiltration (MN DNR)
4) Response to 5/10/23 Natural Heritage Letter (MN DNR)
5) Consultation with Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (MIAC)
6) Cultural Resource Management prior to development (MIAC)
7) Phase IA Literature review and archaeological assessment (SHPO)
Recommendation:
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution recording a negative declaration to
prepare and EIS. The EAW provides for adequate review of environmental effects.
Comments received can be incorporated into review of future land use applications for
development of the site.
Advisory Commission Discussion:
N\A
Council Committee Discussion:
N\A
Attachments:
• Resolution
• EAW Response to Comments
• Original Comment Letters
• Full EAW Amended with Comments
X-C-01
RESOLUTION # __________________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HASTINGS CITY COUNCIL MAKING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) FOR THE PROPOSED WALDEN AT HASTINGS
(PROJECT)
Whereas, MN Rule 4410 establishes the requirements for the preparation of an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW); and
Whereas, the City of Hastings is the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for
the preparation of an EAW; and
Whereas, the City of Hastings City Council makes the following findings of fact:
1. An EAW has been prepared by SEH on behalf of the sponsor, LandEquity
Development, for the Project for the review by the City of Hastings.
2. The Hastings City Council approved the distribution of the EAW to the Minnesota
Environmental Quality Board Environmental Review Program EAW Distribution
List.
3. The information contained within the EAW is accurate and complete to the best of
the City’s knowledge.
4. The public comment period ended on January 11, 2024.
5. The extent to which environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing
public regulatory authority indicates that this project in the EAW does not have the
potential for significant environmental effects.
6. In considering the type, extent, and the reversibility of environmental effects, there
will be no significant environmental effects resulting from the proposed Walden at
Hastings Project.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HASTINGS makes a negative declaration regarding the need for an EIS for the
Walden at Hastings Project and confirms that an EIS is not needed for the Walden at
Hastings Development as currently proposed.
Adopted by the Hastings City Council on_____, 2024, by the following vote:
Mary Fasbender, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kelly Murtaugh, City Clerk
X-C-01
Environmental Assessment
Worksheet Response to Comments
Walden at Hastings Development
City of Hastings, Dakota County, Minnesota
SEH No. LANEQ 170747
January 2024
X-C-01
Response to Comments
Walden at Hastings
January 2024
Page 2 of 26
INTRODUCTION
Notice of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Walden at Hastings
Development was published in the EQB Monitor on December 12, 2023. The 30-day
comment period ended January 11, 2024. During the comment period, comments from
twelve parties were received:
1. Scott T. Sandkamp, Landowner
2. Steven Engstrom, Landowner
3. Jake Hauck, Landowner
4. Kelly (no last name provided), Landowner
5. John Reynolds, Minnesota Indian Affairs Council
6. Melissa Collins, MN Department of Natural Resources
7. Georg T Fischer, Dakota County
8. Angela R. Torres, Metropolitan Council
9. Jeff Dunn, Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization
10. Jennifer Tworzyanski, Office of the State Archaeologist
11. Sarah Beimers, MN State Historic Preservation Office
12. Chris Green, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
13. Cameron Muhic, MNDOT
We thank those who took the time to review the EAW for Walden at Hastings
Development (Project) and for submitting comments. This memo addresses the
comments submitted during the comment period to the City of Hastings, the Responsible
Governmental Unit and administrator of the Environmental Assessment review process,
concerning the Project. The questions and comments received, along with these
responses, will be included as part of the environmental review documents.
The decision for a positive or negative declaration on the need of an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) will be made in compliance with MN Rule 4410.1700, Subpt 2.
A/B, which states: If the decision is to be made by a board, council, or other body which
meets only on a periodic basis, the decision shall be made between three and 30 days
after the close of the review period.
To decide whether the Project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the
City Council must compare the impacts that may be reasonably expected to occur from
the Project with the criteria outlined below:
Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects
Cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects
The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by public
regulatory authority
X-C-01
Response to Comments
Walden at Hastings
January 2024
Page 3 of 26
The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled because
of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the
project proposer, including other EISs
The EAW serves to identify environmental issues, not to solve or approve of mitigation
efforts. This information is then used as a guide in issuing, amending, and denying permits
and carrying out other responsibilities of governmental units to avoid or minimize adverse
environmental effects and to restore and enhance environmental quality. The EAW is not
used to justify a decision, nor do indications of adverse environmental effects necessarily
require that a project be disapproved.
The City Council will base its decision regarding the need for an EIS on the information
gathered during the EAW process, including the comments received on the EAW. The
following documents were used as reference in responding to the comments and
questions received:
MN Rules Chapter 4410 Environmental Review
Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules, EQB
EAW Guidelines: Preparing Environmental Assessment Worksheets, EQB
Minnesota Statutes (various sections).
In general, several areas of concern were identified in the received comments. These
areas require additional explanation and include:
1. Location of a refuse\dump (Dakota County)
2. Estimate of wastewater volume (MN DNR)
3. Stormwater infiltration (MN DNR)
4. Response to 5/10/23 Natural Heritage Letter (MN DNR)
5. Consultation with Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (MIAC)
6. Cultural Resource Management prior to development (MIAC)
7. Phase 1A Literature review and archaeological assessment (SHPO)
Responses to all the received are provided in the following section. Responses follow a
copy of the original comments.
X-C-01
Response to Comments
Walden at Hastings
January 2024
Page 4 of 26
Response to Scott T. Sandkamp, Steven Engstrom, Jake Hauck, Kelly comments:
Comments received fall into 6 general categories and are addressed in these categories
below. A combined response is provided due to the similarity of comments.
Thank you for the comments and input regarding the project.
Traffic Concerns:
Traffic and safety are important to the project proposer, and we appreciate your
comments. The analysis limits of the Traffic Impact Study were determined after
conversations with both MnDOT and the City of Hastings. Existing intersection
operational issues are not the responsibility of the developer to remediate, the intent is
to address impacts the traffic derived from the development has on the roadway
system. We would recommend reaching out to the Minnesota Department of
Transportation with any existing operational issues that you may have observed and
encountered. Roadway improvements associated with this project may potentially be
scheduled to align with improvements that MnDOT has planned along TH 316.
Additional coordination is currently ongoing with MnDOT to align roadway improvement
project schedules and timelines.
Location to Farmland:
The development will require conversion of land use from agricultural land to housing.
The project will be subject to all local ordinances and will require a re-zoning of the parcel.
The project proposers will work closely with local government officials to ensure that the
local rules and regulations are followed.
Local Public Lands:
Impacts to the Hasting’s sand Coulee scientific area will be managed through close
coordination with the MNDNR. The MNDNR has provided comments on the EAW and is
in support of the donation of the preserve land. They have provided additional comments
to ensure the SNA is protected, which are addressed in their response.
Strain on Local Institutions:
These comments are noted but are not applicable to the EAW.
Questioning the Need for More Rental Housing, and Management:
These comments are noted but are not applicable to the EAW.
Property Value Concerns:
These comments are noted but are not applicable to the EAW.
X-C-01
Response to Comments
Walden at Hastings
January 2024
Page 5 of 26
Comment from Minnesota Indian Affairs Council (MIAC):
The Minnesota Indian Affairs Council (MIAC) completed the Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW) review for - Walden at Hastings project. MIAC highly recommends
initiating consultation with Minnesota's Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPO),
conducting cultural resource management fieldwork prior to development, and,
depending on survey results, arranging archaeological monitoring, or an Unanticipated
Discoveries Plan. The project's area is within an area likely to contain cultural
resources. Construction without a preliminary survey may disturb unrecorded cultural
resources. For questions regarding this review, please do not hesitate to contact MIAC's
cultural resource personnel.
Response to the MIAC:
Thank you for your comment. Based on the information provided by the Tribal Directory
Assessment Tool (TDAT), consultation letters have been mailed to the following
contacts for Tribes with Interests in Dakota County, Minnesota:
Apache Tribe of Oklahoma
Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma
Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota
Fort Belknap Indian Community of the Fort Belknap Reservation of Montana
Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska
Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota
Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin
Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota
Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska
Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota
Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota
Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota
In January 2023, we initiated early coordination by providing comprehensive project
details and the necessary forms to both the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
and the Office of State Archaeologist (OSA). Subsequently, in February 2023, both
agencies responded with similar letters to those received during the EAW comment
period.
In response to the recommendation to complete a Phase 1A Literature Review and a
Phase 1 Reconnaissance Survey, please note that MN SHPO has also provided this
recommendation.
While technically a Phase 1A or Phase 1 survey is not required, and cannot be
X-C-01
Response to Comments
Walden at Hastings
January 2024
Page 6 of 26
mandated by the SHPO or OSA, it is generally good advice to consider their
recommendations. It is understood that these agency recommendations aim to minimize
risk. Uncovered resources during construction demand immediate resolution, and the
potential delay's cost often outweighs preemptive Phase 1a assessments, a risk
proposers must carefully evaluate. If during construction, any resources are
encountered, all work will stop until agency coordination is completed.
The recommendation has been acknowledged and the project proposers will consider
the survey at a future stage of the project.
X-C-01
Response to Comments
Walden at Hastings
January 2024
Page 7 of 26
Comments from:
Melissa Collins, MN DNR
Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist | Ecological and Water Resources
Division of Ecological and Water Resources
Region 3 Headquarters
1200 Warner Road
Saint Paul, MN 55106
Comment:
Page 3, Project Description. The DNR has previously expressed interest in acquiring
the 17.5 acre parcel that borders the Hastings Sand Coulee Scientific and Natural
Area (SNA). More than 99% of the prairie that was present in the state before
settlement has been destroyed, and more than one third of Minnesota's endangered,
threatened, and special concern species are now dependent on the remaining small
fragments of Minnesota's prairie ecosystem. Therefore, we feel that all prairie
remnants merit protection. This parcel is especially important in connecting two
segments of the SNA and creating an unbroken habitat and management corridor. We
appreciate that the proposer is prioritizing this parcel for conservation and considering
donating this property to the DNR. We look forward to future discussions on this
potential acquisition. Please reach out to SNA Statewide Acquisition Coordinator, Bill
Bleckwenn (bill.bleckwenn@state.mn.us), and Regional SNA Supervisor, Kit Elstad-
Haveles (kit.elstad-haveles@state.mn.us) for further coordination.
Response:
Thank you for providing contact information for conservation easement. Project
proposers will coordinate with the DNR.
Comment:
Page 12, Zoning. The development will be located at the top of a bluff area. It is not
clear if any bluff setbacks are required, and if so, what those setbacks are. It also
appears that the development will be located within 300 feet of a public watercourse
(Unnamed Creek: M-049- 000.8). The project should be consistent with the City’s
shoreland ordinance, if applicable.
Response:
The accuracy of the information indicating that the development will be situated atop a
bluff area is confirmed. The City of Hastings has specifically designated the bluff
impact zone as the bluff itself and the land within a 30-foot proximity from the bluff's
summit. Additionally, in the northeastern section of the project site, the public
watercourse lies 240 feet outside the project area. Notably, the City of Hastings'
Shoreland Overlay District extends 300 feet from a river or stream, leading to an
X-C-01
Response to Comments
Walden at Hastings
January 2024
Page 8 of 26
overlap with the project. These setbacks are shown in Figure 12.
The developer is actively collaborating with the City of Hastings' staff to ensure strict
adherence to all ordinances, including those governing the Shoreland Overlay District
and the Bluff Impact Zone.
Comment:
Page 14, Soils and Topography. Please be aware that any soils associated with the
bluff area should be considered as highly erodible based on the slope alone. Extra
precautions should be taken when working in close proximity to the bluff in order to
prevent issues with sediment and erosion. It will be important to comply with any
required bluff setbacks.
Response:
The project proposers will work in close coordination to ensure that all City of Hastings
Bluff Ordinances are met. The project will include an erosion control plan and will
address areas of high erosion potential, including the bluff area.
Comment:
Page 17, Wastewater. It would be helpful to have more information on the estimated
volume of water use and wastewater that is anticipated for the development and how
that compares to the capacity of Hasting’s current municipal water supply and
wastewater treatment facility.
Response:
Shown below is a table of wastewater flows from the development. Assuming 275 gals/
day/ home. Further discussion with the City of Hastings will be had about their water
and wastewater facilities and impacts.
Phase 1 Building Type Unit Count Flows (gals/day/home)
Twinhome Units 54 14,850
Townhome Units 59 16,225
Apartment Units 170 46,750
Senior Units 24 6,600
Active Adult 36 9,900
Assisted Living Units 60 16,500
Total Phase 1 Flows: 110,825 gals/ day
Phase 2 Building Type
Single Family Homes 51 14,025
Total Development Flows: 124,850 gals/ day
Comment:
X-C-01
Response to Comments
Walden at Hastings
January 2024
Page 9 of 26
Page 18, Stormwater. The DNR recommends that stormwater be used for landscape
irrigation. The re-use of stormwater for irrigation will reduce the volume of stormwater
and stormwater pollution flowing downstream of the site. In addition, the use of
stormwater for irrigating landscaping will conserve valuable groundwater.
Response:
Thank you for your comment. This suggestion has been noted and will be reviewed
during design.
Comment:
Page 18, Stormwater. The increase in impervious surfaces will also increase the
amount of road salt used in the project area. Chloride released into groundwater as
well as 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 consider how they may participate in
the Statewide Chloride Management Plan and 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.
Response:
Thank you for your comment. This suggested has been noted and will be reviewed by
the developer.
Comment:
Page 18, Stormwater. It is unclear if the planned stormwater features will include
infiltration. The location of the southeast stormwater pond at the edge of a steep
hill/bluff area could pose a challenge for infiltration and cause erosion issues along the
steep slope depending on how stormwater is routed off the site. Since the preserve
area is such a high-quality natural resource, stormwater should not be directed
towards the natural area in a way that could alter the natural hydrology, contribute to
sediment and erosion, or introduce nutrients and other contaminants that could
degrade this natural area. The project area is also in a High Potential Zone for the
federally-endangered, rusty patched bumble bee, and borders a sensitive ecological
area. Therefore, we encourage the development to use weed-free, native seed mixes
in landscaping and stormwater features to the greatest extent possible in order to
X-C-01
Response to Comments
Walden at Hastings
January 2024
Page 10 of 26
provide pollinator and wildlife habitat. Also, be sure that any rare species/features
avoidance measures are clearly identified on construction plans and incorporated into
the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.
Response:
Infiltration is intended to be used throughout the development. All other comments are
noted and will be incorporated.
Comment:
Page 18, Water Appropriation. A DNR Water Appropriation Permit is required if the
water pumped exceeds 10,000 gallons in a day, or one million gallons in one year. The
DNR General Permit for Temporary Appropriation, with its lower permit application fee
and reduced time for review, may be used for the dewatering if the dewatering volume
is less than 50 million gallons and the time of the appropriation is less than one year.
Response:
Comment noted. Dewatering is not expected, however if soil borings show that
dewatering is necessary, the proper permitting will be obtained.
Comment:
Page 21, Rare Features. Please note that the May 10, 2023 Natural Heritage letter
identified several rare plant species in the vicinity of the project area, which resulted
in a rare plant survey that did locate the state-endangered, Polanisia jamesii. At this
time, DNR has not yet received the survey data or report. The proposer should
submit this information to DNR if they have not done so already.
The Natural Heritage letter also stated that the North American racer (Coluber
constrictor), gophersnake (Pituophis catenifer), and western harvest mouse
(Reithrodontomys megalotis), all state-listed species of special concern, have been
documented in the vicinity of the proposed project and may be encountered on site.
These species should be discussed within the EAW. Given the presence of these
rare animals, the DNR recommends that the use of erosion control mesh, if any, be
limited to wildlife-friendly materials.
Response:
The results of the rare plant survey were sent to the DNR on January 3rd. Becky
Horton with the MNDNR confirmed receipt on that day.
The North American racer (Coluber constrictor), gophersnake (Pituophis catenifer),
and western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis) were identified in the project
vicinity and are identified as Special Concern. There may be the occasional
occurrence of these species within the project area, but the habitat to support them is
primarily within adjacent areas. The use of wildlife-friendly erosion control materials
X-C-01
Response to Comments
Walden at Hastings
January 2024
Page 11 of 26
will be considered for the protection of these species, but also the unlisted species that
are more likely to be encountered within the construction areas. The contractor will be
advised to inspect and protect the project perimeter to avoid or reduce wildlife impacts
related to site control BMPs.
Comment:
Page 24, Rare Features. The May 10, 2023 Natural Heritage letter also stated that the
Minnesota Biological Survey (MBS) has identified a Site of Outstanding Biodiversity
Significance on the east side of much of the proposed project. Sites of Biodiversity
Significance have varying levels of native biodiversity and are ranked based on the
relative significance of this biodiversity at a statewide level. Sites ranked as
Outstanding contain the best occurrences of the rarest species, the most outstanding
examples of the rarest native plant communities, and/or the largest, most intact
functional landscapes present in the state. This Site was mapped by MBS as Dry Sand
– Gravel Prairie (Southern), state-ranked as Imperiled. We encourage you to consider
project alternatives that would avoid or minimize disturbance to this ecologically
significant area. Actions to minimize disturbance may include, but are not limited to,
the following recommendations:
Minimize vehicular disturbance in the MBS Site (allow only
vehicles/equipment necessary for construction activities);
Do not park equipment or stockpile supplies in the MBS Site;
Do not place spoil within MBS Site or other sensitive areas;
Retain a buffer between proposed activities and the MBS Site;
If possible, conduct the work under frozen ground conditions;
Use effective erosion prevention and sediment control measures;
Inspect and clean all equipment prior to bringing it to the Site to
prevent the introduction and spread of invasive species;
As much as possible, operate within already-disturbed areas;
Revegetate disturbed soil with native species suitable to the local habitat as
soon after construction as possible; and
Use only weed-free mulches, topsoils, and seed mixes. Of particular concern
are birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus) and crown vetch (Coronilla varia),
two invasive species that are sold commercially and are problematic in
prairies and disturbed open areas.
X-C-01
Response to Comments
Walden at Hastings
January 2024
Page 12 of 26
We greatly appreciate that this area is being prioritized for conservation, and
regardless of ownership, this is an important and sensitive area that could be indirectly
impacted by the proposed development. Maintaining a buffer along the bluff area that
utilizes appropriate native seed mixes is one way to protect the preserve area. It will
also be important that stormwater is managed effectively and directed away from the
natural area.
Please coordinate with the DNR Regional Plant Ecologist, Amanda Weise
(Amanda.weise@state.mn.us), and the SNA regarding seed mixes and vegetation
management, including for invasive species. Seed mixes near the natural area should
be native seed, locally sourced and appropriate for the native plant communities found
in this immediate area (Ups13b). The DNR can work with the proposer and seed
vendors on an appropriate seed mix.
Response:
Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. According to the MNDNR
Conservation Explorer, the portion of the site that is designated as an MBS Site
coincides with the area proposed as a conservation preserve. The project developer
will use your site recommendations to develop the seeding mixes and erosion control
plans during design.
Comment:
Page 26, Visual. Given the proximity of the development to a sensitive natural area,
development lighting is an important consideration, especially on the larger buildings
near the bluff. Animals depend on the daily cycle of light and dark for behaviors such
as hunting, migrating, sleeping, and protection from predators. Light pollution can
affect their sensitivity to the night environment and alter their activities. In addition to
the undesirable effects of upward facing lighting, the hue of lights can also affect
wildlife. LED lighting has become increasingly popular due to its efficiency and long
lifespan. However, these bright lights tend to emit blue light, which can be harmful to
birds, insects, and fish. The DNR recommends that any projects using LED luminaries
follow the MnDOT Approved Products for luminaries, which limits the Uplight rating to
0. A nominal color temperature below 2700K is preferable for wildlife, and so we
recommend choosing products that have the lowest number for backlight and glare (all
approved products should already be 0 for Uplight).
Response:
Suggestion noted and will be reviewed by Developer.
X-C-01
Response to Comments
Walden at Hastings
January 2024
Page 13 of 26
Comment:
Management of the SNA involves semi-regular use of prescribed fire to maintain open
habitat conditions that are favorable to rare plant and wildlife species that exist on the
property. Prescribed burning is generally considered a safe land management tool, but
smoke from this activity can reach other adjacent properties on occasion. Smoke may
reach the development, and neighboring properties and potential homeowners should
be made aware of this potential when purchasing adjacent property.
Response:
Thank you for this consideration. It has been noted for future planning purposes.
Comment:
Vegetation management of landscaping within the development open areas, and within
stormwater features will be important to coordinate with the DNR so that potential
management does not negatively impact the SNA through the introduction of invasive
species, herbicide/pesticide drift, or by negatively impacting rare species that may use
the new open spaces. We encourage developers to incorporate native plants and
seed mixes into development landscaping and stormwater features to the greatest
degree possible in order to provide pollinator habitat. Due to the proximity to the SNA,
please make sure that all seed mixes are free of noxious weeds and invasive species.
Response:
Thank you for your comment. Project proposers intend to coordinate with the DNR for
this project.
Comment:
The SNA would like to coordinate on the placement of any trails within the development
that would direct traffic towards the SNA.
Please contact Regional SNA Supervisor, Kit Elstad-Haveles
(Kit.elstad-haveles@state.mn.us), for further coordination with the SNA.
Response:
Thank you for providing a contact person. We will contact Kit Elstad-Haveles for
discussion of any trail planning in the future that may affect the usage of the SNA.
X-C-01
Response to Comments
Walden at Hastings
January 2024
Page 14 of 26
Comments from:
Georg T Fischer
Director
Dakota County Physical Development Division
Dakota County Western Service Center
14955 Galaxie Ave
Apple Valley, MN 55124
Comment:
Environmental Resources
Environmental Resources conducted an environmental review of the subject area
relating to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment request from the City of Hastings. A
known or suspected site of environmental concern was identified on the subject
properties. Known or suspected sites of environmental concern were identified adjacent
to the subject properties. Refer to the attached Environmental Review Map and Report
for more information.
Dakota County Site 7315 – Tree Waste and Refuse Dump was identified on the
southeast corner of the subject property. County records indicate the dump was
identified in 1997 from a complaint. The 1997 site inspection identified a large quantity
of logs and wood debris and a small area of household refuse and demolition debris
was dumped at the site. No further information is available. If debris is still present this
should be removed and properly disposed prior to redevelopment of the subject
property.
Response: Thank you for providing this additional information. The developer will
investigate this area and remove any remaining household refuse or demolition debris
and properly dispose of it.
Comment:
The site is located as close as 230 feet from the Hastings Wellhead Protection Area
which is mapped as high vulnerability to pollution in the Hastings Wellhead Protection
Plan. The site is mapped as highly sensitive on the Sensitivity of the Prairie du Chien-
Jordan Aquifer to Pollution Map. Source: MN Geologic Atlas of Dakota County,
Minnesota – County Atlas Series, Atlas C-6, Plate 7 of 9 – Pollution Sensitivity. The site
is mapped as highly sensitive on the Pollution Sensitivity of the Bedrock Surface Map.
The pollution sensitivity rating corresponds to estimated travel time through the glacial
sediments burying the bedrock surface as defined by the Geologic Sensitivity
Workgroup (1991). The assumptions that relate the geologic factors to travel time were
tested with chemistry data from groundwater samples (e.g., tritium age and carbon-14).
Source: Adams, R., 2016 Pollution Sensitivity of the Bedrock Surface: St. Paul, MN
Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Hydrogeology Atlas Series HG-01,
v. 2, report and plate. The site is mapped as highly sensitive on Pollution Sensitivity of
Near-Surface Materials Map. This dataset estimates the pollution sensitivity of near-
X-C-01
Response to Comments
Walden at Hastings
January 2024
Page 15 of 26
surface materials from the transmission time of water through 3 feet of soil and 7 feet of
surficial geology, to a depth of 10 feet from the land surface. Source: Adams, R., 2016
Pollution Sensitivity of Near Surface Materials: St. Paul, MN Department of Natural
Resources, Minnesota Hydrogeology Atlas Series HG-01.
According to Table 4 the planned land cover is 28.86 acres of lawn/landscaping. The
City of Hastings municipal water supply has elevated nitrate because of human use of
fertilizer and has a treatment plant to reduce the nitrate levels for some of the municipal
wells. The site is underlaid by sandy soil which will require significant irrigation to
establish new lawns. Consider promoting or requiring drought tolerant seed like tall
fescue for lawn areas and planting native plants in landscape areas that will not require
an irrigation system. The site as mentioned above is highly sensitive to pollutants; lawn
care fertilizers and herbicides in the planned development can impact groundwater.
Requiring thick quality topsoil and subsequent inspection to verify it was provided in
areas slated for lawn and landscaping is recommended.
Response:
Thank you for your comment. The developer will consider using these suggested seed
mixes and lower maintenance lawns in the design. Placement of topsoil on the surface
will be specified to provide a growing medium and turf establishment and will be
inspected and approved prior to seeding or sodding.
Comment:
Water appropriation section (pg. 18)
EAW does not clarify the water supply source for the development. Is the intention to
connect to the City of Hastings water distribution system or will another water source be
used such as private wells or a small community system? If City of Hastings water is
used, will the estimated water usage for the development require the city to increase
their water appropriation?
Response:
The Walden Development will connect to the City of Hastings water distribution system.
A discussion will be held with the City in regards to the whether this will cause an
increase their water appropriation and related permitting needs.
Comment:
As noted in the EAW, the proposed development is adjacent to sensitive ecological
resources. The Dakota County Land Conservation Plan identifies the Sand Coulee
ecological area as one of 24 important conservation focus areas county-wide. The 17.5-
acre “Preserve”, as shown on the proposed development concept, will help protect the
sensitive on-site and adjacent ecological resources within the Sand Coulee. A common
management practice for the Oak Savanna dominated ecological systems found in the
Sand Coulee is to use prescribed burning to manage native prairie grasses. If
prescribed burning will be used as a management practice for the “Preserve” and
surrounding Sand Coulee, it may be advisable to limit the placement of buildings
X-C-01
Response to Comments
Walden at Hastings
January 2024
Page 16 of 26
immediately along the boundary of the “Preserve” and to allow access easements within
the proposed development and along the boundary of the “Preserve” to better
accommodate these best management practices.
The City may wish to work with the Minnesota DNR on the protection, restoration,
ownership, and management of the “Preserve” because it is contiguous to the DNR’s
263-acre Sand Coulee Scientific Natural Area unit. Dakota County staff are available to
facilitate these discussions if that would be useful. Please contact Environmental
Resources at 952-891-7000 or environ@co.dakota.mn.us for any additional information.
Response:
Thank you for your comment. The developer will coordinate with the MNDNR on the
preserve portion of the site. Dakota County staff are encouraged to be part of this
discussion.
Comment:
Transportation
County Transportation staff has determined that the proposed EAW will have little or no
impact to the county road system.
Response:
Thank you for your consideration.
X-C-01
Response to Comments
Walden at Hastings
January 2024
Page 17 of 26
Comments from:
Angela R. Torres, AICP, Senior Manager
Metropolitan Council (Regional Office & Environmental Services)
390 Robert Street N
St. Paul, MN 55101-1805
Comment:
Item 7- Climate Adaptation and Resilience (MacKenzie Young-Walters, 651-602-1373)
Given the fact that increased frequency and duration of heavy precipitation events has
been identified as a climate trend, the project proposer should commit to exceeding the
minimum local stormwater management requirements or utilizing additional green
infrastructure to further minimize the amount of stormwater generated by the
development. Similarly, committing to planting additional trees adjacent to the parking
areas beyond what is listed under Item 8 would help address identified climate
considerations including increasing temperatures and annual precipitation.
Response:
Thank you of providing your comment. The Developer will consider these suggestions in
the design of the project.
Comment:
Item 8-Cover Types (MacKenzie Young-Walters, 651-602-1373)
Item 8 has a minor text error in that it is the northeast portion of the site, not the
northwest which has been identified for preservation due to the presence of steep
slopes and woodland.
Response:
Thank you of providing your comment, the text of the document has been updated per
your recommendations.
The EAW text should be replaced as follows:
“The site is generally flat apart from the northwest northeast corner where
topography is steep.”
Comment:
Item 10-Land Use (Emma Dvorak, 651-602-1399)
The City’s Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Low Density Residential, which
permits 3- 6 units per acre. The project proposes a mix of housing types including twin
homes, town homes, apartments and single family homes. A Comprehensive Plan
Amendment will be required for certain portions of this project to accommodate
additional permitted density and ensure land use consistency.
X-C-01
Response to Comments
Walden at Hastings
January 2024
Page 18 of 26
Response:
Thank you of providing your comment. Project Proposers will work with the City of
Hastings to ensure that any required changes to the Comprehensive Plan are
addressed.
Comment:
Item 10- Land Use (Colin Kelly, 651-602-1361)
An EIS is not considered necessary. Council Parks staff appreciate that “a natural area
within the parcel will be maintained as a preserve.
Response:
Thank you of providing your comment.
Comment:
Item 10- Land Use (Todd Graham, 651-602-1322)
The City Plan expects TAZ #775 to gain +36 households and +27 population during
2020-2040. Should this project advance, Transportation Analysis Zone allocations for
Hastings will need to be updated. Metropolitan Council staff will revise the TAZ
database record accordingly, adding 500 households and 1000 population to TAZ #775;
and debiting the difference from growth in the balance of Hastings.
Response:
Thank you of providing your comment. We recognize that an update to the TAZ would
be needed.
Comment:
Item 18- Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Carbon Footprint (MacKenzie Young-Walters,
651-602- 1373)
The Metropolitan Council believes that applying the one vehicle per-household
assumption to the single-family housing products likely underestimates the amount of
GHG that will be generated from combustion-mobile sources during the operations
phase of the development. The project proposer should incorporate EV and solar ready
design and construction for both single-family and multi-family residential structures to
the list of mitigation measures proposed to reduce the project’s GHG emissions. This
mitigation measure would align with City’s 2040 Plan which states in Chapter 4’s Future
Land Use Goals and Strategies’ goal 4 that the City shall “Encourage and support
community (City, County, school, State entities, residents, businesses, and property
owners) investments in the installation of sustainable energy sources such as solar,
wind and geothermal for environmental and economic reasons as well as more energy
efficient transportation systems and capital.”
Response:
Using the one vehicle per household estimate, allows for the calculation of emissions for
additional vehicles per household. For example, the GHG assessment estimated that
annual emissions generated from the project related to mobile sources is 2,432.7 metric
X-C-01
Response to Comments
Walden at Hastings
January 2024
Page 19 of 26
tons per year, assuming that there is one vehicle per household. If two vehicles per
household are assumed, we double the estimate from the assessment, to equal 4,865.4
metric tons per year.
The project proposer may incorporate EV and solar ready design and construction for
both single-family and multi-family residential structures to the greatest extent
practicable.
Comment:
Item 20- Transportation (Joe Widing, 651-602-1822)
Pending MnDOT decision on a roundabout at Michael Avenue, Council staff
recommends the consideration of a roundabout at this location as it would increase
safety for non-motorized travel, particularly crossing the proposed Michael Avenue
along TH 316. Council staff would advise installing additional crossing treatments (like
paint and signage) for any mid-block trail crossing in the project site and the addition of
a sidewalk connecting to the proposed apartment building to improve non-motorized
access and circulation.
Response:
We appreciate your recommendations regarding the potential roundabout at Michael
Avenue. It will be up to the City of Hasting’s to determine if crossing provision are
required. MnDOT will be responsible for pedestrian and bicycle crossings and
accommodations of the trunk highway. It will be up to the City to require crossing
provisions of the minor approaches of Michael Avenue.
X-C-01
Response to Comments
Walden at Hastings
January 2024
Page 20 of 26
Comments from:
Jeff Dunn and Travis Thiel
Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization (VRWJPO)
4100 220th Street W, Suite 103
Farmington MN 55024
Comment:
VRWJPO suggests that table 5, City of Hastings, Watershed Management Plan to read
“under Vermillion River Watershed JPO”.
Response:
Thank you for your feedback on the need for this correction. The EAW text in Table 5,
under City of Hastings as Local unit of Government should be replaced as follows:
“Watershed Management Plan (under Vermillion River Watershed JPO)”
Comment:
Although the infiltration ponds will provide volume reduction and enhance water quality,
the prolonged discharge time of stormwater from the ponds during the larger storm
events could create erosion issues in the gullies and steeper terrain below the Project.
The VRWJPO suggests adding a discussion in Section 12 that describes how the
Project will mitigate potential offsite/downstream channel degradation.
Response: The developer will be required to maintain erosion control during
construction and construct an approved design that meets the long-term needs of
stormwater management. This includes protection of downgradient areas of discharge
that may be prone to erosion and gully formation over time. The entire stormwater
design will be reviewed and will consider the entire discharge alignment. Conditional
approvals may be agreed upon that would require revision and modification if design
plans are inadequate and repairs are needed.
Comment:
Water quality is discussed in section 21. The VRWJPO suggests also including
language that describe Project practices that will reduce discharge rates and
stormwater runoff volumes.
Response:
The development will be required to meet rate and volume control requirements and will
be reviewed prior to approval.
X-C-01
Response to Comments
Walden at Hastings
January 2024
Page 21 of 26
Comment from Office of the State Archeologist (OSA):
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above listed project. Review of our
files indicates there are no previously recorded archaeological sites, archaeological site
leads, or cemeteries in the proposed project area. While there are no known sites in the
project area, it does retain high potential to contain unrecorded intact archaeological
sites or features. Therefore, the OSA recommends a phase I archaeological
reconnaissance be conducted by a qualified archaeologist.
Response to OSA:
Thank you for your comment. In January 2023, we initiated early coordination by
providing comprehensive project details and the necessary forms to both the State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Office of State Archaeologist (OSA).
Subsequently, in February 2023, both agencies responded with similar letters to those
received during the EAW comment period.
While technically a Phase 1A or Phase 1 survey is not required, and cannot be
mandated by the SHPO or OSA, it is generally good advice to consider their
recommendations. It is understood that these agency recommendations aim to minimize
risk. Uncovered resources during construction demand immediate resolution, and the
potential delay's cost often outweighs preemptive Phase 1a assessments, a risk
proposers must carefully evaluate. If during construction, any resources are
encountered, all work will stop until agency coordination is completed.
The recommendation has been acknowledged and the project proposers will consider
the survey at a future stage of the project.
X-C-01
Response to Comments
Walden at Hastings
January 2024
Page 22 of 26
Comments from:
Sarah J Beimers
Environmental Review Program Manager
MN State Historic Preservation Office
50 Sherburn Ave
Administration Building 203
St. Paul, MN 55155
Comment:
Due to the nature and location of the proposed project, we recommend that a Phase IA
literature review and archaeological assessment be completed by a qualified
archaeologist to assess the potential for intact archaeological sites in the project area.
If, as a result of this assessment, a Phase I archaeological survey is recommended, this
survey should be completed. The survey must meet the requirements of the Secretary
of the Interior's Standards for Identification and Evaluation and should include an
evaluation of National Register eligibility for any properties that are identified. For a list
of consultants who have expressed an interest in undertaking this type of research and
archaeological surveys, please visit the website www.mnhs.org/preservation/directory,
and select “Archaeologists” in the “Search by Specialties” box.
We will reconsider the need for survey if the project area can be documented as
previously surveyed or disturbed. Any previous survey work must meet contemporary
standards. Note: plowed areas and right-of-way are not automatically considered
disturbed. Archaeological sites can remain intact beneath the plow zone and in
undisturbed portions of the right-of-way.
Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36 CFR § 800. If this project is
considered for federal financial assistance, or requires a federal permit or license, then
review and consultation with our office will need to be initiated by the lead federal
agency. Be advised that comments and recommendations provided by our office for this
state-level review may differ from findings and determinations made by the federal
agency as part of review and consultation under Section 106.
Response:
Thank you for your consideration of the project. We acknowledge the recommendation
to complete a Phase IA literature review.
X-C-01
Response to Comments
Walden at Hastings
January 2024
Page 23 of 26
Comments from:
Chris Green, Project Manager
Environmental Review Unit, Resource Management and Assistance Division
MN Pollution Control Agency
520 Layfayette Rd North
St. Paul, MN 55155
Comment:
Construction Stormwater
The project will disturb approximately 71. Projects disturbing 50 or more acres will
require submittal of the SWPPP to MPCA for review and approval prior to obtaining
NPDES/SDS General Construction Stormwater permit coverage.
The proposed project will need to design a stormwater management plan/system to
account for the total post-construction impervious surface water quality volume
requirements per the Construction Stormwater NPDES permit. It is recommended that
this be planned for and constructed at the beginning of the project.
Response:
Thank you for your consideration of the project. We are currently working on the
preliminary design and have been and continue to incorporate the NPDES permit
requirements.
During the development project if homes are sold before permanent coverage for a lot is
established the developer will need to be in compliance with section 13.6 regarding the
sale of individual lots and they will be required to distribute the MPCA's "Homeowner
Fact Sheet" at the time of the sale.
Response:
Thank you for your consideration of the project, your comment is noted. The Developer
will follow and be in compliance with Section 13.6 as noted.
Comment:
Noise
For informational considerations: in the last 4 to 5 years, MPCA and LGUs received
many complaints about noise from pickleball courts. This type of noise was not
contemplated when promulgating the noise rules; therefore, probably would not fall
under the rule. Nevertheless, it would be prudent to consider noise from pickleballs
when siting the courts to minimize future complaints.
Response:
Thank you for your consideration of the project. The developer will consider the
location of the courts during the design process.
X-C-01
Response to Comments
Walden at Hastings
January 2024
Page 24 of 26
Comment:
Wastewater
There is no discussion about the volume of wastewater flow anticipated for this project.
An estimate of the volume per unit and total flows should be included. It is stated that a
new wastewater facility is being constructed, but it would be nice to mention capacity of
the WWTP and how the project will impact the new facility.
Response:
Shown below is a table of wastewater flows from the development. Assuming 275 gals/
day/ home. Further discussion with the City will be had about their wastewater facilities
and impacts.
Phase 1 Building Type Unit Count Flows (gals/day/home)
Twinhome Units 54 14,850
Townhome Units 59 16,225
Apartment Units 170 46,750
Senior Units 24 6,600
Active Adult 36 9,900
Assisted Living Units 60 16,500
Total Phase 1 Flows: 110,825 gals/ day
Phase 2 Building Type
Single Family Homes 51 14,025
Total Development Flows: 124,850 gals/ day
An MPCA Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit will need to be completed for this project.
All of this information, as well as the City’s WWTF capacities will be provided on the
permit application.
Comment:
It also states that “The City of Hastings will review the Project’s needs during the
Building Permit process.” Since they are connecting to the city sewer system, it would
be nice to have some discussion on whether the sewer system has capacity or if
expansion of that sewer system is anticipated. 566 housing unit could have a
significant impact on the capacity of the downstream sewer system.
Response:
The total amount of units has been downgraded based on engineering design, and no
issues have identified at this time, however additional discussions will be had to ensure
downstream capacity is adequate.
X-C-01
Response to Comments
Walden at Hastings
January 2024
Page 25 of 26
Comments from:
Cameron Muhic, Principal Planner
MnDOT Metropolitan District
Waters Edge Building
1500 County Road B2 West
Roseville, MN 55113
Comment:
Pedestrian/Bicycle:
MN 316 is designated a state bikeway- US Bicycle Route 45/Mississippi River Trail.
Because of this MnDOT is pleased to see a proposed trail included in the EAW’s site
proposal. We encourage the incorporation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
(https://www.ada.gov/2010ADAstandards_index.htm) and (Minnesota) State Bike and
Pedestrian design guidelines (https://www.dot.state.mn.us/bike/bicycle-facility-design-
manual.html) as this proposal moves forward.
Questions regarding these comments should be directed to Tristan Trejo, MnDOT
Multimodal, at tristan.trejo@state.mn.us.
Response:
Thank you for your consideration of the project.
Comment:
Noise:
MnDOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land
use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in
complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise
standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of
Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities having the
authority to regulate land use shall take all reasonable measures to prevent the
establishment of land use activities, listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification
(NAC), anywhere that the establishment of the land use would result in immediate
violations of established State noise standards.
MnDOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the
expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such developed areas.
The project proposer is required to assess the existing noise situation and take the
action deemed necessary to minimize the impact to the proposed development from
any highway noise.
X-C-01
Response to Comments
Walden at Hastings
January 2024
Page 26 of 26
If you have any questions regarding MnDOT's noise policy please contact Natalie Ries
in Metro
District’s Noise and Air Quality Unit at Natalie.Ries@state.mn.us or 651-234-7681.
Response:
The project proposer will assess the existing noise at the project site, per MnDOT policy
outlined in your comment.
Comment:
Permits:
Any use of, or work within or affecting, MnDOT right of way will require a permit. Permits
can be applied for at this site: https://olpa.dot.state.mn.us/OLPA/. Please upload a copy
of this letter when applying for any permits.
Please direct questions regarding permit requirements to Buck Craig of MnDOT’s Metro
Permits Section at 651-775-0405 or Buck.Craig@state.mn.us.
Response:
Thank you for your consideration of the project. MnDOT Right of Way permits are listed
in Table 5, and the project proposer is aware of this requirement.
X-C-01
Project: LANEQ 170747
Map by: rbeduhnProjection: UTM NAD 83 Zone 15NSource: SEHinc, City of Hastings, MNDNR, MNDOT, USGS Dakota County
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey map and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information, and data gathered from various sources listed on this map and is to be used for reference purposes only. SEH does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and SEH does not represent thatthe GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking, or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The user of this map acknowledges that SEH shall not be liable for any damages which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided.
Figure12
Print Date: 1/30/2024
P a t h : X :\K O \L \L A N E Q \1 7 0 7 4 7 \5 -f i n a l -d s g n \5 1 -d r a w i n g s \9 0 -G I S \E A W F i g u r e S e t \F i g u r e 1 2 - Z o n i n g .m x d
City of Hastings Zoning SetbacksWaldon at Hastings DevelopmentHastings, Dakota County, Minnesota
3535 VADNAIS CENTER DR.ST. PAUL, MN 55110PHONE: (651) 490-2000FAX: (651) 490-2150WATTS: 800-325-2055www.sehinc.com
Legend
Bluff Impact Zone (30ft)
Shoreland Overlay District
Project Area
±
0 0.20.1 Miles
X-C-01
Walden EAW – Comment Received – January 31, 2024
1) Scott T. Sandkamp, Landowner
2) Steven Engstrom, Landowner
3) Jake Hauck, Landowner
4) Kelly (no last name provided), Landowner
5) Georg T Fischer, Dakota County
6) Chris Green, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
7) Sarah Beimers, Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
8) Jeff Dunn, Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization (VRWJPO)
9) John Reynolds, Minnesota Indian Affairs Council (MIAC)
10) Melissa Collins, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
11) Angela Torres, Metropolitan Council
12) Jennifer Tworzyanski, Office of State Archaeologist (OSA) – Received 1/29/24
13) Cameron Muhic, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MN DOT) – Received
1/31/24
X-C-01
City of Hastings
Community Development Director, Council Members and Mayor:
I am writing to you regarding the proposed Walden Development off
Hwy 316.
We live at the south end of town at 4122 Shannon Drive across from
Tuttle Park. Our back yard backs up to the 70-acre field that is
proposed to be developed.
It is sad to think that the city is considering sacrificing this prime
farmland to allow a development with 511 rental housing units to be
built. Farming is important to this community too. We bought our
house because of the view and the country feel. This type of
development concept does not fit the location that is being
proposed. This is Hastings, not Eden Prairie or Woodbury. If a
development has to be built here, please consider a single-family
home development where the people own their homes.
If this Life Cycle community is built per their plans, my family will be
looking at 18 two-story townhome buildings right on the edge of our
backyard with the road coming into these townhomes, dead ending
at our backyard, facing our house. We would have headlights shining
in our windows every time someone drives into these townhomes. I
would like to know what is going to be done to alleviate that.
We are concerned about the increase in the amount of traffic that
this development would cause, not only on Hwy 316 but also all the
way through town on Vermillion Street. The traffic is terrible the way
it is.
What about the traffic increase on Shannon Dr to get to Thomas
Ave? If this development goes through, the plan is to have two
X-C-01
entrances into it off Hwy 316. Why would the entrance to the
development from Thomas Ave be needed?
There are hundreds of kids that play baseball in Tuttle Park. There
are cars lined up on both sides of Shannon Dr every night in the
summer for these games.
Does Hastings really need 511 more rental housing units with all the
other apartments being built in town?
Please take into consideration the concerns of the residents that
already live here, especially those of us that have this field in our
backyard, as I can only imagine how much our property value is
going to go down if this development is built.
Thank you,
Scott T. Sandkamp
4122 Shannon Dr.
X-C-01
X-C-01
X-C-01
From:
To:
Subject:
Sent:
Jake Hauck
John Hinzman, AICP
Concerns about Walden Development
1/10/2024 10:05:39 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza
From:
To:
Subject:
Sent:
Kelly
John Hinzman, AICP
"Walden"
1/11/2024 6:54:16 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza
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
John Hinzman
Hastings City Hall
101 East 4th Street
Hastings, MN 55033
January 8, 2024
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed
Walden at Hastings, a 71.1‐acre housing development containing 511 residential housing units generally
located east of TH 316 and Michael Avenue in Hastings. County Physical Development Staff reviewed the
document and offer the following comments for consideration.
Environmental Resources
Environmental Resources conducted an environmental review of the subject area relating to the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment request from the City of Hastings. A known or suspected site of
environmental concern was identified on the subject properties. Known or suspected sites of environmental
concern were identified adjacent to the subject properties. Refer to the attached Environmental Review Map
and Report for more information.
Dakota County Site 7315 – Tree Waste and Refuse Dump was identified on the southeast corner of the
subject property. County records indicate the dump was identified in 1997 from a complaint. The 1997 site
inspection identified a large quantity of logs and wood debris and a small area of household refuse and
demolition debris was dumped at the site. No further information is available. If debris is still present this
should be removed and properly disposed prior to redevelopment of the subject property.
The site is located as close as 230 feet from the Hastings Wellhead Protection Area which is mapped as high
vulnerability to pollution in the Hastings Wellhead Protection Plan. The site is mapped as highly sensitive on
the Sensitivity of the Prairie du Chien‐Jordan Aquifer to Pollution Map. Source: MN Geologic Atlas of Dakota
County, Minnesota – County Atlas Series, Atlas C‐6, Plate 7 of 9 – Pollution Sensitivity:
https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/58494/dakota_plt7_sens_opdcjdn%5b1%5d.pdf?seq
uence=5&isAllowed=y . The site is mapped as highly sensitive on the Pollution Sensitivity of the Bedrock
Surface Map. The pollution sensitivity rating corresponds to estimated travel time through the glacial
sediments burying the bedrock surface as defined by the Geologic Sensitivity Workgroup (1991). The
assumptions that relate the geologic factors to travel time were tested with chemistry data from
groundwater samples (e.g., tritium age and carbon‐14). Source: Adams, R., 2016 Pollution Sensitivity of the
Bedrock Surface: St. Paul, MN Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Hydrogeology Atlas Series HG‐01,
v. 2, report and plate, accessible at https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/groundwater_section/mapping/mn‐
hydro‐atlas.html . The site is mapped as highly sensitive on Pollution Sensitivity of Near‐Surface Materials
Map. This dataset estimates the pollutionsensitivity of near‐surface materials from the transmission time of
water through 3 feet of soil and 7 feet of surficial geology, to a depth of 10 feet from the land surface.
Source: Adams, R., 2016 Pollution Sensitivity of Near Surface Materials: St. Paul, MN Department of Natural
X-C-01
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
Resources, Minnesota Hydrogeology Atlas Series HG‐01, v. 2, report and plate, accessible at
https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/groundwater_section/mapping/mn‐hydro‐atlas.html
According to Table 4 the planned land cover is 28.86 acres of lawn/landscaping. The City of Hastings
municipal water supply has elevated nitrate because of human use of fertilizer and has a treatment plant to
reduce the nitrate levels for some of the municipal wells. The site is underlaid by sandy soil which will require
significant irrigation to establish new lawns. Consider promoting or requiring drought tolerant seed like tall
fescue for lawn areas and planting native plants in landscape areas that will not require an irrigation system.
The site as mentioned above is highly sensitive to pollutants; lawn care fertilizers and herbicides in the
planned development can impact groundwater. Requiring thick quality topsoil and subsequent inspection to
verify it was provided in areas slated for lawn and landscaping is recommended.
Water appropriation section (pg. 18) – EAW does not clarify the water supply source for the development. Is
the intention to connect to the City of Hastings water distribution system or will another water source be
used such as private wells or a small community system? If City of Hastings water is used, will the estimated
water usage for the development require the city to increase their water appropriation?
As noted in the EAW, the proposed development is adjacent to sensitive ecological resources. The Dakota
County Land Conservation Plan identifies the Sand Coulee ecological area as one of 24 important
conservation focus areas county‐wide. The 17.5‐acre “Preserve”, as shown on the proposed development
concept, will help protect the sensitive on‐site and adjacent ecological resources within the Sand Coulee.
A common management practice for the Oak Savanna dominated ecological systems found in the Sand
Coulee is to use prescribed burning to manage native prairie grasses. If prescribed burning will be used as a
management practice for the “Preserve” and surrounding Sand Coulee, it may be advisable to limit the
placement of buildings immediately along the boundary of the “Preserve” and to allow access easements
within the proposed development and along the boundary of the “Preserve” to better accommodate these
best management practices.
The City may wish to work with the Minnesota DNR on the protection, restoration, ownership, and
management of the “Preserve” because it is contiguous to the DNR’s 263‐acre Sand Coulee Scientific Natural
Area unit. Dakota County staff are available to facilitate these discussions if that would be useful.
Please contact Environmental Resources at 952‐891‐7000 or environ@co.dakota.mn.us for any additional
information.
Transportation
County Transportation staff has determined that the proposed EAW will have little or no impact to the county
road system.
If you have any questions relating to our comments, please contact me at 952‐891‐7007 or
Georg.Fischer@co.dakota.mn.us
Sincerely,
Georg T. Fischer, Director
Physical Development Division
cc: Commissioner Mike Slavik, District 1
Matt Smith, County Manager
X-C-01
M i c h a e l A v e
M i c h a e l A v e
M M i i c c h h a a e e l l A A v v e e
T u t t l e C t
T u t t l e C t
L o n g s p u r L n
L o n g s p u r L n
Red Wing Blvd
Red Wing Blvd
M
a
r
t
i
n
C
t
M
a
r
t
i
n
C
t
M
M
a
a
h
h
ee
rr
A
A
v
v
ee
N N
e e i i l l ll PPaatthh
Tuttle DrTuttle Dr
K K i i n n g g l l e e t t D D r r
Douglas Dr
D
ouglas Dr
3377tthh SS t t WW
RRoobbeerrttCC
t
t
TT uuttttllee DDrr
Neill PathNeill Path
T T h h o o m m a a s s
A A v v e e
MMaarrttiinn LLnn
S
S
h
h
a
a
n
n
n
n
o
o
nn
D
D
r
r
C C o o r r
y y
L L n n
Red Wing Blvd
Red
W
ing Blvd
SS tt aarrllii
nn
gg
DDrr
M M e e g g g g a a n n D D r r
R R a a d d f f o o r r d d
R R d d
M a l c o l m A v e
M a l c o l m A v e
A
A
m
m
e
e
l
l
i
i
a
a
AAvvee
S
S
a
a
n
n
d
d
ppiippeerr
C
C
i
i
r
r
Robert DrRobert Dr
TTuuttttll ee DD r r
TThh r r e e e e R R i i v v e e r r s s
D D r r
SShhaannnnoonn DDrr
N i c o l a i A v e
N i c o l a i A v e
N
N
ii
c
c
o
o
l
l
a
a
i
i
A
A
v
v
e
e
Red Wing Blvd
Red Wing Blvd
7313
7075
7081
7062
7204
7071
7082
7314
7315
7208
Environmental Review Map Comp Plan Amendment - Best PropertiesHastings, MinnesotaReview Date: December 6, 2021
Copyright 2021, Dakota CountyThis drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to beused as one. This drawing is a compilation of records, information and data locatedin various city, county, and state offices and other sources, affecting the area shown,and is to be used for reference purposes only. Dakota County is not responsible forany inaccuracies herein contained. If discrepancies are found please contact theDakota County Environmental Resources Department.
!
Hazardous WasteGenerators
!WellsMPCA WIMN Sites
!.Multiple Programs
"Air Quality
"Environmental Review
"Feedlots
"Hazardous Waste
!Investigation and Cleanup
!Pollution Prevention
!Solid Waste
!Stormwater
#SSTS
#Tanks
#Water Quality
DC Site Inventory
DC Solid Waste Facilities
NPMS Pipelines
Electric Transmission Lines
Railroads
Parcels
Municipal Boundary
0 0.5Miles
X-C-01
Environmental Reveiw Report
Dakota County Site Inventory
File Status MPCA _ VICID Comments Site Classification Site Name MPCA Leak ID Site ID
7062 State Hospital Cemetery Large, Unlimited Variety Closed
7071 Ravine Dump Industrial Waste Disposal Closed
7075 Hertogs Contaminated
Agricultural Land & Well
Agricultural Disposal Closed
7081 Sand Coulee South Pit Large, Unlimited Variety Open
7314 Maher Demolition Dump Large, Unlimited Variety Open
7315 Tree Waste & Refuse Dump Large, Unlimited Variety Open
MPCA "What's In My Neighborhood" Site Data
InsƟtuƟonal Controls
( Y or N ) MPCA IDs MPCA AcƟviƟes City
AcƟve
Flag Address Name
South Pines Address UnknownY HasƟngs ConstrucƟon Stormwater NC00039885
Three Rivers Mobile
Home Community
Shannon Dr & Amelia
Ave
N HasƟngs ConstrucƟon Stormwater NC00004302
Walker Patrick 16945 Neill PathN HasƟngs Hazardous Waste NENF202
Maher Wall Drilling 17530 Red Wing BlvdN HasƟngs Hazardous Waste NMNR000059832
Maher Thomas 17400 Red Wing BlvdN HasƟngs Hazardous Waste NENF203
Connell Thomas 17205 Neill PathN HasƟngs Hazardous Waste NENF204
Wayne's AutoBody Address UnknownY HasƟngs ConstrucƟon Stormwater NC00030944
End of Report
Page 1 of 1 5:40:28 pm12/06/2021
X-C-01
January 9, 2024
John Hinzman
City of Hastings
Community Development Director
101 4th Street East Hastings, MN 55033
jhinzman@hastingsmn.gov
RE: Walden at Hastings – Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Dear: John Hinzman:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet
(EAW) for the Walden at Hastings project (Project) located in Hastings, Dakota County, Minnesota. The
Project consists of a 71.1‐acre housing project features a phased development plan, commencing in
2024 with a total of 511 proposed housing units. The project also includes a 17.5‐acre natural preserve,
new infrastructure, and recreational enhancements, transforming farmland into a diverse community
over a five‐year period. Regarding matters for which the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
has regulatory responsibility and other interests, the MPCA staff has the following comments for your
consideration.
Construction Stormwater
The project will disturb approximately 71. Projects disturbing 50 or more acres will require submittal of
the SWPPP to MPCA for review and approval prior to obtaining NPDES/SDS General Construction
Stormwater permit coverage.
The proposed project will need to design a stormwater management plan/system to account for the
total post‐construction impervious surface water quality volume requirements per the Construction
Stormwater NPDES permit. It is recommended that this be planned for and constructed at the beginning
of the project.
During the development project if homes are sold before permanent coverage for a lot is established
the developer will need to be in compliance with section 13.6 regarding the sale of individual lots and
they will be required to distribute the MPCA's "Homeowner Fact Sheet" at the time of the sale.
Noise
For informational considerations: in the last 4 to 5 years, MPCA and LGUs received many complaints
about noise from pickleball courts. This type of noise was not contemplated when promulgating the
noise rules; therefore, probably would not fall under the rule. Nevertheless, it would be prudent to
consider noise from pickleballs when siting the courts to minimize future complaints.
Wastewater
There is no discussion about the volume of wastewater flow anticipated for this project. An estimate of
the volume per unit and total flows should be included.
X-C-01
John Hinzman
Page 2
January 9, 2024
It is stated that a new wastewater facility is being constructed, but it would be nice to mention capacity
of the WWTP and how the project will impact the new facility.
It also states that “The City of Hastings will review the Project’s needs during the Building Permit
process.” Since they are connecting to the city sewer system, it would be nice to have some discussion
on whether the sewer system has capacity or if expansion of that sewer system is anticipated. 566
housing unit could have a significant impact on the capacity of the downstream sewer system.
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 actions 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 EAW, please contact me by email at Chris.Green@state.mn.us or by
telephone at 507‐476‐4258.
Sincerely,
Chris Green
This document has been electronically signed.
Chris Green
Project Manager
Environmental Review Unit
Resource Management and Assistance Division
CG:rs
cc: Dan Card, MPCA
Aaron Hinz, MPCA
Deepa deAlwis, MPCA
David Sahli, MPCA
Innocent Eyoh, MPCA
Megen Kuhl‐Stennes, MPCA
X-C-01
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
January 9, 2024
John Hinzman
Community Development Director
City of Hastings
101 4th St E
Hastings, MN 55033
RE: EAW – Walden at Hastings
T114 R17 S2 & S11, Hastings, Dakota County
SHPO Number: 2023-0826
Dear John Hinzman:
Thank you for providing this office with a copy of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the above-
referenced project.
Due to the nature and location of the proposed project, we recommend that a Phase IA literature review and archaeological
assessment be completed by a qualified archaeologist to assess the potential for intact archaeological sites in the project
area. If, as a result of this assessment, a Phase I archaeological survey is recommended, this survey should be completed.
The survey must meet the requirements of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Identification and Evaluation and
should include an evaluation of National Register eligibility for any properties that are identified. For a list of consultants
who have expressed an interest in undertaking this type of research and archaeological surveys, please visit the website
www.mnhs.org/preservation/directory, and select “Archaeologists” in the “Search by Specialties” box.
We will reconsider the need for survey if the project area can be documented as previously surveyed or disturbed. Any
previous survey work must meet contemporary standards. Note: plowed areas and right-of-way are not automatically
considered disturbed. Archaeological sites can remain intact beneath the plow zone and in undisturbed portions of the right-
of-way.
Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and 36 CFR § 800. If this project is considered for federal financial assistance, or requires
a federal permit or license, then review and consultation with our office will need to be initiated by the lead
federal agency. Be advised that comments and recommendations provided by our office for this state-level review
may differ from findings and determinations made by the federal agency as part of review and consultation under
Section 106.
If you have any questions regarding our review of this project, please contact Kelly Gragg-Johnson, Environmental
Review Program Specialist, at 651-201-3285 or kelly.graggjohnson@state.mn.us.
Sincerely,
Sarah J. Beimers
Environmental Review Program Manager
X-C-01
Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization
4100 220th Street West, Suite 103, Farmington, Minnesota 55024 | 952.891.7000 | Fax 952.891.7588
December 22, 2023
John Hinzman, AICP
Community Development Director
City of Hastings
101 4th Street E
Hastings, MN 55033
RE: Walden at Hastings EAW Comments
The Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization (VRWJPO) appreciates the opportunity to
review and comment on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), December 2022 Version for
the Walden at Hastings Project. Staff has reviewed the document and have the following comments:
• VRWJPO suggests that table 5, City of Hastings, Watershed Management Plan to read “under
Vermillion River Watershed JPO”.
• Although the infiltration ponds will provide volume reduction and enhance water quality, the
prolonged discharge time of stormwater from the ponds during the larger storm events could
create erosion issues in the gullies and steeper terrain below the Project. The VRWJPO suggests
adding a discussion in Section 12 that describes how the Project will mitigate potential
offsite/downstream channel degradation.
• Water quality is discussed in section 21. The VRWJPO suggests also including language that
describe Project practices that will reduce discharge rates and stormwater runoff volumes.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Walden at Hastings EAW.
Sincerely,
Jeff Dunn Travis Thiel
VRWJPO Water Resources Engineer VRWJPO Administrator
X-C-01
Letter 1
161 St. Anthony Ave, Suite 919 Saint Paul, MN 55103
MIAC.Culturalresources@state.mn.us
Date: 01/08/2024
John Hinzman
City of Hastings
651.480.2378
Jhinzman@hastingsmn.gov
Project Name: Walden
at Hastings
Submitter’s
Project ID:
Known or Suspected Cemeteries
☐ Platted Cemeteries
☐ Unplatted Cemeteries
☐ Burial File
☐ Authenticated Burial
Notes/Comments
The Minnesota Indian Affairs Council (MIAC) completed the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
review for - Walden at Hastings project. MIAC highly recommends initiating consultation with Minnesota's
Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPO), conducting cultural resource management fieldwork prior to
development, and depending on survey results arranging archaeological monitoring, or an Unanticipated
Discoveries Plan. The project's area is within an area likely to contain cultural resources. Construction
without a preliminary survey may disturb unrecorded cultural resources. For questions regarding this
review, please do not hesitate to contact MIAC's cultural resource personnel.
Recommendations
X-C-01
Letter 2
☐ Not Applicable
☐ No Concerns
☐ Monitoring
☐ Avoidance
☒ Phase Ia – Literature Review
☒ Phase I – Reconnaissance survey
☐ Phase II – Evaluation
☐ Phase III – Data Recovery
☒ Other -
If you require additional information or have questions, comments, or concerns please contact our office.
Sincerely,
John Reynolds
Cultural Resource Specialist
MIAC
161 St. Anthony Avenue, Ste. 919
Saint Paul MN 55103
651.539.2200
John.Reynolds@state.mn.us
X-C-01
Division of Ecological and Water Resources Transmitted by Email
Region 3 Headquarters
1200 Warner Road
Saint Paul, MN 55106
January 11, 2024
John Hinzman
Community Development Director
City of Hastings
101 4th St. East
Hastings, MN 55033
Dear John Hinzman,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Walden at Hastings Environmental Assessment Worksheet
(EAW) located in Dakota County. The DNR respectfully submits the following comments for your
consideration:
1. Page 3, Project Description. The DNR has previously expressed interest in acquiring the 17.5
acre parcel that borders the Hastings Sand Coulee Scientific and Natural Area (SNA). More than
99% of the prairie that was present in the state before settlement has been destroyed, and
more than one third of Minnesota's endangered, threatened, and special concern species are
now dependent on the remaining small fragments of Minnesota's prairie ecosystem. Therefore,
we feel that all prairie remnants merit protection. This parcel is especially important in
connecting two segments of the SNA and creating an unbroken habitat and management
corridor. We appreciate that the proposer is prioritizing this parcel for conservation and
considering donating this property to the DNR. We look forward to future discussions on this
potential acquisition. Please reach out to SNA Statewide Acquisition Coordinator, Bill
Bleckwenn (bill.bleckwenn@state.mn.us), and Regional SNA Supervisor, Kit Elstad-Haveles
(kit.elstad-haveles@state.mn.us) for further coordination.
2. Page 12, Zoning. The development will be located at the top of a bluff area. It is not clear if any
bluff setbacks are required, and if so, what those setbacks are. It also appears that the
development will be located within 300 feet of a public watercourse (Unnamed Creek: M-049-
000.8). The project should be consistent with the City’s shoreland ordinance, if applicable.
3. Page 14, Soils and Topography. Please be aware that any soils associated with the bluff area
should be considered as highly erodible based on the slope alone. Extra precautions should be
taken when working in close proximity to the bluff in order to prevent issues with sediment and
erosion. It will be important to comply with any required bluff setbacks.
X-C-01
4. Page 17, Wastewater. It would be helpful to have more information on the estimated volume
of water use and wastewater that is anticipated for the development and how that compares to
the capacity of Hasting’s current municipal water supply and wastewater treatment facility.
5. Page 18, Stormwater. The DNR recommends that stormwater be used for landscape irrigation.
The re-use of stormwater for irrigation will reduce the volume of stormwater and stormwater
pollution flowing downstream of the site. In addition, the use of stormwater for irrigating
landscaping will conserve valuable groundwater.
6. Page 18, Stormwater. The increase in impervious surfaces will also increase the amount of road
salt used in the project area. Chloride released into groundwater as well as 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 consider how they may participate in the Statewide
Chloride Management Plan and 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.
7. Page 18, Stormwater. It is unclear if the planned stormwater features will include infiltration.
The location of the southeast stormwater pond at the edge of a steep hill/bluff area could pose
a challenge for infiltration and cause erosion issues along the steep slope depending on how
stormwater is routed off the site. Since the preserve area is such a high quality natural
resource, stormwater should not be directed towards the natural area in a way that could alter
the natural hydrology, contribute to sediment and erosion, or introduce nutrients and other
contaminants that could degrade this natural area. The project area is also in a High Potential
Zone for the federally-endangered, rusty patched bumble bee, and borders a sensitive
ecological area. Therefore, we encourage the development to use weed-free, native seed mixes
in landscaping and stormwater features to the greatest extent possible in order to provide
pollinator and wildlife habitat. Also, be sure that any rare species/features avoidance measures
are clearly identified on construction plans and incorporated into the Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan.
8. Page 18, Water Appropriation. A DNR Water Appropriation Permit is required if the water
pumped exceeds 10,000 gallons in a day, or one million gallons in one year. The DNR General
Permit for Temporary Appropriation, with its lower permit application fee and reduced time for
review, may be used for the dewatering if the dewatering volume is less than 50 million gallons
and the time of the appropriation is less than one year.
9. Page 21, Rare Features. Please note that the May 10, 2023 Natural Heritage letter identified
several rare plant species in the vicinity of the project area, which resulted in a rare plant
survey that did locate the state-endangered, Polanisia jamesii. At this time, DNR has not yet
X-C-01
received the survey data or report. The proposer should submit this information to DNR if they
have not done so already.
The Natural Heritage letter also stated that the North American racer (Coluber constrictor),
gophersnake (Pituophis catenifer), and western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis), all
state-listed species of special concern, have been documented in the vicinity of the proposed
project and may be encountered on site. These species should be discussed within the EAW.
Given the presence of these rare animals, the DNR recommends that the use of erosion control
mesh, if any, be limited to wildlife-friendly materials.
10. Page 24, Rare Features. The May 10, 2023 Natural Heritage letter also stated that the
Minnesota Biological Survey (MBS) has identified a Site of Outstanding Biodiversity Significance
on the east side of much of the proposed project. Sites of Biodiversity Significance have varying
levels of native biodiversity and are ranked based on the relative significance of this biodiversity
at a statewide level. Sites ranked as Outstanding contain the best occurrences of the rarest
species, the most outstanding examples of the rarest native plant communities, and/or the
largest, most intact functional landscapes present in the state. This Site was mapped by MBS as
Dry Sand – Gravel Prairie (Southern), state-ranked as Imperiled. We encourage you to consider
project alternatives that would avoid or minimize disturbance to this ecologically significant
area. Actions to minimize disturbance may include, but are not limited to, the following
recommendations:
Minimize vehicular disturbance in the MBS Site (allow only vehicles/equipment
necessary for construction activities);
Do not park equipment or stockpile supplies in the MBS Site;
Do not place spoil within MBS Site or other sensitive areas;
Retain a buffer between proposed activities and the MBS Site;
If possible, conduct the work under frozen ground conditions;
Use effective erosion prevention and sediment control measures;
Inspect and clean all equipment prior to bringing it to the Site to prevent the
introduction and spread of invasive species;
As much as possible, operate within already-disturbed areas;
Revegetate disturbed soil with native species suitable to the local habitat as soon after
construction as possible; and
Use only weed-free mulches, topsoils, and seed mixes. Of particular concern are
birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus) and crown vetch (Coronilla varia), two invasive
species that are sold commercially and are problematic in prairies and disturbed open
areas.
X-C-01
We greatly appreciate that this area is being prioritized for conservation, and regardless of
ownership, this is an important and sensitive area that could be indirectly impacted by the
proposed development. Maintaining a buffer along the bluff area that utilizes appropriate
native seed mixes is one way to protect the preserve area. It will also be important that
stormwater is managed effectively and directed away from the natural area.
Please coordinate with the DNR Regional Plant Ecologist, Amanda Weise
(Amanda.weise@state.mn.us), and the SNA regarding seed mixes and vegetation management,
including for invasive species. Seed mixes near the natural area should be native seed, locally
sourced and appropriate for the native plant communities found in this immediate area
(Ups13b). The DNR can work with the proposer and seed vendors on an appropriate seed mix.
11. Page 26, Visual. Given the proximity of the development to a sensitive natural area,
development lighting is an important consideration, especially on the larger buildings near the
bluff. Animals depend on the daily cycle of light and dark for behaviors such as hunting,
migrating, sleeping, and protection from predators. Light pollution can affect their sensitivity to
the night environment and alter their activities. In addition to the undesirable effects of upward
facing lighting, the hue of lights can also affect wildlife. LED lighting has become increasingly
popular due to its efficiency and long lifespan. However, these bright lights tend to emit blue
light, which can be harmful to birds, insects, and fish. The DNR recommends that any projects
using LED luminaries follow the MnDOT Approved Products for luminaries, which limits the
Uplight rating to 0. A nominal color temperature below 2700K is preferable for wildlife, and so
we recommend choosing products that have the lowest number for backlight and glare (all
approved products should already be 0 for Uplight).
12. Hasting’s Sand Coulee SNA Considerations:
Management of the SNA involves semi-regular use of prescribed fire to maintain open
habitat conditions that are favorable to rare plant and wildlife species that exist on the
property. Prescribed burning is generally considered a safe land management tool, but
smoke from this activity can reach other adjacent properties on occasion. Smoke may
reach the development, and neighboring properties and potential homeowners should
be made aware of this potential when purchasing adjacent property.
Vegetation management of landscaping within the development open areas, and within
stormwater features will be important to coordinate with the DNR so that potential
management does not negatively impact the SNA through the introduction of invasive
species, herbicide/pesticide drift, or by negatively impacting rare species that may use
the new open spaces. We encourage developers to incorporate native plants and seed
mixes into development landscaping and stormwater features to the greatest degree
possible in order to provide pollinator habitat. Due to the proximity to the SNA, please
make sure that all seed mixes are free of noxious weeds and invasive species.
X-C-01
The SNA would like to coordinate on the placement of any trails within the development
that would direct traffic towards the SNA.
Please contact Regional SNA Supervisor, Kit Elstad-Haveles (Kit.elstad-
haveles@state.mn.us), for further coordination with the SNA.
Thank you again for the opportunity to review this document, and please let me know if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Melissa Collins
Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist | Ecological and Water Resources
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
1200 Warner Road
St. Paul, MN 55106
Phone: 651-259-5755
Email: melissa.collins@state.mn.us
CC: C.S. Beadle, LandEquity Development
Equal Opportunity Employer
X-C-01
Metropolitan Council (Regional Office & Environmental Services)
390 Robert Street North, Saint Paul, MN 55101-1805
P 651.602.1000 | F 651.602.1550 | TTY 651.291.0904
metrocouncil.org
An Equal Opportunity Employer
January 11, 2024
John Hinzman, Community Development Director
City of Hastings
101 4th Street East
Hastings, MN 55033
RE: City of Hastings – Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) – Walden at Hastings
Metropolitan Council Review No. 22928-1
Metropolitan Council District No. 12
Dear John Hinzman:
The Metropolitan Council received the EAW for the Walden at Hastings project in the City of Hastings on
December 12, 2023. The proposed project is located in southeast Hastings along Great River Road. The
proposed development consists of 71.1 total acres with 511 housing units and a 17.5-acre natural
preserve.
The staff review finds that the EAW is complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns and does
not raise major issues of consistency with Council policies. An EIS is not necessary for regional
purposes.
We offer the following comments for your consideration.
Item 7- Climate Adaptation and Resilience (MacKenzie Young-Walters, 651-602-1373)
Given the fact that increased frequency and duration of heavy precipitation events has been
identified as a climate trend, the project proposer should commit to exceeding the minimum local
stormwater management requirements or utilizing additional green infrastructure to further
minimize the amount of stormwater generated by the development. Similarly, committing to
planting additional trees adjacent to the parking areas beyond what is listed under Item 8 would
help address identified climate considerations including increasing temperatures and annual
precipitation.
Item 8-Cover Types (MacKenzie Young-Walters, 651-602-1373)
Item 8 has a minor text error in that it is the northeast portion of the site, not the northwest which
has been identified for preservation due to the presence of steep slopes and woodland.
Item 10-Land Use (Emma Dvorak, 651-602-1399)
The City’s Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Low Density Residential, which permits 3-
6 units per acre. The project proposes a mix of housing types including twin homes, town homes,
apartments and single family homes. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment will be required for
certain portions of this project to accommodate additional permitted density and ensure land use
consistency.
X-C-01
Page - 2 | January 11, 2024 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Item 10- Land Use (Colin Kelly, 651-602-1361)
An EIS is not considered necessary. Council Parks staff appreciate that “a natural area within the
parcel will be maintained as a preserve.
Item 10- Land Use (Todd Graham, 651-602-1322)
The City Plan expects TAZ #775 to gain +36 households and +27 population during 2020-2040.
Should this project advance, Transportation Analysis Zone allocations for Hastings will need to be
updated. Metropolitan Council staff will revise the TAZ database record accordingly, adding 500
households and 1000 population to TAZ #775; and debiting the difference from growth in the
balance of Hastings.
Item 18- Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Carbon Footprint (MacKenzie Young-Walters, 651-602-
1373)
The Metropolitan Council believes that applying the one vehicle per-household assumption to the
single-family housing products likely underestimates the amount of GHG that will be generated
from combustion-mobile sources during the operations phase of the development. The project
proposer should incorporate EV and solar ready design and construction for both single-family
and multi-family residential structures to the list of mitigation measures proposed to reduce the
project’s GHG emissions. This mitigation measure would align with City’s 2040 Plan which states
in Chapter 4’s Future Land Use Goals and Strategies’ goal 4 that the City shall “Encourage and
support community (City, County, school, State entities, residents, businesses, and property
owners) investments in the installation of sustainable energy sources such as solar, wind and
geothermal for environmental and economic reasons as well as more energy efficient
transportation systems and capital.”
Item 20- Transportation (Joe Widing, 651-602-1822)
Pending MnDOT decision on a roundabout at Michael Avenue, Council staff recommends the
consideration of a roundabout at this location as it would increase safety for non-motorized travel,
particularly crossing the proposed Michael Avenue along TH 316. Council staff would advise
installing additional crossing treatments (like paint and signage) for any mid-block trail crossing in
the project site and the addition of a sidewalk connecting to the proposed apartment building to
improve non-motorized access and circulation.
This concludes the Council’s review of the EAW. The Council will not take formal action on the EAW. If
you have any questions or need further information, please contact Emma Dvorak, Principal Reviewer, at
651-602-1399 or via email at emma.dvorak@metc.state.mn.us.
Sincerely,
Angela R. Torres, AICP, Senior Manager
Local Planning Assistance
CC: Tod Sherman, Development Reviews Coordinator, MnDOT - Metro Division
Susan Vento, Metropolitan Council District 12
Emma Dvorak, Sector Representative/Principal Reviewer
Reviews Coordinator
N:\CommDev\LPA\Communities\Hastings\Letters\Hastings 2024 Walden at Hastings EAW 22928-1.docx
X-C-01
Letter 1
328 West Kellogg Blvd St Paul, MN 55102
OSA.Project.Reviews.adm@state.mn.us
Date: 01/29/2024
John Hinzman
City of Hastings
651.480.2378
Jhinzman@hastingsmn.gov
Project Name: Walden at Hastings
Notes/Comments
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above listed project. Review of our files indicates there
are no previously recorded archaeological sites, archaeological site leads, or cemeteries in the proposed
project area. While there are no known sites in the project area, it does retain high potential to contain
unrecorded intact archaeological sites or features. Therefore, the OSA recommends a phase I
archaeological reconnaissance be conducted by a qualified archaeologist. The Minnesota Historical Society
maintains a list of cultural resource professionals here for your convenience:
https://www.mnhs.org/preservation/directory.
Recommendations
☐ Not Applicable
☐ No Concerns
☐ Monitoring
☐ Avoidance
☐ Phase Ia – Literature Review
☒ Phase I – Reconnaissance survey
☐ Phase II – Evaluation
☐ Phase III – Data Recovery
☐ Other
X-C-01
Letter 2
If you require additional information or have questions, comments, or concerns please contact our office.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Tworzyanski
Assistant to the State Archaeologist
OSA
Kellogg Center 328 Kellogg Blvd W
St Paul MN 55102
651.201.2265
jennifer.tworzyanski@state.mn.us
X-C-01
Metropolitan District
Waters Edge Building
1500 County Road B2 West
Roseville, MN 55113
An equal opportunity employer
MnDOT Metropolitan District, Waters Edge Building, 1500 County Road B2 West, Roseville, MN 55113
January 31, 2024
John Hinzman
Community Development Director
City of Hastings
101 4th Street East
Hastings, MN 55033
SUBJECT: MnDOT Review # EAW23-009
Walden at Hastings EAW
NE Quad of MN 316/Great River Road & Michael Avenue
Hastings, Dakota County
Dear Mr. Hinzman:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Walden at Hastings EAW. Please note that
MnDOT's review of this EAW does not constitute approval of a regional traffic analysis and is
not a specific approval for access or new roadway improvements. As plans are refined, we would
like the opportunity to review the updated information and possibly coordinate with our partners.
MnDOT’s staff has reviewed the document and has the following comments:
Pedestrian/Bicycle:
MN 316 is designated a state bikeway- US Bicycle Route 45/Mississippi River Trail. Because of
this MnDOT is pleased to see a proposed trail included in the EAW’s site proposal. We
encourage the incorporation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
(https://www.ada.gov/2010ADAstandards_index.htm) and (Minnesota) State Bike and
Pedestrian design guidelines (https://www.dot.state.mn.us/bike/bicycle-facility-design-
manual.html) as this proposal moves forward.
Questions regarding these comments should be directed to Tristan Trejo, MnDOT Multimodal, at
tristan.trejo@state.mn.us.
Noise:
MnDOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and
highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic
noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that
municipalities having the authority to regulate land use shall take all reasonable measures to
prevent the establishment of land use activities, listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification
(NAC), anywhere that the establishment of the land use would result in immediate violations of
established State noise standards.
X-C-01
MnDOT Metropolitan District, Waters Edge Building, 1500 County Road B2 West, Roseville, MN 55113
MnDOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure
of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such developed areas. The project proposer is
required to assess the existing noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize
the impact to the proposed development from any highway noise.
If you have any questions regarding MnDOT's noise policy please contact Natalie Ries in Metro
District’s Noise and Air Quality Unit at Natalie.Ries@state.mn.us or 651-234-7681.
Permits:
Any use of, or work within or affecting, MnDOT right of way will require a permit.
Permits can be applied for at this site: https://olpa.dot.state.mn.us/OLPA/. Please upload a copy
of this letter when applying for any permits.
Please direct questions regarding permit requirements to Buck Craig of MnDOT’s Metro Permits
Section at 651-775-0405 or Buck.Craig@state.mn.us.
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 to metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us. Attachments may not
exceed 20 MB (megabytes) per email. Documents can be zipped as well. If multiple
emails are necessary, number each email.
2. Files over 20 MB can also be uploaded to MnDOT’s Web Transfer Client site:
https://mft.dot.state.mn.us. Create an account and folder, upload documents to that folder,
then check the folder and share to metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us. Please send an
accompanying email with a narrative for the development.
If you have any questions concerning this review, please contact me at (651) 234-7797.
Sincerely,
Cameron Muhic
Principal Planner
Copy sent via E-Mail:
Buck Craig, Permits Lance Schowalter, Design
Jason Swenson, Water Resources Almin Ramic, Traffic
Bryant Ficek, Area Manager Mark Lundquist, Right-of-Way
Michael Kowski, Maintenance Tristan Trejo, Multimodal
Amrish Patel, Transit Joe Widing, Metropolitan Council
X-C-01
December 2022 version
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
This most recent Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) form and guidance documents are
available at the Environmental Quality Board’s website at: https://www.eqb.state.mn.us/ The EAW
form provides information about a project that may have the potential for significant environmental
effects. Guidance documents provide additional detail and links to resources for completing the EAW
form.
Cumulative potential effects can either be addressed under each applicable EAW Item or can be
addressed collectively under EAW Item 21.
Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the RGU during the 30‐day comment period
following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and
completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for an
EIS.
1. Project title: Walden at Hastings
2. Proposer: LandEquity Development 3. RGU: City of Hastings
Contact person: C.S Beadle Contact person: John Hinzman
Title: Founder Title: Community Development Director
Address: 333 Washington Ave Address: 101 4th St East
City, State, ZIP: Minneapolis, MN 55401 City, State, ZIP: Hastings, MN 55033
Phone: 612.614.3020 Phone: 651.480.2378
Fax: Fax:
Email: landequitydevelopment@gmail.com Email: Jhinzman@hastingsmn.gov
4. Reason for EAW Preparation: (check one)
Required: Discretionary:
At a minimum attach each of the following to the EAW:
County map showing the general location of the project;
U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (photocopy
acceptable); and
Site plans showing all significant project and natural features. Pre‐construction site plan and
post‐construction site plan.
List of data sources, models, and other resources (from the Item‐by‐Item Guidance: Climate
Adaptation and Resilience or other) used for information about current Minnesota climate
trends and how climate change is anticipated to affect the general location of the project during
the life of the project (as detailed below in item 7. Climate Adaptation and Resilience).
Table 1. List of Figures, Tables, Exhibits and Attachments
List of Figures
Figure 1 – Site Location Map
Figure 2 – Site Topographic Map
Figure 3 – Project Details
Figure 4 – Land Cover
Figure 5 – Soil Survey and Prime Farmland
Figure 6 - Minnesota Geological Survey Dakota County Map series
Figure 7 – 2-ft LiDAR Topography
Figure 8 - Known Karst Features
Figure 9 – Surface Waters
Figure 10 – National Wetlands Inventory
Figure 8 - County Well Index and Wellhead Protection Areas
List of Tables
Table 1 – List of Figures, Tables, Exhibits and Attachments
Table 2 – Project Magnitude
Table 3 - Resources and Climate Trends
Table 4 – Land Cover
Table 4a – Green Infrastructure
Table 4b – Tree Cover
Table 5 – Permits Required
Table 6 – Mapped Soils
Table 7 – Wells Adjacent to Project
Table 8 – What’s in my Neighborhood Query Results
Table 9 – State-Listed Species
Table 10 – Federally-Listed Species
Table 11 – Emission Categories for GHG Assessment
Table 12 – On-road vehicle Emissions
Table 13 – Off-road vehicle Emissions
Table 14 - Loss of Carbon Sequestration
Table 15 – Traffic Emissions
Table 16 – Natural Gas Emissions
Table 17 – Electricity Emissions
Table 18 – Waste Management Emissions
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1 – Historical Average Temperature for Dakota County
Exhibit 2 – Recent and Projected Future Average Temperature for
Dakota County
Exhibit 3 – Historical Precipitation for Dakota County
List of Attachments
Attachment A – MNDNR Natural Heritage Response Letter
Attachment B – USFWS Information, Planning, and Consultation
System (IPaC) Letter
Attachment C – SHPO Response Letter
Attachment D - Traffic Impact Study
X-C-01
6. Project Description:
a. Provide the brief project summary to be published in the EQB Monitor, (approximately 50
words).
This 71.1‐acre housing project features a phased development plan, commencing in 2024
with a total of 511 proposed housing units. The project also includes a 17.5‐acre natural
preserve, new infrastructure, and recreational enhancements, transforming farmland
into a diverse community over a five‐year period.
b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction, including
infrastructure needs. If the project is an expansion include a description of the existing facility.
Emphasize: 1) construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical
manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes, 2) modifications to existing equipment
or industrial processes, 3) significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures,
and 4) timing and duration of construction activities.
The Project includes the construcƟon of single‐family, twin homes, townhomes, apartments,
senior and active adult living, and assisted living units as part of a new development in HasƟngs,
Minnesota. The Project aims to incorporate family living in one (1) development. Whether a
person is owning their first, having their second child, living their acƟve lives in their senior
years or needs assistance and care, they are welcome. The goal is to have families living and
thriving in the same development. The proposed Project would construct the following housing
units:
Phase 1 (2024)
54 Twinhome Units (ITE Land Use: Multifamily Housing– Low‐rise)
68 Townhome Units (ITE Land Use: Multifamily Housing– Low‐rise)
170 Apartment Units (ITE Land Use: Multifamily Housing– Mid‐rise)
24 Senior Units (ITE Land Use: Assisted Living)
60 Active Senior Living Units (ITE Land Use: Senior Adult Housing (Single Family))
80 Assisted Living Units (ITE Land Use: Assisted Living)
Phase 1 (2029)
55 Single Family Homes (ITE Land Use: Single Family Detached Housing)
The property parcel is 71.1 acres of land for the housing units, storm water treatment ponds and
play/ open space. A natural area within the parcel will be maintained as a preserve. The preserve
will be 17.5 acres of the total 71.1 acres. This protected land encompasses the eastern tree line,
steep slopes, and sand coulee prairie.
New public and private roadways will be constructed to provide access to the development from TH
316 (Red Wing Blvd). Sidewalks will be constructed along several roadways to provide pedestrian
mobility. AddiƟonal trails will be built throughout the development for mobility and recreaƟon.
The land is currently used for row crop agriculture. No exisƟng structures are present that will
require modificaƟon or removal. All of the proposed work will require grading and earthwork, which
can be accomplished with standard construcƟon equipment. The site will be mass graded to provide
the lots and roadway alignments, and will level the site to provide buildable
condiƟons. Infrastructure for water, sewer, and storm water management will be constructed in
X-C-01
conjuncƟon with the grading to provide a site suitable for building the mulƟple living styles listed
previously.
The construcƟon will be iniƟated in 2024 to complete the mass grading and prepare the site for
development. The duraƟon of mass grading and installaƟon of the roadways will take approximately
four (4) months. Individual lots are expected to be developed over a five‐year period.
c. Project magnitude:
Table 2. Project Magnitude Summary
Description Number
Total Project Acreage 71.10 Acres
Linear project length (Street Length within
project area)
2,695 linear feet, 2.44 acres
Number and type of residential units Single Family home – 55
Twinhomes – 54
Townhomes – 68
Apartment Units – 170
Senior Units – 24
Assisted Living Units – 80
Active Senior Living Units – 60
Total Units ‐ 511
Residential building area (in square feet) 665,524 ft2
15.28 acres
Commercial building area (in square feet) N/A
Industrial building area (in square feet) N/A
Institutional building area (in square feet) N/A
Other uses – specify (in square feet) Recreational (Pickleball Court,
Pedestrian Trails) –
75,787 ft2
1.74 acres
Preserve Area – 764,029.9 ft2
17.54 acres
Common Area (pervious)‐
1,485,396 ft2
34.10 acres
Maximum Height of Structures (feet): Single Family, Twinhome and
Townhome Units:
2 Stories/ 28 feet
Apartment, Active Adult and
Assisted Living:
4 stories/ 56 feet
d. Explain the project purpose; if the project will be carried out by a governmental unit, explain the
need for the project and identify its beneficiaries.
The purpose of the project is to construct 511 residential units of varying sizes and price ranges
within the City of Hastings. The need of the project is to expand the number of affordable residential
housing opportunities within the City of Hastings and the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area.
X-C-01
This is a private project being completed as a business opportunity to develop and sell lots for
commercial gain. It is not being completed by a governmental unit.
e. Are future stages of this development including development on any other property planned or
likely to happen?
Explorer2), predict that average temperatures for Dakota County will continue to warm into
the late century (2099).
Exhibit 2. Recent and Projected Future Average Temperature for Dakota County
Climate data available through the Minnesota Climate Explorer3, demonstrates precipitation
recorded in Dakota County, has increased on average 0.37 inches, over the past century (1895
to 2023).
Exhibit 3. Historical Precipitation for Dakota County
In general, projections for Minnesota predict that the days per year with more than 1‐inch of
precipitation will increase, but summer precipitation will be lower (i.e., precipitation events
will be larger, but more infrequent) by the end of the century, as compared with the historical
period of 1981‐20104. Climate change impacts at the location of the Project, will likely include
warmer temperatures and more periods of drought with periodic flooding.
3 Minnesota Climate Explorer (state.mn.us)
4 Minnesota Climate Projections | Climate (umn.edu)
X-C-01
b. For each Resource Category in the table below: Describe how the project’s proposed activities
and how the project’s design will interact with those climate trends. Describe proposed
adaptations to address the project effects identified.
Table 3. Resources and Climate Trends
Resource
Category
Climate Considerations Project Information Adaptations
Project Design Design should consider
increased frequency and
duration of heavy rain
events; potential for flooding.
The Project will
result in an overall
increase of
impervious surface,
through the
conversion of an
existing agricultural
field to a housing
development.
Stormwater features
will be compliant
with NPDES
stormwater
requirements.
Land Use Projected increases in
frequency and duration of
heavy rain events, may
increase the risk of
localized flooding.
The Project is not
located within a
Federal Emergency
Management Area
(FEMA) floodplain.
Natural areas in the
eastern portion of
the Project will be
preserved.
Water Resources Addressed in item 12
Contamination/
Hazardous
Materials/Wastes
Protect soil and water
resources from
contamination and
hazardous materials.
Construction
equipment may
require the limited
use of potentially
hazardous
materials, such as
gasoline or diesel
fuels, motor oils,
hydraulic fluids, and
other lubricants.
Vehicles equipped
with spill kits for
rapid response. All
hazardous materials
will be stored in
containment
apparatuses, while
not in use.
Fish, wildlife,
plant
communities, and
sensitive
ecological
resources (rare
features)
Addressed in item 14.
8. Cover types: Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after
development:
Cover types within the project limits were determined through a combination of aerial imagery, available
MLCCS data, and field reconnaissance. Generalized land cover of the project area is mainly agricultural
with grassland and woodland located in the northwest portion of the site. The site is generally flat apart
from the northeast corner where topography is steep. This portion of the project area will not undergo
any development and is proposed as a preserve area, with the intent to donate the land to the State of
Minnesota or a similar entity. Figure 4 illustrates existing generalized landcover in the project area.
X-C-01
Table 4. Land Cover
Cover Types Before
(acres)
After
(acres)
Wetlands and shallow lakes (<2 meters deep) 0 0
Deep lakes (>2 meters deep) 0 0
Wooded/forest 0.5 0
Rivers/streams 0 0
Brush/Grassland 17.54 17.54
Cropland 53.06 0
Livestock rangeland/pastureland 0 0
Lawn/landscaping 0 28.86
Green infrastructure TOTAL (from table below*) 0 3.0
Impervious surface 0 19.45
Stormwater Pond (wet sedimentation basin) 0 2.25
Other (describe) 0 0
TOTAL 71.1 71.1
X-C-01
Table 4a. Green Infrastructure
Green Infrastructure* Before
(acreage)
After
(acreage)
Constructed infiltration systems (infiltration
basins/infiltration trenches/ rainwater
gardens/bioretention areas without
underdrains/swales with impermeable check
dams)
0 3.0
Constructed tree trenches and tree boxes 0 0
Constructed wetlands 0 0
Constructed green roofs 0 0
Constructed permeable pavements 0 0
Other (describe) 0 0
TOTAL* 0 3.0
Table 4b. Tree Cover
Trees Percent Number
Percent tree canopy removed or number of
mature trees removed during development
0.7% ‐ only trees
removed near the
southern entrance to
the development
0.5 acres
Number of new trees planted 173 – assumes:
one (1) tree per 50
feet of street,
one (1) tree per single
family lot,
twinhome lot, and
townhome cluster,
five (5) trees at the
apartment complex,
two (2) at the assisted
living complex, and
two (2) at the active
adult complex.
During the design process, project alternatives were explored, which impacted the amount of green
infrastructure and impervious surface. The “curvilinear” plat design was ultimately selected and results in
45% less lineal feet of public roads, 300% more 8‐foor wide trail, 24% less street paving (including public
roads and private lanes serving the townhomes), and 57% less sidewalk than the “conventional” plat
design.
9. Permits and approvals required: List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals,
certifications and financial assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing permits,
governmental review of plans and all direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance
including bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing and infrastructure. All of these final decisions
are prohibited until all appropriate environmental review has been completed. See Minnesota
Rules, Chapter 4410.3100.
X-C-01
Cumulative potential effects may be considered and addressed in response to individual EAW Item Nos.
10‐20, or the RGU can address all cumulative potential effects in response to EAW Item No.22. If
addressing cumulative effect under individual items, make sure to include information requested in
EAW Item No. 21.
Table 5. Permit Requirements
Unit of government Type of application Status
State
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Construction Wastewater Permit (w/ Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan)
To be
obtained
Sanitary Sewer Collection System Permit To be
obtained
Minnesota Department of Health Water Main Permit To be
obtained
Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources
Water Appropriations Permit – Dewatering (if needed) To be
obtained
Endangered Species Takings Permit
(if state listed species are impacted)
Avoidance
Plan in
Progress
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Right of Way Permits To be
obtained
Traffic Control To be
obtained
Access/turn lane design review To be
obtained
Local/Other
City of Hastings
Site Plan Review To be
obtained
Preliminary and Final Plat To be
obtained
Land Use/ Conditional Use To be
obtained
Building Permit To be
obtained
Mechanical Permit To be
obtained
Plumbing Permit To be
obtained
Electrical Permit To be
obtained
Zoning Permit To be
obtained
Watershed Management Plan (under Vermillion River
Watershed JPO)
To be
obtained
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (to extend MUSA
boundary)
To be
obtained
Dakota County
Highway Permits To be
obtained
Construction Dewatering To be
obtained
Water Supply Well To be
obtained
X-C-01
10. Land use:
a. Describe:
i. Existing land use of the site as well as areas adjacent to and near the site, including parks
and open space, cemeteries, trails, prime or unique farmlands.
The site is currently used for row crop agricultural purposes, with a small portion of the site in the
northeast portion that is grassland and woodland. No parks are present within the subject property,
but the nearest public land is the Hastings Wildlife Management Area, operated by the MNDNR and
located approximately 0.25 miles north of the property. The applicant is proposing to donate the
northeastern portion of the subject property to the MNDNR to become a preserve.
The nearest park is Tuttle park, which is located in the housing development directly north of the
subject property.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (WSS), NRCS electronic Field
Office Technical Guide (eFOTG), and the Dakota County Soil Survey were referenced to identify prime
and unique farmland, and farmland of statewide and/or local importance within the project area.
Soils mapped and designated by the NRCS as prime farmland, prime farmland if drained, and
farmland of statewide importance are located within the vicinity of the project site as shown on
Figure 5. Soils that meet these criteria within the property include:
Waukegan silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes (Map Unit 411A) is classified by the NRCS as
“Prime farmland.”
Waukegan silt loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes (Map Unit 411B) is classified by the NRCS as
“Prime farmland.”
ii. Plans. Describe planned land use as identified in comprehensive plan (if available) and any
other applicable plan for land use, water, or resources management by a local, regional,
state, or federal agency.
According to the Hastings Development Staging Plan of 2040 Comprehensive Plan (Page 4‐45),
the site is identified as low residential development and park.
The City of Hastings 2040 Comprehensive Plan outlines a strategic framework for the city's
development over the next two decades. One of the primary goals of this housing initiative is to
address the need for affordable housing options. The city recognizes the importance of
accommodating various housing styles and densities to cater to the changing demographics of
households.
Given the anticipation of regional growth and the city's responsibility to accommodate its share
of this growth, additional residential development is expected up to the year 2040. To ensure
successful integration of these developments, the city aims to establish zoning regulations to
offer a diverse range of housing options.
The proposed project aims to diversify the housing options within the subject property. This
diversification includes the creation of various housing types such as apartments, duplex
houses, single‐family homes, and senior homes. While Hastings traditionally has predominantly
consisted of single‐family, detached homes, recent years have witnessed the introduction of
more diverse housing options. This diversification has been welcomed as it offers additional
choices for the city's residents.
X-C-01
The proposed project aligns with the 2040 comprehensive plan and its goals.
iii. Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild and scenic
rivers, critical area, agricultural preserves, etc.
The property has been zoned A‐ Agriculture from the Marshan Township (2023). Neighboring
properties are currently zoned as A‐ Agriculture, R‐1 Low Density Residence and R‐2 Medium
Density Residence. The proposed project is consistent with the adjacent land zone
classifications.
The project site is located outside of the 100‐year and 500‐year floodplains and outside of the
shoreland district. The closest wild and Scenic River is the Mississippi River, located 3.6 miles
north of the project site.
Project proposers would like to donate the Northeast portion of the site to the MNDNR as a
preserve, but it is not currently designated as a critical area or preserve. No critical areas as
defined by Minn. Stat., §116G nor agricultural preserves are located within a one (1) mile radius
of the project site.
iv. If any critical facilities (i.e. facilities necessary for public health and safety, those storing
hazardous materials, or those with housing occupants who may be insufficiently mobile)
are proposed in floodplain areas and other areas identified as at risk for localized flooding,
describe the risk potential considering changing precipitation and event intensity.
No work is proposed within the 100‐year or 500‐year floodplain.
b. Discuss the project’s compatibility with nearby land uses, zoning, and plans listed in Item 9a
above, concentrating on implications for environmental effects.
The project site is located adjacent to similar zones, as discussed in section iii, above. The proposed
project is compatible with nearby land uses and zoning. The site is zone as A‐ Agriculture by the City
of Hastings.
Similar potential environmental effects are associated with the existing and future uses. Non‐
significant increases in well water use (Section 11. a. ii), sanitary sewer use (Section 11. b. ii. 1.), air
emissions (Section 16) and traffic (Section 18) may result from the proposed project, which are
discussed below.
c. Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any
potential incompatibility as discussed in Item 10b above and any risk potential.
The property will require re‐zoning due to its current classification as A‐
Agriculture.
11. Geology, soils and topography/land forms:
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.
X-C-01
According to the Minnesota Geological Survey Dakota County Map series (1990), depth to underlying
bedrock ranges from 50 – 350 feet below the ground surface. The shallowest areas of the bedrock is
present in the northern portions of the site. The uppermost bedrock present at the site is Prairie du
Chien group and Jordan Sandstone. The Prairie du Chien group is characterized as a dolostone with
thinly bedded layers in the upper formation (Shakopee) and massive to thickly bedded layers in the
lower formation (Oneota). Figure 6 shows the geology of the project area.
Surficial geology of the site is characterized as the New Ulm Formation outwash (gravelly sand) and
postglacial floodplain alluvium in the northeastern corner. The surface topography within the project
limits is described as relatively flat within the area of potential development. In this area, there is a
topographic change of less than 10 feet, according to the 2‐foot LiDAR Topography for the area
(Figure 7). To the west, outside of the development area, there is a steep elevation drop from 830 to
750.
A small area in the northeastern portion of the site is designated as an area prone to the
development of surficial karst features, shown in Figure 8. These mapped areas include locations
where karst features can form on the land surface and where karst conditions are present in the
subsurface. This feature is located outside of the area of proposed development and because it is
located approximately 75‐feet lower in elevation than the development site, it is not expected to be
influenced by the proposed project. No known karst features (sinkholes, stream sinks, etc.) have
been documented within 1000 feet of the site.
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 soils limitations, such as steep slopes, 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 12.b.ii.
According to the Minnesota Geological Survey Dakota County Map series (1990), depth to underlying
bedrock ranges from 50 – 350 feet below the ground surface. The shallowest areas of the bedrock is
present in the northern portions of the site. The uppermost bedrock present at the site is Prairie du
Chien. A review of the NRCS Web Soil Survey indicates that most of the site is comprised of silt loam
(Figure 5). Soils throughout the project area are mapped as Mollisols, typical to this region of the
state.
The portion of the site that will be graded for construction does not contain steep slopes or areas of
high erosion potential. Steeper slopes are located in the Northeast portion of the site, but there will
be no earth work in this part of the site.
The depth to groundwater ranges from 0 to 50 feet below ground surface. The lowlying northeastern
portion of the site has the shallowest groundwater, whereas the western portion of the site (with
high elevation) exhibits deeper groundwater. Table 6 summarizes the soil types and texture for those
series mapped within the project limits.
X-C-01
Table 6: Mapped Soils
Soil Map Unit Soil Name
1030 Pits, sand and gravel
1815 Zumbro loamy fine sand
411A Waukegan silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes
411B Waukegan silt loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes
495 Zumbro fine sandy loam
611F Hawick loamy sand, 20 to 40 percent slopes
7A Hubbard loamy sand, 0 to 1 percent slopes
7C Hubbard loamy sand, 6 to 12 percent slopes
Site elevations range from 840 feet above mean sea level (msl) at the western boundary of the site
to 780‐750 msl in the eastern portion of the site within the preserve area. The project will grade and
reshape the majority of the land, except the northwestern portion, to as part of the land
development. No disturbance is proposed in the steeply sloped area. Erosion and sediment control
related to stormwater runoff is addressed below in Section 11. b. ii.
There are no soil limitations to address. The Soil Survey was reviewed and none of the soils on site
are mapped as highly erodible. Erosion control measures will be used during construction to
minimize surface erosion and areas of soil disturbance will be revegetated and managed for erosion
and weed control. The project will result in a residential development, which will provide long‐term
erosion control through development of vegetated lawns and landscaping. Treatment for
stormwater runoff is discussed in greater detail in section 12.b.ii below.
NOTE: For silica sand projects, the EAW must include a hydrogeologic investigation assessing the
potential groundwater and surface water effects and geologic conditions that could create an
increased risk of potentially significant effects on groundwater and surface water. Descriptions of
water resources and potential effects from the project in EAW Item 12 must be consistent with the
geology, soils and topography/land forms and potential effects described in EAW Item 11.
X-C-01
12. Water resources:
a. Describe surface water and groundwater features on or near the site in a.i. and a.ii. below.
i. Surface water ‐ lakes, streams, wetlands, intermittent channels, and county/judicial ditches.
Include any special designations such as public waters, shoreland classification and
floodway/floodplain, trout stream/lake, wildlife lakes, migratory waterfowl feeding/resting
lake, and outstanding resource value water. Include the presence of aquatic invasive species
and the water quality impairments or special designations listed on the current MPCA 303d
Impaired Waters List that are within 1 mile of the project. Include DNR Public Waters
Inventory number(s), if any.
Watersheds
As defined by the MNDNR, the project area is located within the Mississippi River – Lake
Pepin (#38) major watershed, and unnamed DNR Minor Watershed #38028. The project is
located within the Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization.
Public Waters
The MnDNR public waters dataset was used to identify surface waters within or nearby the
project area. The review identified Unnamed Creek (M‐049‐000.8), as a MnDNR public
water within the Project area. The proposed Project boundary includes a portion of
Unnamed Creek (M‐049‐000.8), however the creek is located in the portion of the Project
proposed for preservation, and will not be impacted. No other MnDNR public waters are
located within a 1‐mile radius of the Project. Unnamed Creek (M‐049‐000.8) flows north to
its confluence with the Vermillion River (M‐049) at Bullfrog Lake (a designated MnDNR
public water wetland). Vermillion River flows east to its confluence with the Mississippi
River, approximately 3.5 miles east of the Project area.
Public waters within or adjacent to the project area are shown in Figure 9.
MPCA 303d Impaired Waters
There are no MPCA 303d Impaired Waters within one mile of the Project area.
MPCA Exceptional Aquatic Life Use Waters or Outstanding Resource Value Waters
There are no MPCA Exceptional Aquatic Life Use Waters or Outstanding Resource Value
Waters within a 1‐mile radius of the Project area. The St. Croix River is a Outstanding
Resource Value Water and is located approximately 3.1 miles north of the Project area, near
its confluence with the Mississippi River. No impacts to the St. Croix River will result from
the Project.
Floodway/Floodplain
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL)
dataset was used to identify regulated floodways or floodplains located in or adjacent to the
Project area. The portion of the Mississippi River adjacent to the Project area is designated
as a 100‐year Floodplain (Figure 9). The Mississippi River is located more than three (3)
miles from the Project area; no impacts to the floodplain will result from the Project.
Wetlands
Figure 10 depicts wetlands in the Project area mapped by the USFWS National Wetlands
Inventory (NWI). No wetlands are present within the Project boundary.
X-C-01
ii. Groundwater – aquifers, springs, seeps. Include: 1) depth to groundwater; 2) if project is
within a MDH wellhead protection area; 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.
Groundwater
Regional groundwater flows into the Mississippi River. The depth to groundwater ranges
from 0 to 50 feet below ground surface.
Water Wells
A review of the Minnesota Well Index identified several wells nearby the proposed project
corridor. No wells are located within proposed Project boundary as shown in Figure 11.
Wells adjacent to the Project are summarized in Table 7 below.
Table 7 ‐ Wells adjacent to the Project
Unique Well No. Well Address or
Approximate Location
Well Depth (feet)
00821154 17150 Red Wing Blvd 500
00579627 17162 Red Wing Blvd 350
00243739 Martin Ave & Michael Ln 151
The Minnesota Well Index does not represent all wells in the state, but it is the single most
complete listing of state wells. If any unused or unsealed wells are discovered in the
project area during the design process or construction, they would be addressed following
Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4725.
Wellhead Protection Areas
Wellhead Protection Areas (WHPAs) are areas around a public water supply well that
contribute groundwater to the well. Contamination of water or the land surface in these
areas can affect the drinking water supply provided by the well. The purpose of a WHPA is
to protect the surface and subsurface area surrounding a public water supply from
contaminants entering the drinking water supply.
The Minnesota Department of Health’s (MDH) WHPA database was reviewed to identify
WHPAs in or near the project corridor. The boundary of the Hastings WHPA is located
approximately 300 feet northwest of the Project area.
Drinking Water Supply Management Areas
Drinking Water Supply Management Areas (DWSMAs) are areas containing the wellhead
protection area. The boundary of the Hastings DWSMA is located approximately 100 feet
northwest of the Project area. The Hastings DWSMA is managed in the City of Hastings’
Wellhead Protection Plan. The project would meet requirements of the City of Hastings’
MS4 permits. Four (4) stormwater infiltration BMPs are proposed adjacent to the DWSMA.
During final design, further study would be conducted to determine if infiltration can be
safely implemented in accordance with the standards of the DWSMA.
X-C-01
b. Describe effects from project activities on water resources and measures to minimize or mitigate
the effects in Item b.i. through Item b.iv. below.
i. Wastewater ‐ For each of the following, describe the sources, quantities and composition of
all sanitary, municipal/domestic and industrial wastewater produced or treated at the site.
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.
Wastewater from the Project would be discharged to a publicly owned treatment
facility (the wastewater treatment facility in Hastings). Wastewater would consist
of domestic wastewater typical for residential developments. No pretreatment
measures would be necessary. The City of Hastings will review the Project’s needs
during the Building Permit process.
A new wastewater treatment facility is being constructed to better serve the City.
2) If the wastewater discharge is to a subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS),
describe the system used, the design flow, and suitability of site conditions for such
a system. If septic systems are part of the project, describe the availability of
septage disposal options within the region to handle the ongoing amounts
generated as a result of the project. Consider the effects of current Minnesota
climate trends and anticipated changes in rainfall frequency, intensity and amount
with this discussion.
Not applicable
3) If the wastewater discharge is to surface water, identify the wastewater treatment
methods and identify discharge points and proposed effluent limitations to mitigate
impacts. Discuss any effects to surface or groundwater from wastewater discharges,
taking into consideration how current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated
climate change in the general location of the project may influence the effects.
Not applicable
ii. Stormwater ‐ Describe changes in surface hydrology resulting from change of land cover.
Describe the routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the project site (major
downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters). Discuss
environmental effects from stormwater discharges on receiving waters post construction
including how the project will affect runoff volume, discharge rate and change in pollutants.
Consider the effects of current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated changes in rainfall
frequency, intensity and amount with this discussion. For projects requiring NPDES/SDS
Construction Stormwater permit coverage, state the total number of acres that will be
disturbed by the project and describe the stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP),
including specific best management practices to address soil erosion and sedimentation
during and after project construction. Discuss permanent stormwater management plans,
including methods of achieving volume reduction to restore or maintain the natural
hydrology of the site using green infrastructure practices or other stormwater management
practices. Identify any receiving waters that have construction‐related water impairments
or are classified as special as defined in the Construction Stormwater permit. Describe
X-C-01
additional requirements for special and/or impaired waters.
The Project would result in the conversion of approximately 19.45 acres of cropland to
impervious surface (see Item 8, Table 4). As discussed in Item 8, the curvilinear plat design
was selected, which results in 45% less lineal feet of public roads, 300% more 8‐foor wide
trail, 24% less street paving (including public roads and private lanes serving the
townhomes), and 57% less sidewalk than the “conventional” plat design.
The Project will be designed to manage runoff and discharge and thereby avoid soil erosion
and sedimentation. Four (4) stormwater ponds are planned for the project, which would
provide catchment to stormwater runoff. Ponds will be designed based on City (City
Ordinance 152) and MPCA standards during preliminary plat design.
The Project will disturb more than one (1) acre of land and therefore will require a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater General Permit
from the MPCA. Construction of the Project will require the utilization of best management
practices (BMPs_ to prevent erosion and sedimentation. BMPs proposed for the Project will
be described in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which will be submitted
to the MPCA for review. The grading and erosion control plans for the Project will be
reviewed as part of the City of Hasting’s building permit process.
iii. 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. Discuss how the proposed
water use is resilient in the event of changes in total precipitation, large precipitation
events, drought, increased temperatures, variable surface water flows and elevations, and
longer growing seasons. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate
environmental effects from the water appropriation. Describe contingency plans should the
appropriation volume increase beyond infrastructure capacity or water supply for the
project diminish in quantity or quality, such as reuse of water, connections with another
water source, or emergency connections.
Not applicable
iv. Surface Waters
a) 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, taking into consideration how
current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated climate change in the general
location of the project may influence the effects. 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.
X-C-01
There are no wetlands in the Project area, therefore no impacts to wetland will
result.
b) 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, taking into consideration how current Minnesota climate trends and
anticipated climate change in the general location of the project may influence the
effects. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to
surface water features, including in‐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.
The proposed Project boundary includes a portion of Unnamed Creek (M‐049‐
000.8); however, the creek is located in the portion of the Project proposed for
preservation, and will not be impacted.
13. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes:
a. Pre‐project site conditions ‐ Describe existing contamination or potential environmental hazards
on or in close proximity to the project site such as soil or ground water 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 query of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) “What’s in my Neighborhood”
online database (https://www.pca.state.mn.us/data/whats‐my‐neighborhood ‐ accessed
August 2023) identified two (2) active sites within 0.5 miles of the Project (Table 8). Both active
sites are construction stormwater features.
Table 8 – What’s in my Neighborhood Query Results
Site ID / MPCA ID Status Activity
130657 / C00030944 Active Construction Stormwater
150944 / C00039885 Active Construction Stormwater
The project does not expect to encounter contaminants during construction. If contaminated
soil is encountered the state duty officer would be contacted immediately.
b. 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.
Construction wastes are anticipated to be typical of residential developments and would be
managed as municipal solid waste (MSW) or construction / demolition debris. Regulated
solid wastes generated by construction would be handled and disposed of in a permitted,
X-C-01
licensed solid waste facility or a similarly regulated facility following applicable local, state,
and federal regulations. The contractor would be required to manage and dispose of all
construction‐generated waste in accordance with MPCA requirements and all other
applicable regulatory requirements. Construction wastes would either be recycled or stored
in approved containers and disposed of in the proper facilities. Any excess soil material that
is not suitable for use onsite would become the property of the contractor and would be
disposed of properly. All solid waste would be managed according to MPCA and other
regulatory requirements.
The EPA estimates the total generation of municipal solid waste (MSW) in the United States
in 2018 was 4.9 pounds per person per day. The 4.9 pounds per person per day was used as
a waste generation rate, for the purposes of estimating waste generation related to the
Project. The total number of residents for the 511 housing units, is 1,022 people. An
estimated 829 tons of municipal solid waste will be generated by residents of the Project.
The collection of MSW would be managed by a licensed waste hauler. The Project would
adhere to all MPCA requirements and other regulations pertaining to the use, handling, and
disposal of solid waste. Recycling areas would be provided in compliance with the Minnesota
State Building code.
c. 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 new above or below ground tanks to store
petroleum or other materials. Indicate the number, location, size and age of existing tanks on
the property that the project will use. Discuss potential environmental effects from accidental
spill or release 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.
Fuel and lubricants necessary for construction equipment during construction would be present
in the proposed Project area. These materials would be used during active construction only,
and the contractor would be required to abide by the Pollution Prevention Management
Measures (Part IV.F.2) of the NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit. No other toxic or
hazardous materials would be present. All toxic or hazardous materials would be removed from
the project corridor upon completion of construction. If a spill occurs, appropriate action to
remediate would be taken immediately in accordance with the MPCA guidelines and
regulations.
No permanent above‐ or below‐ground fuel storage tanks are planned for use in conjunction
with this project. Temporary fuel storage tanks would be positioned in the project corridor for
construction equipment during construction. Appropriate measures would be taken to avoid
leaks and/or spills. If a leak or spill occurs, appropriate action to remediate the leak or spill
would be taken immediately in accordance with MPCA guidelines and regulations.
d. 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 waste including source reduction and recycling
The Project is not anticipated to generate or require to the storage of hazardous waste during
construction. During operations, the Project may generate or require storage of hazardous
water, typical for residential developments.
X-C-01
14. Fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources (rare features):
a. Describe fish and wildlife resources as well as habitats and vegetation on or in near the site.
The Project is located in the Oak Savanna (222Me) ecological subsection of the Minnesota & NE Iowa
Morainal (222M) ecological section, within the Eastern Broadleaf Forest ecological province. Prior to
settlement, the vegetation in the Oak Savanna ecological subsection was comprised of burr oak, with
areas of tallgrass prairie and maple‐basswood forest. Presently, most of this ecological subsection
has been converted to farmland. The Project area is primarily comprised of existing farmland, with a
portion of wooded / forested bluff in the northeast portion.
The Hastings Sand Coulee Scientific and Natural Area (SNA) is located directly north of the Project
area. The SNA is named after the Hastings Sand Coulee, a 2.5 mile‐long valley once occupied by a
glacial stream that now supports the most significant dry prairie in Dakota County. The SNA is home
to many rare species, including plants such as James' polanisia, sea‐beach needlegrass, and clasping
milkweed, and animals such as the regal fritillary butterfly, Ottoe skipper, gopher snake, blue racer
and loggerhead shrike. The Hastings Wildlife Management Area (WMA) is directly adjacent to the
SNA, and located north of the Project area. The WMA is managed to provide habitat for grassland
species, pheasants, and turkey. The Gores Pool #3 WMA is also located approximately 2 miles
northeast of the Project. This WMA consists entirely of Mississippi and Vermillion River Flood Plain
Forest and backwater marshes. This WMA is managed to provide habitat for forest song birds,
furbearers, grassland species, wetland species, migratory waterfowl, raptors, deer, and turkey.
A MnDNR public water course runs through the Project area. Unnamed Creek (M‐049‐000.8),
however the creek is located in the portion of the Project proposed for preservation, and will not be
impacted. Unnamed Creek (M‐049‐000.8) flows north to its confluence with the Vermillion River (M‐
049). According to the MnDNR, the Vermillion River is the largest stream in Dakota County. A portion
of the Vermillion River upstream of the Project area, is a designated trout stream and sustains
populations of brown trout and rainbow trout.
The project area is located within the Mississippi Flyway, which is the most heavily used migration
corridor for waterfowl and other migratory birds. Approximately 40% of North America’s waterfowl
and shorebirds, an estimated 760,000 dabbling ducks, use this corridor The Vermillion Bottoms –
Lower Cannon River Important Bird Area (IBA), Mississippi River Twin Cities IBA, and St. Croix Lake
IBA are located directly north of the project area. The three (3) IBAs are located at the junction of the
St. Croix and the Mississippi rivers are a critical migratory corridor for waterfowl, forest songbirds,
raptors, and waterbirds. The Vermillion Bottoms – Lower Cannon River IBA is one (1) of the top four
(4) sites in Minnesota for rare forest birds, and highest numbers of two (2) special concern bird
species in southeast Minnesota: red‐shouldered hawks and cerulean warblers. It also provides
important nesting and/or migratory habitat for peregrine falcons, bald eagles, and Acadian
flycatchers, and includes a bald eagle winter roost site and two (2) colonial nesting sites for great
blue herons and great egrets.
b. Describe rare features such as state‐listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species,
native plant communities, Minnesota Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance, and other
sensitive ecological resources on or within close proximity to the site. Provide the license
agreement number and/or correspondence number from which the data were obtained and attach
the Natural Heritage Review letter from the DNR. Indicate if any additional habitat or species survey
work has been conducted within the site and describe the results.
X-C-01
MnDNR Consultation & State‐Listed Species
A request for a Natural Heritage Review was submitted through the Minnesota Conservation
Explorer. The Review was received on May 10th, 2023, as Correspondence # MCE 2023‐00044. The
Review identified one (1) state‐listed plant species within the vicinity of the project area:
Lechea tenuifolia – Narrow‐leaved Pinweed – State Endangered. A field survey for listed species was
August 4th, 2023, by John Thayer. An intuitive meander methodology was utilized while covering as
much of the survey area as possible. When unique and/or potential habitats were located, these
habitats were thoroughly searched.
A total of 93 vascular plant species were noted during the survey. One state‐listed plant species was
observed: Polanisia jamesii – James’ Polanisia – State Endangered (Table 9). James’ polanisia is a
distinctive plant that is readily identifiable by its small white flowers that have two erect and
fringed petals that are broader than the rest, leaves that are divided into three narrow leaflets, and
the presence of odorous glandular hairs on the leaves and stems. A census of James’ polanisia was
completed. 82 individuals were counted. The population was restricted to a sloped segment of ATV
trail along which sandy soil had been exposed and eroded and was, apart from the presence of
James’ polanisia, mostly unvegetated.
Table 9. State‐Listed Species
Species Status Habitat
James’ Polanisia
(Polanisia jamesii) Endangered
Occurs on sandy or sandy‐gravelly soil in dry open setting with
sand prairie species. Found on post‐glacial stream deposits, in
coulees or small valleys.
Federally‐Listed Species
According to a planning‐level query of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information,
Planning, and Consultation System (IPaC) requested August 25, 2023, the project area is within the
distribution range of federally‐listed species. These include the endangered northern long‐eared
bat (Myotis septentrionalis), the proposed endangered tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus), an
experimental population of whooping crane (Grus americana), the endangered rusty patched
bumble bee (Bombus affinis), and the candidate monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) as
summarized in Table 10 below.
Table 10. Federally‐Listed Species
Species Status Habitat
Northern Long‐eared Bat
(Myotis septentrionalis), Endangered
Roosts trees in forests during active season from April
through October. Hibernate in caves and mines October
through April.
Tricolored Bat
(Perimyotis subflavus).
Proposed
Endangered
Roosts trees in forests during active season from April
through October. Hibernate in caves and mines October
through April.
Whooping Crane
(Grus americana)
Experimental
Population
The whooping crane breeds, migrates, winters, and forages
in a variety of wetland habitats.
Rusty Patched Bumble
Bee (Bombus affinis) Endangered
Nest in abandoned rodents nests or mammal burrows in
upland grasslands and shrublands during the summer and
fall. Overwinter in upland forest and woodlands.
Monarch Butterfly
(Danaus plexippus) Candidate Grassland/prairie habitat where milkweeds (Asclepias spp.)
and other forbs are present.
X-C-01
There are no known occurrences of northern long‐eared bat or tricolored bat roosts or hibernacula
within or adjacent to the Project.
IPaC did not identify any mapped critical habitat within or adjacent to the Project.
Native Plant Communities & Minnesota Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance
The Minnesota DNR Native Plant Community (NPC) data layer identified a Dry Sand – Gravel Prairie
(Ups13b) NPC within and adjacent to the Project area. This NPC overlaps the Marshan 11 North SBS,
which is ranked as outstanding. However, these areas are not proposed for impact and instead are
proposed for preservation.
Calcareous Fens
The nearest known calcareous fen is Kelleher Park, located over 20 miles west of the Project.
DNR Old Growth Stands
Old‐growth forests are natural forests that have developed over a long period of time, generally at
least 120 years, without experiencing severe, stand‐replacing disturbances such as fires,
windstorms, or logging. The nearest old‐growth forests is located over 12 miles southeast of the
Project.
Minnesota Prairie Conservation Plan
The Minnesota Prairie Conservation Plan, a 25‐year strategy for accelerating prairie conservation in
the state, identifies Core Areas, Corridors, and Corridor Complexes as areas to focus conservation
efforts. No Core Areas, Corridors, or Corridor Complexes were identified in the vicinity of Project.
Lakes of Biological Significance
Lakes of Biological Significance are high quality lakes as determined by the aquatic plant, fish, bird,
or amphibian communities present within the lake. The Mississippi River U.S. Lock & Dam #2 Pool,
Mississippi River U.S. Lock & Dam #3 Pool, the Mississippi River – North, and the St. Croix River –
Stillwater/Prescott are Lakes of Biological Significance located within a five (5) mile radius of the
Project.
c. Discuss how the identified fish, wildlife, plant communities, rare features and ecosystems may be
affected by the project including how current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated climate
change in the general location of the project may influence the effects. 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.
Vegetation
Much of the proposed Project area has been previously converted to agriculture or impacted by
agriculture. Approximately 11 acres of woodland / forest and 49 acres of cropland would be directly
converted to developed area. Areas of grassland would increase from approximately 12 acres to 18
acres as a result of the Project. Temporary construction‐related impacts would also be anticipated
to occur, and temporary staging areas could impact native vegetation depending on location and
duration. Soil disturbances during construction may provide conditions suitable for infestations
nonnative and/or invasive plant species.
Fish and Wildlife
Although much of the proposed Project spans areas that have been converted to agriculture or
impacted by agriculture, it would introduce motorized traffic and other roadway activities into
wildlife habitats contributing to habit fragmentation. This could degrade wildlife and fish habitat
through soil disturbance and sedimentation, vegetation clearing, noise and light pollution from
X-C-01
motorists, and the introduction of invasive plant species. The project would increase impervious
surface in the project area thereby increasing runoff which could impact fish and other aquatic
species if not properly treated.
Rare Features/Habitats
Invasive plant species could be spread along roadways, expanding their populations and seedbank
across the landscape, thereby increasing the likelihood of infestation elsewhere.
State‐Listed Species
Minnesota's populations of James' Polanisia are disjunct from its primary range in the south
central Great Plains, west of the Mississippi River where it grows on dry, sand prairies. In the
Upper Midwest it is rare, restricted to sandy or gravelly prairies and slopes near the
Mississippi River. They also risk being dislodged and killed by normal natural erosion on the
unstable slopes and sandy places where they occur.
An immediate threat is encroachment by woody plants or taller more aggressive plants that
can either shade or crowd out this small species. Wildfires and the action of wind probably
kept its sand prairie habitat more open in the past. Residential development limits the
possibility of using fire, but hand removal of brush is still a viable management activity that
could help spare this plant from further decline.
Climate Trends:
Over the upcoming decades, Minnesota's climate is expected to undergo changes, marked by
a consistent rise in both average temperatures and precipitation per decade. Given the
current scarcity of wildlife habitat in the project area, it is predicted that the effects of climate
change on any potentially existing species at the site in the future will likely be minimal or
non‐existent within the scope of the proposed project. The broader regional climate changes
outlined in Section 7, such as altered precipitation patterns and higher temperatures, are
anticipated to impact wildlife on a larger scale across their ranges, manifesting with varying
degrees of severity.
d. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effects to fish,
wildlife, plant communities, ecosystems, and sensitive ecological resources.
Vegetation
Ground disturbance associated with construction would be minimized to the greatest extent
practicable. This would include limiting the size of construction staging areas and access
routes. Construction staging can be located within agricultural fields to avoid impacts to
native vegetation. Re‐grading and the re‐establishment of appropriate vegetation would be
completed post constriction. Areas not proposed for turf vegetation would be seeded with an
appropriate native seed mix.
Fish and Wildlife
Wildlife habitat fragmentation would be mitigated by minimizing vegetation clearing. Tree
clearing would occur between November 15th to March 31st.
See item 12 for details regarding the proposed permanent stormwater treatment solutions to
mitigate potential impacts from runoff from impervious surface. Erosion control products
with plastic fiber additives would not be utilized in areas connected to Public Waters.
Work Exclusion Dates recognized by the MPCA NDPES general permit for authorization of
X-C-01
discharge stormwater associated with construction activities (Permit MN R10001) for MnDNR
“work in water restrictions” during specified fish migration and spawning timeframes for
areas adjacent to water. During the restriction period, all exposed soil areas that are within
200 feet of the water’s edge and drain to these waters must have erosion prevention
stabilization activities initiated immediately after construction activity has ceased and be
completed within 24 hours. The restriction dates for non‐trout streams, i.e., Unnamed Creek
(M‐049‐000.8), in the project area are March 15th through June 15th.
Federally‐Listed Species
Tree clearing would be restricted to between November 15th and March 31st to not coincide
with the active season of the northern long‐eared bat and the tricolored bat. Trees would be
inspected for raptor “stick‐nests” prior to cutting and removal.
State‐Listed Species
The project has potential to impact James' Polanisia through direct impact and habitat
disturbance or destruction through fill, excavation, and general construction. Minnesota’s
Endangered Species Statute (Minnesota Statutes, section 84.0895) and associated Rules
(Minnesota Rules, part 6212.1800 to 6212.2300 and 6134) prohibit the take of threatened or
endangered species without a permit. If any incidental take of state‐listed species is planned,
an application for a permit for the take of endangered or threatened species incidental to a
development project must be submitted. A permit will be considered only when the proposal
provides convincing justification that all alternatives have been considered and rejected, and
that take is unavoidable.
15. 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 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.
MN Office of the State Archeologist Portal Review
A review of publicly available data from the Office of the State Archeologist (OSA) Portal
identified one (1) archaeology site within the same section as the project area. This EAW will be
filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (MEQB) and circulated to the required
MEQB distribution list, which includes the OSA, for review and comment. Any comments received
from the OSA would be disclosed in the project’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions document.
MN State Historic Preservation Office
As part of the early coordination efforts for the Project, the MN State Historic Preservation
(SHPO) was consulted (SHPO Number 2023‐0826). SHPO recommended, but did not require, a
Phase 1a literature review and archaeological assessment to be completed.
National Register of Historic Places
A query of the properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places identified several
historic properties in Dakota County, 17 in the City of Hastings. The Ramsey Mill and Old Mill Park
is the closest historic property to the Project, and is located approximately 2.3 miles away. No
adverse effects to the Ramsey Mill and Old Mill Park or any other historic properties will result
from the proposed Project.
X-C-01
16. Visual:
Describe any scenic views or vistas on or near the project site. 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.
No scenic views or vistas are located on or near the Project. The Project will not create vapor plumes or
glare from intense lights. The Project is a proposed residential development, and would be consistent
with the surrounding residential area. Landscaping will be included with the Project and may contribute
to the overall visual aesthetics. Plans for the installation of street lighting will be reviewed as part of the
building permit review process.
17. Air:
a. 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. Discuss effects to air quality including any sensitive receptors,
human health or applicable regulatory criteria. Include a discussion of any methods used 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.
The project would not construct/introduce stationary emission sources.
b. 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.
The project is not located in an area in where conformity requirements apply. Traffic generated
by the Project is not anticipated to result in air quality impacts. There will be an increase in
vehicle trips associated with the Project (as addressed in Item 20), however this is not
anticipated to lead to a high concentration of air pollutants.
Construction‐related vehicle emissions may arise from the use of equipment. These emissions
are anticipated to be minor and temporary in nature. Therefore, no further air quality analysis
is necessary.
c. 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 17a). 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.
The project would generate odors during construction. These include exhaust from diesel and
gasoline engines and fuel storage. Odor generation during construction would be temporary and
sporadic in location and duration.
Dust generated during construction would be minimized through standard dust control
measures such as applying water to exposed soils and limiting the extent and duration of
exposed soil conditions. Construction contractors would be required to control dust and other
airborne particulates in accordance with applicable governmental specifications. Dust would be
X-C-01
visually monitored and recorded with NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit inspections. The
post‐construction dust levels are anticipated to be minimal as all exposed soil surfaces would be
paved or re‐vegetated.
18. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions/Carbon Footprint
a. GHG Quantification: For all proposed projects, provide quantification and discussion of project
GHG emissions. Include additional rows in the tables as necessary to provide project‐specific
emission sources. Describe the methods used to quantify emissions. If calculation methods are
not readily available to quantify GHG emissions for a source, describe the process used to come
to that conclusion and any GHG emission sources not included in the total calculation.
GHG emissions related to the Project were calculated using emission factors and consumption data5
from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Table 11, below show the shows the emission
categories for project carbon footprint calculations, as provided in the EQB Guidance.
Table 11 ‐ Emission Categories for GHG Assessment
Emission
Category
Scope Project
Phase
Type of Emission Estimated GHG Emissions per year
(metric ton of CO2e)
Direct Scope 1 Construction Combustion (Mobile and
Stationary Sources) 1,238.2
Direct Scope 1 Construction Land‐Use Conversion 56.5
Direct Scope 1 Operations Combustion – Mobile Sources 2,432.7
Direct Scope 1 Operations Combustion – Natural Gas 166.9
Indirect Scope 2 Operations Electricity 1952.0
Indirect Scope 3 Operations Waste Management 575.8
Total 6,422.1
Construction Emissions
Construction emissions are associated with fuel combustion from mobile vehicles and stationary
construction equipment. According to the plans, construction will begin in spring 2024, with Phase 1
infrastructure (i.e., grading and roadway construction) completed by Fall 2024. Individual housing
units (Phase 2) are expected to be developed over a five (5) year period. For this assessment,
construction GHG emissions included:
On‐road vehicle emissions (dump trucks, semi‐trucks, commuting construction workers, etc.)
Off‐road vehicle emissions (earthmoving equipment such as excavators, loaders, cranes, etc.)
Operation of on‐road vehicles for Phase 1 is estimated to consist of 20 passenger cars per day, 20
dump trucks per day, and 20 semi‐trucks per day. For the purposes of this assessment, Phase 1
construction is assumed to be ongoing May 1 through August 31, 2024, or 120 days. While the
number of construction days may ultimately be less than the maximum of 120 days due to weather
or other site conditions, this was the number of days used for this GHG assessment to consider the
maximum emissions generated from the proposed Project. On‐road vehicles are estimated to travel
30 miles per day. Emission factors are based on Table 2, 3, and 4 of the EPA’s Emission Factors Hub6.
An assumed vehicle year of 2007 was used for gas mileage efficiency. Carbon emissions related to
the on‐road vehicle emissions is estimated to be 252.4 metric tons.
5 ce2.3.pdf (eia.gov)
6 Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories (epa.gov)
X-C-01
Table 12 ‐ On‐road vehicle Emissions
Construction Emissions – Mobile Sources Emission Factors Annual Emissions
On‐road
Vehicle
Veh
/
Day
Fuel
Type Days Miles
/ Day Miles Miles
/ Gal
Est.
Gals
CO2
(kg/gal)
CH4
(g/
mile)
N2O
(g/
mile
CO2
(MT)
CH4
(MT)
N2O
(MT) CO2e2 (MT)
Passenger
Cars ‐
Workers
20 Gas 120 30 72000 18 4000.0 8.78 0.0072 0.0052 35.1 5.18E‐
04
3.74E‐
04 35.2
Dump
trucks 20 Diesel 120 30 72000 7.6 9473.7 10.21 0.0095 0.0431 96.7 6.84E‐
04
3.10E‐
03 97.7
Semi‐
trucks 20 Diesel 120 30 72000 6.2 11612.9 10.21 0.0095 0.0431 118.6 6.84E‐
04
3.10E‐
03 119.5
Total 252.4
Off‐road vehicle emissions include those generated by construction equipment that will remain on
the Project site for the duration of construction. There are potential differences in the specific
equipment utilized based on the contractor selected to complete the work. For the purposes of this
assessment, it is assumed that six (6) diesel‐powered off‐road construction vehicles (2 earthmovers,
3 excavators, 1 skid steer), would be in operation during the construction period. The default diesel
fuel consumption rate of 0.05 gallons per horsepower‐hour7 is used to determine the fuel usage for
all equipment.Construction is assumed to be ongoing from 7:00 am to 10:00 pm during this time (i.e.,
15 hours per day), resulting in a total of 1,800 hours total. Emission factors are based on Table 2 and
5 of the EPA’s Emission Factors Hub8. According to this GHG assessment for the Project, carbon
emissions related to the off‐road vehicle emissions is estimated to be 982.8 metric tons.
Table 13 ‐ Off‐road vehicle Emissions
Construction Emissions – Stationary Sources Emission Factors Annual Emissions
Off‐road
Equipment
No.
Vehicles
Consumption
Rate (gal / hr
per hp‐hr)
Engine
Size
(hp)
Hours Total
gals
CO2
(kg/gal)
CH4
(g/
gal)
N2O
(g/
gal)
CO2
(MT)
CH4
(MT)
N2O
(MT) CO2e2 (MT)
Loader /
Bulldozer
2 0.05 125 1800 22,500 10.21 0.91 0.56 229.73 2.05E‐
02
1.26E‐
02
234.0
Excavator 3 0.05 250 1800 67,500 10.21 0.91 0.56 689.18 6.14E‐
02
3.78E‐
02
702.0
Skid Steer 1 0.05 50 1800 4,500 10.21 0.91 0.56 45.95 4.10E‐
03
2.52E‐
03
46.8
Total 982.8
For the Phase 1 of the Project, the total estimated emissions are 1,238.2 metric tons of CO2e per
year for the on‐road and off‐road mobile sources. Phase 2 will construct the proposed housing units
over the course of five (5) years. For the purposes of this assessment, estimates for Phase 1 are
assumed to be similar to those for each year of Phase 2. The estimate of 1,238.2 metric tons of CO2e,
is extrapolated for the subsequent five (5) years, to total 7,411.2 metric tons of CO2e for construction
of the complete project. Over the Project lifetime, the total construction emissions annualized over
50 years equates to 148.2 metric tons per year.
There is also an annual GHG emission attributable to land use conversion due to the loss of the
GHG sink capacity of the existing grassland, cropland, and forest. Acres of pre‐project land use type
are compared with post‐project land use type, to determine the acres lost with carbon sequestration
7 Microsoft Word - Guidelines for Calculating Emissions from Internal Combustion Engines - March 2023 - FINAL.docx
(aqmd.gov)
8 Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories (epa.gov)
X-C-01
potentials. There are not readily available carbon sequestration rates for land use types, so a best‐
case scenario sequestration rate of 2.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide per acre per year was utilized
for the purposes of this assessment. This sequestration rate is based on forested community types;
actual sequestration rates for grassland, cropland, and lawn/landscaping are likely much lower. The
total loss of carbon sequestration resulting from the Project is 56.5 metric tons per year.
Table 14 ‐ Loss of Carbon Sequestration
Land Use Pre‐project
Acres
Post‐project
Acres
Acres lost with carbon sequestration
potential
Wooded/Forest 11.06 0 11.06
Brush Grassland 11.58 17.54 ‐5.96
Cropland 48.46 0 48.46
Lawn/Landscaping 0 31.85 ‐31.85
Impervious Surface 0 19.45 0
Stormwater Pond 0 2.25 0
Total 71.1 71.1 21.71
Best‐case Scenario Sequestration Rate9 2.6 MT CO2 / acre / year
Annual potential loss of sequestration 56.45 MT CO2 / year
Operational Emissions – Mobile Sources
To estimate traffic emissions, it was assumed that there is one vehicle per household, and that each
vehicle travels 12,000 miles per year10. Additionally, it is assumed that each apartment building unit
receives 2 delivery trucks per day, and each single family unit receives a delivery truck every third
day. Delivery trucks are estimated to travel 20 miles per day per vehicle for 365 days, equating to
7,300 miles per year.
Emissions were calculated using the estimated number of vehicles (i.e., one per household unit) and
delivery trucks. It is assumed that residents drive gasoline‐powered, light‐duty vehicles and deliveries
are made by diesel‐powered, heavy‐duty vehicles. An average gas mileage of 22.8 miles per gallon
was used for light duty vehicles11. An average gas mileage of 7.5 miles per gallon was used for heavy‐
duty vehicles12. The total annual emissions generated from the Project related to mobile sources is
2,432.7 metric tons per year. A project lifetime of 50 years equates to a total of 121,636 metric tons.
9 Best Practices for Including Carbon Sinks in Greenhouse Gas Inventories (epa.gov)
10 State & Urbanized Area Statistics - Our Nation's Highways - 2000 (dot.gov)
11 Average Fuel Efficiency of U.S. Light Duty Vehicles | Bureau of Transportation Statistics (bts.gov)
12 Table VM-1 - Highway Statistics 2019 - Policy | Federal Highway Administration (dot.gov)
X-C-01
Table 15 – Traffic Emissions
Operational Emissions – Mobile Sources Emission Factors Annual Emissions
On‐road
Vehicle
Type
Veh
/
day
Miles
/ day
Miles
/ gal
Fuel
Usage
(gal /
day,
all
veh)
Days
/ yr
Miles
/ yr
Fuel
Usage
(gal/yr, all
vehicles)
CO2
(kg/g
al)
CH4
(g/
mile)
N2O
(g/
mile)
CO2
(MT)
CH4
(MT)
N2O
(MT)
CO2e2
(MT)
Gasoline
Light
Duty
511 32.9 22.8 737.4 365 12,000 269,137.9 8.78 0.0072 0.0049 2363 8.64E
‐05
5.88E
‐05 2363.1
Diesel
Heavy
Duty
7 20 7.5 18.7 365 7,300 6,815 10.21 0.0095 0.0431 69.6 6.94E
‐05
3.15E
‐04 69.67
Total 2432.7
Operational Emissions – Natural Gas
Emissions related to natural gas are based on Table 1 of the EPA’s Emission Factors Hub13. Natural
gas consumption was estimated using the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)’s Annual
household site fuel consumption in the Midwest—totals and averages, 2020. Natural gas
consumption estimates are based on housing unit type. The total annual emissions generated from
the Project related to natural gas is 166.89 metric tons per year. A project lifetime of 50 years
equates to a total of 8,344.5 metric tons.
13 Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories (epa.gov)
X-C-01
Table 16 – Natural Gas Emissions
Natural Gas Emission Factors Annual Emissions
Housing Unit Type
No.of
Units
Annual
MMBtu
/ unit2
Annual
MMBtu
CO2 (kg/
MMBtu)
CH4 (kg/
MMBtu)
N2O (kg/
MMBtu)
CO2
(MT
/yr)
CH4
(MT/
yr)
N2O
(MT/yr)
CO2e3
(MT/yr)
Apartments 5 or
more units
(Apartment Units)
170 32.3 1609.2 53.06 0.001 0.0001 38.7 7.30E‐
04 7.30E‐05 38.76
Single‐family
detached 55 86.6 1395.9 53.06 0.001 0.0001 33.6 6.33E‐
04 6.33E‐05 33.62
Single‐family
attached
(Twinhome Units)
54 66.3 1049.2 53.06 0.001 0.0001 25.2 4.76E‐
04 4.76E‐05 25.27
Single‐family
attached
(Townhome
Units)
68 66.3 1321.3 53.06 0.001 0.0001 31.8 5.99E‐
04 5.99E‐05 31.83
Apartments 5 or
more units
(Senior Units)
24 32.3 227.2 53.06 0.001 0.0001 5.5 1.03E‐
04 1.03E‐05 5.47
Apartments 5 or
more units
(Active Senior
Units)
60 32.3 568.0 53.06 0.001 0.0001 13.7 2.58E‐
04 2.58E‐05 13.68
Apartments 5 or
more units
(Assisted Living
Units)
80 32.3 757.3 53.06 0.001 0.0001 18.2 3.43E‐
04 3.43E‐05 18.24
Total 166.89
Operational Emissions – Electricity
Emissions related to electricity use are related to the generation of electricity, typically offsite.
Electricity estimates were calculated using the EPA’s published emission factors (Table 6 ‐ Electricity)
for the Midwest Reliability Organization West (MROW) region. Electricity generation in the MROW
region is comprised of ~50% fossil fuels (coal and natural gas), ~9% nuclear, and ~ 40% renewables
(hydro, wind, and solar). Electricity consumption was estimated using the U.S. Energy Information
Administration (EIA)’s Annual household site fuel consumption in the Midwest—totals and averages,
2020. Electricity consumption estimates are based on housing unit type. The total annual emissions
generated from the Project related to electricity is 1951.97 metric tons per year. A project lifetime of
50 years equates to a total of 97,598.5 metric tons.
X-C-01
Table 17 – Electricity Emissions
Electricity Emission Factors Annual Emissions
Housing Unit Type No. of
Units
Annual
MMBtu /
unit2
Annual
MWh
CO2 (lb/
MWh)
CH4 (lb/
MWh)
N2O
(lb/
MWh)
CO2
(MT/y
r)
CH4
(MT/y
r)
N2O
(MT/y
r)
CO2e3
(MT/
yr)
Apartments 5 or
more units
(Apartment Units)
170 18.9 941.6 1239.8 0.138 0.02 529.5 0.059 0.009 533.47
Single‐family
detached 55 38.2 615.7 1239.8 0.138 0.02 346.2 0.039 0.006 348.84
Single‐family
attached (Twinhome
Units)
54 27.4 433.6 1239.8 0.138 0.02 243.8 0.027 0.004 245.66
Single‐family
attached (Townhome
Units)
68 27.4 546.1 1239.8 0.138 0.02 307.0 0.034 0.005 309.36
Apartments 5 or
more units (Senior
Units)
24 18.9 132.9 1239.8 0.138 0.02 74.7 0.008 0.001 75.31
Apartments 5 or
more units (Active
Senior Units)
60 18.9 332.3 1239.8 0.138 0.02 186.9 0.021 0.003 188.28
Apartments 5 or
more units (Assisted
Living Units)
80 18.9 443.1 1239.8 0.138 0.02 249.2 0.028 0.004 251.04
Total 1951.97
¹EPA Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories Table 6 (updated April 18, 2023)
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023‐03/ghg_emission_factors_hub.pdf
2https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/c&e/pdf/ce2.3.pdf
3CO2e emissions calculated using Global Warming Potentials from 40 CFR Part 98 Subpart A Table A‐1 (CO2e=
1*CO2+25*CH4+298*N2O)
Operational Emissions – Waste Management
GHG emissions related to waste management include those generated from waste generation,
transport of waste to landfills, landfill operations, and landfill methane emissions. The EPA estimates
the total generation of municipal solid waste (MSW) in the United States in 2018 was 4.9 pounds per
person per day14. The 4.9 pounds per person per day was used as a waste generation rate, for the
purposes of estimating waste generation related to the Project. The total number of residents for the
511 housing units, is 1,022 people. The total annual emissions generated from the Project related to
waste management is 575.8 metric tons per year. A project lifetime of 50 years equates to a total of
28,788.6 metric tons.
Table 18 – Waste Management Emissions
Waste Management Annual
Tons
MT CO2e /
short ton1
CO2e
(MT/yr)
Mixed Municipal Solid Waste 913 0.63 575.8
¹¹EPA Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories Table 9 (updated April 18, 2023)
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023‐03/ghg_emission_factors_hub.pdf
b. GHG Assessment
14 National Overview: Facts and Figures on Materials, Wastes and Recycling | US EPA
X-C-01
i. Describe any mitigation considered to reduce the project’s GHG emissions.
Construction‐related emissions will be exempt as de minimis and they will meet the conformity
requirements under Section 176 (c) of the Clean Air Act, and 40 CFR 93.153. The project sponsor
will encourage the selected contractor to reduce GHG emissions from construction, which may
include minimizing idling equipment or encouraging carpooling to the site by equipment
operators.
There are several design features that are planned to reduce overall energy consumption and
emissions. It is the assumption that materials listed below will be used throughout the
development. Every building may not have every item, but all would be covered throughout the
entire development. These include:
Use of energy efficient building materials, to reduce need for heating and cooling
Installation of programmable thermostats
Use of energy‐efficient appliances and electronics
Use of efficient fluorescent lighting
Installation of roofing materials, that reflect solar energy
Low or no VOC paints, adhesives, and solvents
Reduce and recycle construction waste
Preservation of natural space
ii. Describe and quantify reductions from selected mitigation, if proposed to reduce the
project’s GHG emissions. Explain why the selected mitigation was preferred.
The use of the design features listed above will help to mitigate the Project’s GHG
emissions. It is difficult to quantify the exact reduction in GHG emissions related to
the project due to the variability in brands, models, and cost of materials that will be
available when the project is constructed. Some general information on GHG
reductions is provided below:
If everyone used an ENERGY STAR programmable thermostat, 13 billion
pounds of greenhouse gas emissions each year would be offset.15
An LED light bulb that has earned the ENERGY STAR label uses up to 90%
less energy than an incandescent light bulb, while providing the same
illumination. 1
Energy efficient roofing lowers the amount of heat transferred to the
building, which allows it to stay cooler and use less energy for air
conditioning. In air‐conditioned residential buildings, solar reflectance
from a cool roof can reduce peak cooling demand by 11–27%.16
iii. Quantify the proposed projects predicted net lifetime GHG emissions (total tons/#of years)
and how those predicted emissions may affect achievement of the Minnesota Next
Generation Energy Act goals and/or other more stringent state or local GHG reduction goals.
The predicted net lifetime of the Project is anticipated to be 266,603 metric tons of CO2e,
for a Project lifetime of 50 years (Note: mobile and stationary sources of combustion related
to construction are divided across the 50 years, versus summed). This equates to 5,332.06
metric tons of CO2e annually. The mitigation measures discussed above will likely offset a
15 Energystar.gov
16 Synnefa, A., M. Santamouris, and H. Akbari. 2007. Estimating the effect of using cool coatings on energy loads and thermal
comfort in residential buildings in various climatic conditions. Energy and Buildings 39, 1167–1174.
X-C-01
portion of these emissions, however this was not quantified. Overall, the Project is
anticipated to have minimal impact on the State of Minnesota’s GHG reduction goals.
19. 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.
Existing noise sources include vehicle traffic along TH 316 / Red Wing Blvd, and within the City of
Hastings. The proposed project corridor spans undeveloped land including forest and grassland
and agricultural land. The nearest sensitive receptors include residential neighborhoods located
directly north, west and southeast of the Project, and the Hope Lutheran Church, located directly
east of the Project.
Project Construction
Project construction would increase noise levels relative to existing conditions. Increases would be
associated with construction equipment and therefore temporary and short in duration over the course
of construction. Construction is not planned to occur outside of standard daylight working hours. The
contractor would be required to comply with local ordinance requirements regarding noise.
Advanced notice would be proved to affected communities of any planned abnormally loud construction
activities. High‐impact equipment noise such as pavement sawing or jack‐hammering would likely be
required. No pile‐driving would be required.
The project would conform with all applicable MnDOT and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) noise
standards.
20. Transportation
a. 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) indicate source of
trip generation rates used in the estimates, and 5) availability of transit and/or other alternative
transportation modes.
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, was used
to estimate the trips generated by the proposed development site. As outlined below, the
following plans for both phases were used to calculate traffic impacts:
Phase 1 (2024):
‐ 54 Twin home Units (ITE Land Use: Single Family Attached Housing)
‐ 68 Townhome Units (ITE Land Use: Single Family Attached Housing)
‐ 170 Apartment Units (ITE Land Use: Multifamily Housing– Mid‐rise)
‐ 24 Senior Units (ITE Land Use: Assisted Living)
‐ 60 Active Senior Living Units (ITE Land Use: Senior Adult Housing (Single Family))
‐ 80 Assisted Living Units (ITE Land Use: Assisted Living)
X-C-01
Phase 2 (2029):
‐ 55 Single Family Homes (ITE Land Use: Single Family Detached Housing)
The proposed development is expected to generate approximately 2,709 new trips each day
(180 trips in the AM peak hour (7:15 AM to 8:15 AM) and 226 trips in the PM peak hour (4:00
PM to 5:00 PM) upon full development of the area.
A total of 156 parking stalls are planned on the site to serve the mixed land uses. Currently,
there is no mass transit options available directly from the development that would affect the
number of trips in and out.
b. 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.
The proposed development has undergone a comprehensive traffic impact study, detailed in
Attachment D. The study's findings indicate that, five years after the site reaches full capacity in
2034, the generated traffic will not adversely affect the surrounding road network. All examined
intersections, including both access points to the site, operate at Level of Service (LOS) A.
Additionally, all approaches at each intersection maintain LOS A.
Considering the higher posted speed limit along TH 316, it is recommended to implement turn
lanes at each access point. This entails dedicated left and right turn lanes at Michael Avenue
and a southbound bypass lane with a dedicated right turn lane for northbound TH 316 traffic at
the secondary access point.
While peak hour volumes may be similar for TH 316 and Michael Avenue, average daily volumes
will likely differ from both intersections. Presently, the analysis indicates that the TH 316 and
Michael Avenue intersection does not meet the volume thresholds required for the installation
of roundabout control. However, ongoing discussions with MnDOT reveal that a roundabout is
under consideration and will be further evaluated in the future. These discussions are ongoing.
c. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate project related transportation
effects.
Geometric improvements, including dedicated left and right turn lanes at each site access
point are being proposed to help improve safety for traffic entering and exiting the
proposed development site. By providing dedicated deceleration and storage distance for
turning movements improves traffic operations and allows for turning traffic to find an
acceptable gap in oncoming traffic while not providing additional delay to through
movement traffic. Turn lanes will be required upon year of development completion and
before occupancy occurs.
21. Cumulative potential effects: (Preparers can leave this item blank if cumulative potential effects are
addressed under the applicable EAW Items)
a. Describe the geographic scales and timeframes of the project related environmental effects that
X-C-01
could combine with other environmental effects resulting in cumulative potential effects.
The geographic scale and timeframes of the project‐related environmental effects that could
combine with other environmental effects resulting in cumulative potential effects are limited
to the resources affected by the proposed Project. The timeframe for considering potential
cumulative effects would be the recent past, construction, and the duration of the ongoing use
of the Project area. Past actions within the Project area primarily include the conversion of land
to agriculture and the clearing of natural vegetation. The Project would convert land from
agriculture to a residential development. The Project area is previously disturbed, following the
conversion to agricultural land.
b. 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.
The cumulative potential effects analysis requires that a future project be considered if it is
planned or if a basis of expectation for it has been laid. MEQB guidance describes a two‐part
test to aid in identifying whether a future project is reasonably likely to occur and if sufficiently
detailed information is available about the future project to contribute to the understanding of
cumulative potential effects.
Conversion of land adjacent to the Project for development is reasonably foreseeable. The City
of Hastings and the metro area continue to grow, and housing is needed to service future
growth. No specific plans for development are known such that sufficiently detailed information
is available to contribute to the understanding of cumulative potential effects. The project area
is at the southeastern extent of the growth boundary identified in the 2040 Hastings
Comprehensive Plan.
c. 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.
Resource impacts identified in the above items include farmland conversion, erosion and
sedimentation, water quality, habitat fragmentation, and greenhouse gas emissions.
Farmland Conversion
Land use in the Project area is primarily agricultural. Approximately 48 acres of prime
farmland would be converted and taken out of production. As the City of Hastings grows,
conversion of farmland to other land uses, including residential development is anticipated.
Future farmland conversion would continue to be evaluated as part of City’s planning
processes.
Erosion and Sedimentation
Construction activities would contribute to soil erosion and sedimentation. The construction
of this project is not anticipated to overlap other construction projects. Drainage and
erosion control plans would be developed to meet the MPCA NPDES construction
stormwater permitting process. Future development projects would also be required to
comply with the MPCA NPDES construction stormwater permit program and implement
applicable BMPs to control soil erosion and sedimentation. Because of these requirements,
the cumulative potential environmental effects because of soil erosion and sedimentation
would be anticipated to be minimal.
X-C-01
Water Quality
The project would construct approximately 19.45 acres of impervious surface in the Project
area. This would result in an increase in runoff, which would be routed into stormwater
basins that would provide treatment to the runoff. Treatment would meet or exceed NPDES
permanent stormwater management requirements and local stormwater requirements. Any
future development projects adjacent to the Project would be required to provide
stormwater mitigation in accordance with any permitting requirements at the time of
construction. Because of stormwater management requirements and the NDPES permitting
process that are currently in place, the cumulative potential effects to water quality would
be anticipated to be minimal.
Habitat Loss and Fragmentation and Invasive Species
The construction of the Project may contribute to habitat fragmentation. Habitat
fragmentations introduces additional stressors to the biodiversity of the region that could
increase the vulnerability of habitats to infestation by invasive species, contribute to the
isolation of populations, and limit wildlife travel across the landscape.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Long‐term emissions related to converting farmland and undeveloped land to a residential
development is anticipated to result in 5,332.06 metric tons of emissions annually. The
cumulative potential effect of GHGs would be anticipated to increase as the City of Hastings
grows and nearby land is converted from farmland and undeveloped land thereby removing
potential carbon sinks from the landscape.
22. Other potential environmental effects: 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.
There are no known or potential environmental effects that were not addressed in the above EAW
items.
X-C-01
RGU CERTIFICATION. (The Environmental Quality Board will only accept SIGNED Environmental
Assessment Worksheets for public notice in the EQB Monitor.)
I hereby certify that:
The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my
knowledge.
The EAW describes the complete project; there are no other projects, stages or components
other than those described in this document, which are related to the project as connected
actions or phased actions, as defined at Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200, subparts 9c and 60,
respectively.
Copies of this EAW are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list.
Signature Date
Title
X-C-01
List of Figures
Figure 1 – Site Location Map
Figure 2 – Site Topographic Map
Figure 3 – Project Details
Figure 4 – Land Cover
Figure 5 – Soil Survey and Prime Farmland
Figure 6 - Minnesota Geological Survey Dakota County Map series
Figure 7 – 2-ft LiDAR Topography
Figure 8 - Known Karst Features
Figure 9 – Surface Waters
Figure 10 – National Wetlands Inventory
Figure 11 - County Well Index and Wellhead Protection Areas
X-C-01
Hastings
Hastings
Project: LANEQ 170747
Map by: rbeduhnProjection: UTM NAD 83 Zone 15NSource: SEHinc, City of Hastings,
MNDNR, MNDOT, USGS
Dakota County
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey map and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information, and data gathered from various sources listed on this map and is to be used for reference purposes only. SEH does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and SEH does not represent thatthe GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking, or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The user of this map acknowledges that SEH shall not be liable for any damages which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided.
Figure
1
Print Date: 8/22/2023
Pa
t
h
:
X
:
\
K
O
\
L
\
L
A
N
E
Q
\
1
7
0
7
4
7
\
5
-
f
i
n
a
l
-
d
s
g
n
\
5
1
-
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
9
0
-
G
I
S
\
E
A
W
F
i
g
u
r
e
S
e
t
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
-
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
m
x
d
Site Location Map
Waldon at Hastings Development
Hastings, Dakota County, Minnesota
3535 VADNAIS CENTER DR.
ST. PAUL, MN 55110PHONE: (651) 490-2000FAX: (651) 490-2150
WATTS: 800-325-2055
www.sehinc.com
Dakota
Goodhue
Scott
Washington
Rice
Hennepin
Ramsey
Project Area
±
0 2010 Miles
X-C-01
Project: LANEQ 170747
Map by: rbeduhnProjection: UTM NAD 83 Zone 15NSource: SEHinc, City of Hastings,
MNDNR, MNDOT, USGS
Dakota County
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey map and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information, and data gathered from various sources listed on this map and is to be used for reference purposes only. SEH does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and SEH does not represent thatthe GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking, or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The user of this map acknowledges that SEH shall not be liable for any damages which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided.
Figure
2
Print Date: 8/22/2023
Pa
t
h
:
X
:
\
K
O
\
L
\
L
A
N
E
Q
\
1
7
0
7
4
7
\
5
-
f
i
n
a
l
-
d
s
g
n
\
5
1
-
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
9
0
-
G
I
S
\
E
A
W
F
i
g
u
r
e
S
e
t
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
T
o
p
o
.
m
x
d
USGS 24K Topographic Map
Waldon at Hastings Development
Hastings, Dakota County, Minnesota
3535 VADNAIS CENTER DR.
ST. PAUL, MN 55110PHONE: (651) 490-2000FAX: (651) 490-2150
WATTS: 800-325-2055
www.sehinc.com
Legend
Project Area ±
0 21 Miles
X-C-01
Project: LANEQ 170747
Map by: rbeduhnProjection: UTM NAD 83 Zone 15NSource: SEHinc, City of Hastings,
MNDNR, MNDOT, USGS
Dakota County
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey map and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information, and data gathered from various sources listed on this map and is to be used for reference purposes only. SEH does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and SEH does not represent thatthe GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking, or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The user of this map acknowledges that SEH shall not be liable for any damages which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided.
Figure
3
Print Date: 11/14/2023
Pa
t
h
:
X
:
\
K
O
\
L
\
L
A
N
E
Q
\
1
7
0
7
4
7
\
5
-
f
i
n
a
l
-
d
s
g
n
\
5
1
-
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
9
0
-
G
I
S
\
E
A
W
F
i
g
u
r
e
S
e
t
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
3
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
e
t
a
i
l
s
.
m
x
d
Project Details
Waldon at Hastings Development
Hastings, Dakota County, Minnesota
3535 VADNAIS CENTER DR.
ST. PAUL, MN 55110PHONE: (651) 490-2000FAX: (651) 490-2150
WATTS: 800-325-2055
www.sehinc.com
Legend
Project Area ±
0 0.10.05 Miles
Twinhome Units (ITE Land Use: Multifamily Housing– Low-rise) 54Townhome Units (ITE Land Use: Multifamily Housing– Low-rise) 68Apartment Units (ITE Land Use: Multifamily Housing– Mid-rise) 170Senior Units (ITE Land Use: Assisted Living) 24Active Senior Living Units (ITE Land Use: Senior Adult Housing (Single Family)) 60 Assisted Living Units (ITE Land Use: Assisted Living) 80Single Family Homes (ITE Land Use: Single Family Detached Housing) 55 Total Units 511
Estimated Unit Breakdown
X-C-01
1.hh.CT.i75.cGS.
2.ch.RC.pUS.
2.ch.RC.pUS.
2.ch.RC.pUS.
1.hh.CT.i10.cGS.
6.ge.MG.nDP.nDA.
2.ch.RC.pUS.4.ce.UP.nRC.
2.tt.CC.pUS.
1.tt.CD.i10.5.de.UP.nNT.
1.tt.CD.i10.
2.ch.RC.pUS.6.gt.GC.nAT.
6.ge.MG.nDP.nDA.
4.cd.UP.nAT.
6.ge.MG.nAT.
6.ge.MG.nDP.nDA.4.de.UP.nOW.6.ge.MG.nAT.2.ph.CG.pUS.cGL.
1.hh.CG.i50.cGL.
6.ge.MG.nAT.
2.ch.RC.pUS.
4.de.UP.nOW.
4.cd.UP.nAT.
6.ge.MG.nAT.6.ge.MG.nAT.
4.de.UP.nOW.
2.ph.CG.pUS.cGL.
2.tt.CC.pUS.
6.gt.GC.nAT.
6.ge.MG.nAT.
2.ph.CG.pUS.cGS.
3.de.UP.nOA.nOD.
1.hh.CT.i10.cGS.2.ch.RC.pUS.
2.ph.CG.pUS.cGS.
6.ge.MG.nDP.
2.tt.CC.pUS.
4.de.UP.nOW.
4.ce.UP.nRC.
1.hh.CG.i10.cGL.
1.hh.CG.i10.cGL.
2.tt.CC.pUS.
1.hh.CG.i50.cGL.
1.hh.CT.i25.cGS.
6.ge.MG.nDP.nDA.
4.de.UP.nAT.
6.ge.MG.nAT.
3.de.UP.nAT.
5.de.UP.nNT.
4.de.UP.nOW.
9.ww.OW.4.de.UP.nOW.
4.ce.UP.nRC.
2.tt.CC.pUS.
2.tt.CC.pUS.
6.gt.GC.nAT.
1.hh.CT.i50.cGS.
4.de.UP.nOW.
4.de.UP.nOW.
2.tt.CD.pUS.2.ch.RC.pUS.6.ge.MG.nAT.
Project: LANEQ 170747
Map by: rbeduhnProjection: UTM NAD 83 Zone 15NSource: SEHinc, City of Hastings,
MNDNR, MNDOT, USGS
Dakota County
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey map and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information, and data gathered from various sources listed on this map and is to be used for reference purposes only. SEH does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and SEH does not represent thatthe GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking, or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The user of this map acknowledges that SEH shall not be liable for any damages which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided.
Figure
4
Print Date: 8/31/2023
Pa
t
h
:
X
:
\
K
O
\
L
\
L
A
N
E
Q
\
1
7
0
7
4
7
\
5
-
f
i
n
a
l
-
d
s
g
n
\
5
1
-
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
9
0
-
G
I
S
\
E
A
W
F
i
g
u
r
e
S
e
t
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
4
-
L
a
n
d
C
o
v
e
r
.
m
x
d
Generalized Land Cover Types
Waldon at Hastings Development
Hastings, Dakota County, Minnesota
3535 VADNAIS CENTER DR.
ST. PAUL, MN 55110PHONE: (651) 490-2000FAX: (651) 490-2150
WATTS: 800-325-2055
www.sehinc.com
Legend
Project AreaGeneralized Cover
Impervious
Woodland
Prairie/Grassland
Palustrine open water
Cropland
Maintained Lawn/Turf
±
0 0.250.125 Miles
Land Cover Code Description
1.tt.CD.i10. 4% to 10% impervious cover with deciduous trees
3.de.UP.nAT. Altered/non-native deciduous forest
4.de.UP.nAT. Altered/non-native deciduous woodland
4.cd.UP.nAT. Altered/non-native mixed woodland
2.tt.CD.pUS.cPD. Deciduous trees on upland soils
6.ge.MG.nDP. Dry prairie
6.ge.MG.nDP.nDA. Dry prairie barrens subtype
4.ce.UP.nRC. Eastern Red Cedar woodland
6.gt.GC.nAT. Grassland with sparse conifer or mixed deciduous/coniferous trees - altered/non-native dominated
2.ph.CG.pUS.cGL. Long grasses on upland soils
6.ge.MG.nAT. Medium-tall grass altered/non-native dominated grassland
5.de.UP.nNT. Native dominated disturbed upland shrubland
5.de.UP.nNT. Native dominated disturbed upland shrubland
1.hh.CG.i10.cGL. Non-native dominated long grasses with 4-10% impervious cover
3.de.UP.nOA.nOD. Oak forest dry subtype
4.de.UP.nOW. Oak woodland-brushland
9.ww.OW. Palustrine open water
1.hh.CT.i10.cGS. Short grasses and mixed trees with 4-10% impervious cover
2.ch.RC.pUS. Upland soils - cropland
2.tt.CM.pUS. Upland soils with planted, maintained or cultivated mixed coniferous/deciduous trees
2.tt.CC.pUS. Upland soils with planted, maintained, or cultivated coniferous trees
MLCCS Detailed Land Cover Classes
X-C-01
411A
39A
7A
7D
611F
39A
7C
7A
1815
495
7B
39B27A
7A
39B
7C
283B
411B
7B
39B
283B
1815
250
7C
7B
7C
301B
1030
411A
1815
283B
27A
Project: LANEQ 170747
Map by: rbeduhnProjection: UTM NAD 83 Zone 15NSource: SEHinc, City of Hastings,
MNDNR, MNDOT, USGS
Dakota County
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey map and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information, and data gathered from various sources listed on this map and is to be used for reference purposes only. SEH does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and SEH does not represent thatthe GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking, or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The user of this map acknowledges that SEH shall not be liable for any damages which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided.
Figure
5
Print Date: 8/22/2023
Pa
t
h
:
X
:
\
K
O
\
L
\
L
A
N
E
Q
\
1
7
0
7
4
7
\
5
-
f
i
n
a
l
-
d
s
g
n
\
5
1
-
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
9
0
-
G
I
S
\
E
A
W
F
i
g
u
r
e
S
e
t
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
5
-
S
o
i
l
s
.
m
x
d
Dakota County Soil Survey
Waldon at Hastings Development
Hastings, Dakota County, Minnesota
3535 VADNAIS CENTER DR.
ST. PAUL, MN 55110PHONE: (651) 490-2000FAX: (651) 490-2150
WATTS: 800-325-2055
www.sehinc.com
Legend
Project Area
Farmland Classification
All areas are prime farmland
Not prime farmland
Hydric Soils
Non-Hydric
Predominantly Non-hydric
±
0 0.20.1 Miles
Map Unit Soil Series1003 Anthroportic Udorthents-Pits-Dumps complex, abandoned, 2 to 45 percent slopes1030 Pits, sand and gravel1815 Zumbro loamy fine sand208 Kato silty clay loam250 Kennebec silt loam27A Dickinson sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes283B Plainfield loamy sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes301B Lindstrom silt loam, 1 to 4 percent slopes39A Wadena loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes39B Wadena loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes39D Wadena loam, 12 to 18 percent slopes411A Waukegan silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes411B Waukegan silt loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes411C Waukegan silt loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes495 Zumbro fine sandy loam611F Hawick loamy sand, 20 to 40 percent slopes7A Hubbard loamy sand, 0 to 1 percent slopes7B Hubbard loamy sand, 1 to 6 percent slopes7C Hubbard loamy sand, 6 to 12 percent slopes7D Hubbard loamy sand, 12 to 18 percent slopes8A Sparta loamy fine sand, 0 to 1 percent slopes8B Sparta loamy fine sand, 1 to 6 percent slopes
X-C-01
Cj
Opc
Opc
Csf
Project: LANEQ 170747
Map by: rbeduhnProjection: UTM NAD 83 Zone 15NSource: SEHinc, City of Hastings,
MNDNR, MNDOT, USGS
Dakota County
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey map and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information, and data gathered from various sources listed on this map and is to be used for reference purposes only. SEH does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and SEH does not represent thatthe GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking, or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The user of this map acknowledges that SEH shall not be liable for any damages which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided.
Figure
6
Print Date: 8/31/2023
Pa
t
h
:
X
:
\
K
O
\
L
\
L
A
N
E
Q
\
1
7
0
7
4
7
\
5
-
f
i
n
a
l
-
d
s
g
n
\
5
1
-
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
9
0
-
G
I
S
\
E
A
W
F
i
g
u
r
e
S
e
t
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
6
-
G
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
S
u
r
v
e
y
.
m
x
d
Dakota County Bedrock Geology
Waldon at Hastings Development
Hastings, Dakota County, Minnesota
3535 VADNAIS CENTER DR.
ST. PAUL, MN 55110PHONE: (651) 490-2000FAX: (651) 490-2150
WATTS: 800-325-2055
www.sehinc.com
Legend
Project Area
Prairie du Chien Group
Jordan Sandstone
St. Lawernce & Franconia Formations
±
0 0.20.1 Miles
X-C-01
8
3
0
780
820
810
800
790
770
760
75
0
8
4
0
830
83
0
83
0
770
8
3
0
830
770
8
3
0
8
3
0
83
0
830
83
0
8
3
0
83
0
8
3
0
830
830
830
760
8
4
0
8
3
0
83
0
83
0
78
0
840
770
8
4
0
800
830
8
3
0
82
0
840
7
8
0
8
3
0
83
0
8
3
0
77
0
78
0
83
0
820
750
78
0
8
3
0
82
0
8
4
0
80
0
83
0
83
0
8
3
0
820
8
3
0
84
0
83
0
8
3
0
8
3
0
830
820
830
8
1
0
830
830 830830
83
0
8
3
0
8
4
0
Project: LANEQ 170747
Map by: rbeduhnProjection: UTM NAD 83 Zone 15NSource: SEHinc, City of Hastings,
MNDNR, MNDOT, USGS
Dakota County
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey map and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information, and data gathered from various sources listed on this map and is to be used for reference purposes only. SEH does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and SEH does not represent thatthe GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking, or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The user of this map acknowledges that SEH shall not be liable for any damages which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided.
Figure
7
Print Date: 8/31/2023
Pa
t
h
:
X
:
\
K
O
\
L
\
L
A
N
E
Q
\
1
7
0
7
4
7
\
5
-
f
i
n
a
l
-
d
s
g
n
\
5
1
-
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
9
0
-
G
I
S
\
E
A
W
F
i
g
u
r
e
S
e
t
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
7
-
L
i
D
A
R
.
m
x
d
2-foot LiDAR Topography
Waldon at Hastings Development
Hastings, Dakota County, Minnesota
3535 VADNAIS CENTER DR.
ST. PAUL, MN 55110PHONE: (651) 490-2000FAX: (651) 490-2150
WATTS: 800-325-2055
www.sehinc.com
Legend
Project AreaContour Type
Index
Intermediate
±
0 0.20.1 Miles
WhiteLine
X-C-01
Project: LANEQ 170747
Map by: rbeduhnProjection: UTM NAD 83 Zone 15NSource: SEHinc, City of Hastings,
MNDNR, MNDOT, USGS
Dakota County
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey map and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information, and data gathered from various sources listed on this map and is to be used for reference purposes only. SEH does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and SEH does not represent thatthe GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking, or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The user of this map acknowledges that SEH shall not be liable for any damages which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided.
Figure
8
Print Date: 8/31/2023
Pa
t
h
:
X
:
\
K
O
\
L
\
L
A
N
E
Q
\
1
7
0
7
4
7
\
5
-
f
i
n
a
l
-
d
s
g
n
\
5
1
-
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
9
0
-
G
I
S
\
E
A
W
F
i
g
u
r
e
S
e
t
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
8
-
K
a
r
s
t
.
m
x
d
Known Karst Features
Waldon at Hastings Development
Hastings, Dakota County, Minnesota
3535 VADNAIS CENTER DR.
ST. PAUL, MN 55110PHONE: (651) 490-2000FAX: (651) 490-2150
WATTS: 800-325-2055
www.sehinc.com
Legend
Project Area
Area Prone to Surface Karst Feature Development
±
0 0.250.125 Miles
X-C-01
Project: LANEQ 170747
Map by: rbeduhnProjection: UTM NAD 83 Zone 15NSource: SEHinc, City of Hastings,
MNDNR, MNDOT, USGS
Dakota County
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey map and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information, and data gathered from various sources listed on this map and is to be used for reference purposes only. SEH does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and SEH does not represent thatthe GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking, or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The user of this map acknowledges that SEH shall not be liable for any damages which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided.
Figure
9
Print Date: 8/31/2023
Pa
t
h
:
X
:
\
K
O
\
L
\
L
A
N
E
Q
\
1
7
0
7
4
7
\
5
-
f
i
n
a
l
-
d
s
g
n
\
5
1
-
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
9
0
-
G
I
S
\
E
A
W
F
i
g
u
r
e
S
e
t
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
9
-
S
u
r
f
a
c
e
W
a
t
e
r
s
.
m
x
d
MNDNR PWI & FEMA Floodplain
Waldon at Hastings Development
Hastings, Dakota County, Minnesota
3535 VADNAIS CENTER DR.
ST. PAUL, MN 55110PHONE: (651) 490-2000FAX: (651) 490-2150
WATTS: 800-325-2055
www.sehinc.com
Legend
Public Watercourse
Project Area
FEMA Floodplain
100-year Floodplain
500-year Floodplain
Outside of Floodplain
±
Un
n
a
m
e
d
S
t
r
e
a
m
Un
n
a
m
e
d
S
t
r
e
a
m
Ver
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
R
i
v
e
r
Mis
s
i
s
s
i
p
p
i
R
i
v
e
r
X-C-01
PUBG
PEM1Ax
PUBFx
PEM1A PEM1A
PEM1Ax
PEM1Ax
PEM1A
Project: LANEQ 170747
Map by: rbeduhnProjection: UTM NAD 83 Zone 15NSource: SEHinc, City of Hastings,
MNDNR, MNDOT, USGS
Dakota County
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey map and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information, and data gathered from various sources listed on this map and is to be used for reference purposes only. SEH does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and SEH does not represent thatthe GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking, or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The user of this map acknowledges that SEH shall not be liable for any damages which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided.
Figure
10
Print Date: 8/31/2023
Pa
t
h
:
X
:
\
K
O
\
L
\
L
A
N
E
Q
\
1
7
0
7
4
7
\
5
-
f
i
n
a
l
-
d
s
g
n
\
5
1
-
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
9
0
-
G
I
S
\
E
A
W
F
i
g
u
r
e
S
e
t
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
0
-
N
W
I
.
m
x
d
National Wetlands Inventory
Waldon at Hastings Development
Hastings, Dakota County, Minnesota
3535 VADNAIS CENTER DR.
ST. PAUL, MN 55110PHONE: (651) 490-2000FAX: (651) 490-2150
WATTS: 800-325-2055
www.sehinc.com
Legend
Project Area
NWI Type
Type 1
Type 4
Type 5
±
0 0.150.075 Miles
X-C-01
00821154
00243739
00426988
00159499
00412452
00185962
00441939
00185269
00170868
00408241
00408239
00579627
00425300
00185942
00563218
00636394
00145852
00142530
00426951
00426905
00207644
00186025
00412386
00185973
Project: LANEQ 170747
Map by: rbeduhnProjection: UTM NAD 83 Zone 15NSource: SEHinc, City of Hastings,
MNDNR, MNDOT, USGS
Dakota County
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey map and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information, and data gathered from various sources listed on this map and is to be used for reference purposes only. SEH does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and SEH does not represent thatthe GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking, or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The user of this map acknowledges that SEH shall not be liable for any damages which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided.
Figure
11
Print Date: 8/31/2023
Pa
t
h
:
X
:
\
K
O
\
L
\
L
A
N
E
Q
\
1
7
0
7
4
7
\
5
-
f
i
n
a
l
-
d
s
g
n
\
5
1
-
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
9
0
-
G
I
S
\
E
A
W
F
i
g
u
r
e
S
e
t
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
1
-
W
e
l
l
s
+
W
e
l
l
h
e
a
d
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
m
x
d
County Well Inventory and Wellhead Protection Areas
Waldon at Hastings Development
Hastings, Dakota County, Minnesota
3535 VADNAIS CENTER DR.
ST. PAUL, MN 55110PHONE: (651) 490-2000FAX: (651) 490-2150
WATTS: 800-325-2055
www.sehinc.com
Legend
Project Area
Located Wells
Unlocated Wells
Wellhead Protection Area
±
0 0.20.1 Miles
X-C-01
Attachment A – MNDNR Natural Heritage Response Letter
X-C-01
X-C-01
X-C-01
X-C-01
X-C-01
Attachment B – USFWS Information, Planning, and Consultation System (IPaC) Letter
X-C-01
X-C-01
X-C-01
X-C-01
X-C-01
X-C-01
X-C-01
X-C-01
X-C-01
X-C-01
X-C-01
Attachment C – SHPO Response Letter
X-C-01
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
February 24, 2023
Rebecca Beduhn
SEH Inc
3535 Vadnais Center Dr
St Paul, MN 55110
RE: Land Equity Development
Proposed residential development
T114 R17 S2 & S11, Hastings, Dakota County
SHPO Number: 2023-0826
Dear Rebecca Beduhn:
Thank you for consulting with our office during the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for
the above-referenced project.
Due to the nature and location of the proposed project, we recommend that a Phase IA literature review and
archaeological assessment be completed by a qualified archaeologist to assess the potential for intact
archaeological sites in the project area. If, as a result of this assessment, a Phase I archaeological survey is
recommended, this survey should be completed. The survey must meet the requirements of the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for Identification and Evaluation and should include an evaluation of National Register
eligibility for any properties that are identified. For a list of consultants who have expressed an interest in
undertaking this type of research and archaeological surveys, please visit the website
www.mnhs.org/preservation/directory, and select “Archaeologists” in the “Search by Specialties” box.
We will reconsider the need for survey if the project area can be documented as previously surveyed or disturbed.
Any previous survey work must meet contemporary standards. Note: plowed areas and right-of-way are not
automatically considered disturbed. Archaeological sites can remain intact beneath the plow zone and in
undisturbed portions of the right-of-way.
Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and 36 CFR § 800. If this project is considered for federal financial assistance, or requires
a federal permit or license, then review and consultation with our office will need to be initiated by the lead
federal agency. Be advised that comments and recommendations provided by our office for this state-level review
may differ from findings and determinations made by the federal agency as part of review and consultation under
Section 106.
If you have any questions regarding our review of this project, please contact me at (651) 201-3285 or
kelly.graggjohnson@state.mn.us.
Sincerely,
Kelly Gragg-Johnson
Environmental Review Program Specialist
X-C-01
Attachment D ‐ Traffic Impact Study
X-C-01
Traffic Impact Study
Walden at Hastings
Development
Hastings, MN
LANEQ 170747 | November 13, 2023
X-C-01
Engineers | Architects | Planners | Scientists
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 3535 Vadnais Center Drive, St. Paul, MN 55110-3507
651.490.2000 | 800.325.2055 | 888.908.8166 fax | sehinc.com
SEH is 100% employee-owned | Affirmative Action–Equal Opportunity Employer
November 13, 2023 RE: Walden at Hastings Development
Traffic Impact Study
Hastings, MN
SEH No. LANEQ 170747 4.00
Mr. Jeff Richter and Mr. Chris Beadle
Land Equity Development
12101 Woodhill Lane NE
Blaine, MN 55449
Dear Mr. Richter and Mr. Beadle,:
The following report provides findings to a traffic impact study completed for the proposed Walden at
Hastings residential development located just south of Hastings, Minnesota.
Sincerely,
Associate | Sr. Traffic Engineer
(Lic. IA, MN, SD)
CMJ
x:\ko\l\laneq\170747\8-planning\87-rpt-stud\waldon at hastings development traffic impact report 082523.docx
X-C-01
Traffic Impact Study
Walden at Hastings Development
Hastings, MN
SEH No. LANEQ 170747
November 13, 2023
I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I
am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota
Chad M. Jorgenson, PE, PTOE
Date: August 25, 2023 License No.: 55528
Reviewed By: Justin Anibas Date: August 25, 2023
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. 3535 Vadnais Center Drive St. Paul, MN 55110-3507 651.490.2000
X-C-01
SEH is a registered trademark of Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc.
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY LANEQ 170747
i
Contents
Letter of Transmittal Title Page Contents
1 Background and Introduction ...................................... 1
2 Existing Conditions ..................................................... 1
2.1 Existing Traffic Volumes ......................................................................... 3
3 Future Conditions ........................................................ 5
3.1 Background Traffic Growth ..................................................................... 5
3.2 Trip Generation ....................................................................................... 5
3.3 Trip Distribution ...................................................................................... 7
4 Warrant Analysis ....................................................... 14
4.1 Warrant Analysis Assumptions ............................................................. 14
4.2 Build Warrant Methodology .................................................................. 15
4.3 Warrant Analysis Results ..................................................................... 15
5 Operational Analysis ................................................. 16
5.1 2023 Existing Conditions ...................................................................... 17
5.2 2024 No Build Conditions ..................................................................... 18
5.3 2024 Phase 1 Build Conditions............................................................. 18
5.4 2029 No Build Conditions ..................................................................... 19
5.5 2029 Full Build Conditions .................................................................... 20
5.6 2034 No Build Conditions ..................................................................... 20
5.7 2034 Build Conditions ........................................................................... 21
6 Conclusion ................................................................ 22
6.1 Recommendations ................................................................................ 22
List of Tables
Table 1 – ITE Trip Generation Rates.......................................................................... 6
Table 2 – Trip Generation Estimates .......................................................................... 6
Table 3 – 2034 Build Warrant Analysis Results ....................................................... 15
Table 4 – Level of Service Thresholds ..................................................................... 16
X-C-01
Contents (continued)
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY LANEQ 170747
ii
Table 5 – 2023 Existing Traffic Operations .............................................................. 17
Table 6 – 2024 No Build Traffic Operations ............................................................. 18
Table 7 – 2024 Phase 1 Build Traffic Operations ..................................................... 19
Table 8 – 2029 No Build Traffic Operations ............................................................. 19
Table 9 – 2029 Full Build Traffic Operations ............................................................ 20
Table 10 – 2034 No Build Traffic Operations ........................................................... 21
Table 11 – 2034 Full Build Traffic Operations .......................................................... 21
List of Figures
Figure 1 – Project Location ........................................................................................ 2
Figure 2 – 2023 Existing Volumes .............................................................................. 4
Figure 3 – 2024 No Build Volumes ............................................................................. 8
Figure 4 – 2024 Phase 1 Build Volumes .................................................................... 9
Figure 5 – 2029 No Build Volumes ........................................................................... 10
Figure 6 – 2029 Full Build Volumes.......................................................................... 11
Figure 7 – 2034 No Build Volumes ........................................................................... 12
Figure 8 – 2034 Full Build Volumes.......................................................................... 13
List of Appendices
Appendix A Site Plan
Appendix B August 2023 Traffic Counts
Appendix C Detailed Warrant Analysis Results
Appendix D Operational MOE Tables
X-C-01
LANEQ 170747
Page 1
Traffic Impact Study
Walden at Hastings Development
Prepared for Land Equity Development
1 Background and Introduction
The Walden at Hastings residential development is proposed to be located along the north side
of TH 316 (Great River Road) approximately 1/3 of a mile south of Tuttle Drive in the City of
Hastings, Minnesota. Figure 1 shows the development location.
The proposed development is planned to have two access points into TH 316, the main driveway
aligning directly across from Michael Avenue and another access point located approximately
1,300 feet to the east. The development site will also have access into the residential
neighborhood located directly to the north through Thomas Avenue.
2 Existing Conditions
TH 316 is a two-lane roadway designated as a principal arterial roadway. The speed limit
through the project area transitions from 60 miles per hour (mph) to 45 mph approximately 700
feet west of Michael Avenue for westbound motorists. In 2022, the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnDOT) reported an annual average daily traffic (AADT) of 7,502 vehicles per
day (vpd).
Both Tuttle Drive and Michael Avenue currently function as local collector roadways primarily
serving residential traffic. The posted speed limit on both roadways is 30 mph. The intersection
of TH 316 and Tuttle Drive is currently controlled by a single lane roundabout and the intersection
of TH 316 with Michael Avenue is under minor street stop control. A westbound by-pass lane
and a dedicated eastbound right turn lane are provided at the TH 316 intersection with Michael
Avenue.
The site plan provided in Appendix A shows the general development plan for the proposed
residential development. This study will focus on the impact of both the year of opening - 2024
(Phase 1) and full build out – 2029 (Phase 2) and five years after full build out (2034) to the
surrounding roadway network.
X-C-01
Mi
c
h
a
e
l
A
v
e
@?316
New
A
c
c
e
s
s
Tut
t
l
e
D
r
i
v
e
Gr
e
a
t
R
i
v
e
r
R
d
Th
o
m
a
s
A
v
e
1
2
3
Dakota County, Maxar, Microsoft
Project LocationProject: LANEQ 170747 Figure1Walden at Hastings Development Traffic Impact AnalysisMap by: ljohnson
Source: ESRI
Print Date: 11/13/2023
Hastings, MNI
Study Intersection
X-C-01
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY LANEQ 170747
Page 3
2.1 Existing Traffic Volumes
Vehicle turning movement counts were collected during the AM and PM peak periods at the
following intersections in August of 2023:
• TH 316 and Tuttle Drive
• TH 316 and Michael Avenue
Based on the existing turning movement counts, the AM peak hour was determined to be from
7:15 AM to 8:15 AM and the PM peak hour was determined to be from 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM.
Figure 2 shows the 2023 existing peak hour turning movement counts. Full intersection turning
movement counts are provided in Appendix B.
X-C-01
Mi
c
h
a
e
l
A
v
e
@?316
New
A
c
c
e
s
s
Tut
t
l
e
D
r
i
v
e
Gr
e
a
t
R
i
v
e
r
R
d
Th
o
m
a
s
A
v
e
1
2
3
Dakota County, Maxar
2023 Existing VolumesProject: LANEQ 170747 Figure2Walden at Hastings Development Traffic Impact AnalysisMap by: ljohnson
Source: ESRI
Print Date: 11/13/2023
Hastings, MNI
TH 316
Tu
t
t
l
e
D
r
i
v
e
1
8 / (12)320 / (408)
0 / (0)
36
/
(
4
2
)
1
/
(
2
)
0
/
(
2
)
93
/
(
1
0
3
)
2
/
(
3
)
6
/
(
6
)
38 / (123)
236 / (456)21 / (40)
³>=
>
=
³
³
>
=
³>
=
TH 316
Mic
h
a
e
l
A
v
e
2
299 / (399)
14 / (17)
17
/
(
1
3
)
4
/
(
2
5
)
228 / (448)16 / (12)
!"$>=
³
=
³>TH 316
3
313 / (416)
232 / (473)
³
³
Intersection ID
Turning MovementOP
XX / (XX)AM Peak Hour Volume
PM Peak Hour Volume
!"$Minor Street Stop Control
X
Roundabout
X-C-01
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY LANEQ 170747
Page 5
3 Future Conditions
3.1 Background Traffic Growth
Traffic forecasts for the study area were developed using information from Dakota County’s
Transportation Plan which relies on traffic forecasting information from Metropolitan Council’s
Regional Travel Demand Model. Based on the traffic forecast information an approximate 0.25%
per year increase in traffic volume is expected from 2021 through the 2040 design year.
To be conservative, a 0.5% straight-line annual average growth rate was applied to the existing
traffic counts to estimate 2024 No Build, 2029 No Build, and 2034 No Build traffic volumes to
compare the impact of the proposed development traffic against. Figures 3, 5, and 7 show the
2024, 2029, and 2034 No Build traffic volumes, respectively.
3.2 Trip Generation
The proposed Walden at Hastings development is approximately 71.1 acres in size and includes
townhomes, twin homes, active senior living, assisted living, multi-family residential, and single-
family residential land uses. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation
Manual, 11th Edition, was used to estimate the trips generated by the proposed development site.
The site is currently proposed to be developed in two phases outlined below:
Phase 1 (2024):
• 54 Twin home Units (ITE Land Use: Single Family Attached Housing)
• 68 Townhome Units (ITE Land Use: Single Family Attached Housing)
• 170 Apartment Units (ITE Land Use: Multifamily Housing– Mid-rise)
• 24 Senior Units (ITE Land Use: Assisted Living)
• 60 Active Senior Living Units (ITE Land Use: Senior Adult Housing (Single Family))
• 80 Assisted Living Units (ITE Land Use: Assisted Living)
Phase 2 (2029):
• 55 Single Family Homes (ITE Land Use: Single Family Detached Housing)
Table 1 shows the trip generation rates used for each land use type and the entering/existing
percentages for trips in the AM and PM peak hours. Table 2 shows the AM peak hour, PM peak
hour, and daily trips generated under full development of the study area.
X-C-01
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY LANEQ 170747
Page 6
Table 1 – ITE Trip Generation Rates
Table 2 – Trip Generation Estimates
Land Use ITE
Code Units Daily AM PM
Rate Enter Exit Rate Enter Exit
Phase 1
Single Family Homes (attached) 215 DU 7.20 0.40 25% 75% 0.57 59% 41%
Multifamily
Housing
(Mid-rise)
221 DU 4.54 0.37 23% 77% 0.39 61% 39%
Senior Adult Housing (Single
Family)
251 DU 4.31 0.24 33% 67% 0.30 61% 39%
Assisted
Living 254 Beds 2.60 0.18 60% 40% 0.24 39% 61%
Phase 2
Single Family Homes (detached) 210 DU 9.43 0.70 25% 75% 0.94 63% 37%
*Note: DU = Dwelling Units
Area Daily
Trips*
AM Peak Hour* PM Peak Hour*
Total Enter Exit Total Enter Exit
Phase 1
Single Family Homes (attached) 878 49 12 37 70 41 29
Multifamily
Housing (Mid-
rise)
772 63 14 49 66 40 26
Senior Adult Housing (Single Family)
259 14 5 9 18 11 7
Assisted
Living 281 15 9 6 20 8 12
Phase 1 Total 2,190 141 40 101 174 100 74
Phase 2
Single Family
Homes 519 39 10 29 52 33 19
Grand Total 2,709 180 50 130 226 133 93
X-C-01
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY LANEQ 170747
Page 7
3.3 Trip Distribution
Trips from the proposed development were distributed to the adjacent street network based upon
the August 2023 intersection counts, existing average annual daily traffic (AADT) counts from
MnDOT’s Traffic Mapping Application, and surrounding development. Based upon the collected
information, it was determined that 90% of development traffic would travel to and from the
north/west and 10% to and from the south/east.
Trips generated within Phase 1 will all use the primary access point at Michael Avenue. With the
addition of the 55 single family homes in Phase 2, located near the easternmost access point, all
trips generated by the single-family homes were expected to use the secondary access.
To be conservative, no trips were estimated to travel to the north through the existing
neighborhood through Thomas Avenue.
Figures 4, 6, and 8 show the 2024, 2029, and 2034 Build traffic volumes, respectively.
X-C-01
Mi
c
h
a
e
l
A
v
e
@?316
New
A
c
c
e
s
s
Tut
t
l
e
D
r
i
v
e
Gr
e
a
t
R
i
v
e
r
R
d
Th
o
m
a
s
A
v
e
1
2
3
Dakota County, Maxar
2024 No Build VolumesProject: LANEQ 170747 Figure3Walden at Hastings Development Traffic Impact AnalysisMap by: ljohnson
Source: ESRI
Print Date: 11/13/2023
Hastings, MNI
TH 316
Tu
t
t
l
e
D
r
i
v
e
1
8 / (12)322 / (410)
0 / (0)
36
/
(
4
2
)
1
/
(
2
)
0
/
(
2
)
93
/
(
1
0
4
)
2
/
(
3
)
6
/
(
6
)
38 / (124)
237 / (458)21 / (40)
³>=
>
=
³
³
>
=
³>
=
TH 316
Mic
h
a
e
l
A
v
e
2
300 / (401)
14 / (17)
17
/
(
1
3
)
4
/
(
2
5
)
229 / (450)16 / (12)
!"$>=
³
=
³>TH 316
3
315 / (418)
233 / (475)
³
³
Intersection ID
Turning MovementOP
XX / (XX)AM Peak Hour Volume
PM Peak Hour Volume
!"$Minor Street Stop Control
X
Roundabout
X-C-01
Mi
c
h
a
e
l
A
v
e
@?316
New
A
c
c
e
s
s
Tut
t
l
e
D
r
i
v
e
Gr
e
a
t
R
i
v
e
r
R
d
Th
o
m
a
s
A
v
e
1
2
3
Dakota County, Maxar, Microsoft
2024 Phase 1 Build VolumesProject: LANEQ 170747 Figure4Walden at Hastings Development Traffic Impact AnalysisMap by: ljohnson
Source: ESRI
Print Date: 11/13/2023
Hastings, MNI
TH 316
Tu
t
t
l
e
D
r
i
v
e
1
8 / (12)413 / (477)
0 / (0)
36
/
(
4
2
)
1
/
(
2
)
0
/
(
2
)
93
/
(
1
0
4
)
2
/
(
3
)
6
/
(
6
)
38 / (124)
273 / (548)21 / (40)
³>=
>
=
³
³
>
=
³>
=
TH 316
Mic
h
a
e
l
A
v
e
2
4 / (10)300 / (401)
14 / (17)
17
/
(
1
3
)
0
/
(
0
)
4 /
(
2
5
)
36 / (90)
229 / (450)16 / (12)
!"$>=
³
=
³>TH 316
3
319 / (428)
243 / (482)
³
³
Intersection ID
Turning MovementOP
XX / (XX)AM Peak Hour Volume
PM Peak Hour Volume
!"$Minor Street Stop Control
X
Roundabout
>
=
³
>
=
³
91
/
(
6
7
)
0 /
(
0
)
10
/
(
7
)
X-C-01
Mi
c
h
a
e
l
A
v
e
@?316
New
A
c
c
e
s
s
Tut
t
l
e
D
r
i
v
e
Gr
e
a
t
R
i
v
e
r
R
d
Th
o
m
a
s
A
v
e
1
2
3
Dakota County, Maxar
2029 No Build VolumesProject: LANEQ 170747 Figure5Walden at Hastings Development Traffic Impact AnalysisMap by: ljohnson
Source: ESRI
Print Date: 11/13/2023
Hastings, MNI
TH 316
Tu
t
t
l
e
D
r
i
v
e
1
8 / (12)330 / (420)
0 / (0)
37
/
(
4
3
)
1
/
(
2
)
0
/
(
2
)
96
/
(
1
0
6
)
2
/
(
3
)
6
/
(
6
)
39 / (127)
243 / (470)22 / (41)
³>=
>
=
³
³
>
=
³>
=
TH 316
Mic
h
a
e
l
A
v
e
2
308 / (411)
14 / (17)
18
/
(
1
3
)
4
/
(
2
6
)
235 / (461)16 / (12)
!"$>=
³
=
³>TH 316
3
322 / (428)
239 / (487)
³
³
Intersection ID
Turning MovementOP
XX / (XX)AM Peak Hour Volume
PM Peak Hour Volume
!"$Minor Street Stop Control
X
Roundabout
X-C-01
Mi
c
h
a
e
l
A
v
e
@?316
New
A
c
c
e
s
s
Tut
t
l
e
D
r
i
v
e
Gr
e
a
t
R
i
v
e
r
R
d
Th
o
m
a
s
A
v
e
1
2
3
Dakota County, Maxar
2029 Full Build VolumesProject: LANEQ 170747 Figure6Walden at Hastings Development Traffic Impact AnalysisMap by: ljohnson
Source: ESRI
Print Date: 11/13/2023
Hastings, MNI
TH 316
Tu
t
t
l
e
D
r
i
v
e
1
8 / (12)447 / (504)
0 / (0)
37
/
(
4
3
)
1
/
(
2
)
0
/
(
2
)
96
/
(
1
0
6
)
2
/
(
3
)
6
/
(
6
)
39 / (127)
288 / (590)22 / (41)
³>=
>
=
³
³
>
=
³>
=
TH 316
Mic
h
a
e
l
A
v
e
2
4 / (10)334 / (428)
14 / (18)
18
/
(
1
3
)
0
/
(
0
)
4
/
(
2
6
)
36 / (88)
244 / (491)16 / (12)
!"$>=
³
=
³>
Intersection ID
Turning MovementOP
XX / (XX)AM Peak Hour Volume
PM Peak Hour Volume
!"$Minor Street Stop Control
X
Roundabout
>
=
³
>
=
³
91
/
(
6
7
)
0 /
(
0
)
10
/
(
7
)
TH 316
1 / (3)
326 / (438)
9 / (30)
249 / (494)
³
³
3
!"$
>
=Ne
w
A
c
c
e
s
s
>
=
26
/
(
1
7
)
3 /
(
2
)
X-C-01
Mi
c
h
a
e
l
A
v
e
@?316
New
A
c
c
e
s
s
Tut
t
l
e
D
r
i
v
e
Gr
e
a
t
R
i
v
e
r
R
d
Th
o
m
a
s
A
v
e
1
2
3
Dakota County, Maxar
2034 No Build VolumesProject: LANEQ 170747 Figure7Walden at Hastings Development Traffic Impact AnalysisMap by: ljohnson
Source: ESRI
Print Date: 11/13/2023
Hastings, MNI
TH 316
Tu
t
t
l
e
D
r
i
v
e
1
8 / (12)338 / (430)
0 / (0)
38
/
(
4
4
)
1
/
(
2
)
0
/
(
2
)
98
/
(
1
0
9
)
2
/
(
3
)
6
/
(
6
)
40 / (130)
249 / (481)22 / (42)
³>=
>
=
³
³
>
=
³>
=
TH 316
Mic
h
a
e
l
A
v
e
2
315 / (421)
15 / (18)
18
/
(
1
4
)
4
/
(
2
6
)
241 / (473)17 / (13)
!"$>=
³
=
³>TH 316
3
330 / (439)
245 / (499)
³
³
Intersection ID
Turning MovementOP
XX / (XX)AM Peak Hour Volume
PM Peak Hour Volume
!"$Minor Street Stop Control
X
Roundabout
X-C-01
Mi
c
h
a
e
l
A
v
e
@?316
New
A
c
c
e
s
s
Tut
t
l
e
D
r
i
v
e
Gr
e
a
t
R
i
v
e
r
R
d
Th
o
m
a
s
A
v
e
1
2
3
Dakota County, Maxar, Microsoft
2034 Full Build VolumesProject: LANEQ 170747 Figure8Walden at Hastings Development Traffic Impact AnalysisMap by: ljohnson
Source: ESRI
Print Date: 11/13/2023
Hastings, MNI
TH 316
Tu
t
t
l
e
D
r
i
v
e
1
8 / (13)455 / (514)
0 / (0)
38
/
(
4
4
)
1
/
(
2
)
0
/
(
2
)
98
/
(
1
0
9
)
2
/
(
3
)
6
/
(
6
)
40 / (130)
294 / (601)22 / (42)
³>=
>
=
³
³
>
=
³>
=
TH 316
Mic
h
a
e
l
A
v
e
2
4 / (10)341 / (438)
15 / (18)
18
/
(
1
4
)
0 /
(
0
)
4
/
(
2
6
)
36 / (88)
250 / (503)17 / (13)
!"$>=
³
=
³>
Intersection ID
Turning MovementOP
XX / (XX)AM Peak Hour Volume
PM Peak Hour Volume
!"$Minor Street Stop Control
X
Roundabout
TH 316
1 / (3)
334 / (449)
9 / (30)
255 / (506)
³
³
3
!"$
>
=Ne
w
A
c
c
e
s
s
>
=
26
/
(
1
7
)
3 /
(
2
)
>
=
³
>
=
³
91
/
(
6
7
)
0 /
(
0
)
10
/
(
7
)
X-C-01
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY LANEQ 170747
Page 14
4 Warrant Analysis
To assist in determining the appropriate type of traffic control for the two development access
points onto TH 316, all-way stop and traffic signal warrant analyses were completed.
The intersection of TH 316 and Tuttle Drive is expected to remain as a single lane roundabout
and has sufficient capacity to serve traffic volumes through the future design year 2034.
Warrant analyses were not conducted for the secondary access point located east of Michael
Avenue as traffic volumes are estimated to be lower when compared to Michael Avenue.
The Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MnMUTCD) provides guidance on
when it may be appropriate to use all-way stop or signal control at an intersection. This guidance
is provided in the form of “warrants”, or criteria, and engineering analysis of the intersection’s
design factors to determine when a certain control may be justified. All-way stop or signal control
should not be installed at an intersection unless an MnMUTCD warrant is met. Meeting a warrant
at an intersection does not in itself require the installation of that traffic control. Installation of an
all-way stop or traffic signal also requires an engineering analysis of the intersection’s design for
it to be justified. A roundabout is considered to be warranted if traffic volumes meet the criteria for
either all-way stop or traffic signal control.
For traffic signal installation, MnDOT typically requires volume thresholds for Warrant 1 to be
satisfied, which requires 8-hours of combined major approach volumes and the highest minor
street approach volume to meet MnMUTCD thresholds. These thresholds vary with the number of
approach lanes on the major and minor streets, as well as vehicle speeds. Other warrants may
be used as indicators of a need to consider traffic control change; an engineering study that
considers factors, including warrants, should be performed to determine the optimal type of
control at an intersection. Warrant 2 (four hour) and Warrant 3 (peak hour) were also included in
the analysis for the study intersections.
4.1 Warrant Analysis Assumptions
MnMUTCD guidelines suggest that for the purpose of warrant analysis, 100% of right turning
traffic from the minor leg should be removed from the traffic signal warrant analysis because right
turning vehicles are typically able to enter the traffic stream with minimal delay or conflict; the
right turning traffic would not require a traffic signal to reduce delay or improve safety. In certain
circumstances (i.e. high right turn volume, minimum mainline gaps, etc.), The procedures outlined
in the MnDOT ICE Manual allow for the inclusion of 50% of the minor street right turning traffic in
the analysis. The MnDOT guidance states “if right turning volume exceeds 70% of its potential
capacity for any hour for each approach, 50% of the right turning volume for all hours should be
added back in.”
• Based upon MnMUTCD guidance, the analysis of the study intersections includes the
removal of 100% of the right turning traffic on the minor approaches.
MnMUTCD guidelines suggest that the warrant thresholds may also be reduced based on the
roadway speeds and population of the city the intersection is within. If either major approach to
the intersection has a posted speed, or 85th percentile speed, that exceeds 40 mph, then a
X-C-01
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY LANEQ 170747
Page 15
reduction to 70% of the threshold volumes is allowed. If the population of the city is less than
10,000 people, a reduction to 70% threshold volumes is allowed.
• Based upon MnMUTCD guidance, the analysis includes the reduction to 70% of the
threshold volumes because the speed limit on TH 316 is 60 mph.
4.2 Build Warrant Methodology
To estimate the 2034 Build 13-hour volumes for use in future all-way stop and signal warrant
analysis at the intersection of TH 316 and Michael Avenue, the daily trip generation estimates
were extrapolated over the 13 hours (6 AM to 7 PM) using the ITE Daily Trip Distributions for
each of the respective land uses within the development. The 13-hour development trip estimates
were added to the existing traffic counts with the 0.5% per year background growth applied to
estimate the hourly volumes for the Michael Avenue intersection with TH 316 under 2034 Build
conditions.
4.3 Warrant Analysis Results
Based upon the 2034 Build volumes, the intersection of TH 316 and Michael Avenue does not
meet either the all-way stop or traffic signal control warrant volume thresholds. The all-way stop
warrant is met for 1 hour of the required 8 hours and the intersection does not meet the warrant
volume thresholds for traffic signal warrants 1, 2, or 3 for any hour analyzed.
Table 3 shows the 2034 Build all-way stop and traffic signal warrant results for TH 316 and
Michael Avenue. Complete all-way stop and traffic signal warrant analyses can be found in
Appendix C.
Table 3 – 2034 Build Warrant Analysis Results
Intersection All-way Stop
Warrant
Traffic Signal Warrants
Warrant 1
(8 hour)
Warrant 2
(4 hour)
Warrant 3
(peak hour)
TH 316 and Michael Ave Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met
1 of 8 hours 0 of 8 hours 0 of 4 hours 0 of 1 hours
X-C-01
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY LANEQ 170747
Page 16
5 Operational Analysis
Traffic operations analysis was conducted to determine the level of service (LOS), delay, and
queuing information for the AM and PM peak hour conditions.
LOS is a qualitative rating system used to describe the efficiency of traffic operations at an
intersection. Six LOS are defined, designated by letters A through F. LOS A represents the best
operating conditions (no congestion), and LOS F represents the worst operating conditions
(severe congestion). For the study intersection it was assumed that a LOS D or better, for all
approaches and the overall intersection, represent acceptable operating conditions.
LOS for intersections is determined by the average control delay per vehicle. The range of control
delay for each LOS is different for signalized and unsignalized intersections. The expectation is
that a signalized intersection is designed to carry higher traffic volumes and will experience
greater delays than an unsignalized intersection. Driver tolerance for delay is greater at a signal
than at a stop sign; therefore, the LOS thresholds for each LOS category are lower for
unsignalized intersections than for signalized intersections. Table 4 shows the LOS thresholds
for signalized and unsignalized intersections.
Table 4 – Level of Service Thresholds
Level of
Service
Average Vehicle Delay (sec/veh)
Signalized
Intersection
Unsignalized
(Stop or Roundabout)
Intersection
A 0 to 10 0 to 10
B > 10 and ≤ 20 > 10 and ≤ 15
C > 20 and ≤ 35 > 15 and ≤ 25
D > 35 and ≤ 55 > 25 and ≤ 35
E > 55 and ≤ 80 > 35 and ≤ 50
F > 80 > 50
All traffic operations analysis for signalized and stop controlled intersections was performed using
the Synchro/SimTraffic (Version 11) software package. The results reported in this analysis are
an average of 5 runs in SimTraffic 11. Appendix D has the complete traffic operations results.
The following scenarios were analyzed:
• 2023 Existing Conditions (Figure 2)
− Existing traffic volumes, intersection geometry, and traffic control
• 2024 No Build Conditions (Figure 3)
− 2024 No Build traffic volumes (0.5% per year background growth only; no development trips)
• 2024 Build Conditions (Figure 4)
− 2024 Build traffic volumes (0.5% per year background growth and Phase 1
development trips)
• 2029 No Build Conditions (Figure 5)
X-C-01
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY LANEQ 170747
Page 17
− 2029 No Build traffic volumes (0.5% per year background growth only; no development trips)
• 2029 Build Conditions (Figure 6)
− 2024 Build traffic volumes (0.5% per year background growth and Phase 1 and
Phase 2 development trips)
• 2034 No Build Conditions (Figure 7)
− 2034 No Build traffic volumes (0.5% per year background growth only; no development trips)
• 2034 Build Conditions (Figure 8)
− 2034 Build traffic volumes (0.5% per year background growth and Phase 1 and
Phase 2 development trips)
5.1 2023 Existing Conditions
During the AM peak hour, all study intersections operate acceptably with all approaches
operating at LOS A and each intersection also operating at LOS A.
Table 5 shows the 2023 existing traffic operations at the study intersections during the AM and
PM peak hour.
Table 5 – 2023 Existing Traffic Operations
Intersections: Approach
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Approach
(sec/LOS)
Intersection
(sec/LOS)
Approach
(sec/LOS)
Intersection
(sec/LOS)
TH 316 at Tuttle Drive
(Single Lane Roundabout)
EB 5.6 / A
5.4 / A
7.6 / A
7.1 / A WB 6.2 / A 7.5 / A
NB 2.9 / A 4.1 / A
SB 3.3 / A 3.7 / A
TH 316 at Michael Ave
(Minor Stop Control)
EB 0.2 / A
0.5 / A
0.3 / A
0.5 / A WB 0.3 / A 0.5 / A
NB 6.1 / A 4.3 / A
SB
X-C-01
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY LANEQ 170747
Page 18
5.2 2024 No Build Conditions
With minimal traffic growth from the existing 2023 existing conditions, all approaches and study
intersections continue to operate acceptably at LOS A in both peak hours.
Table 6 shows the 2024 No Build traffic operations at the study intersections during the AM and
PM peak hour.
Table 6 – 2024 No Build Traffic Operations
Intersections: Approach
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Approach
(sec/LOS)
Intersection
(sec/LOS)
Approach
(sec/LOS)
Intersection
(sec/LOS)
TH 316 at Tuttle Drive
(Single Lane Roundabout)
EB 5.6 / A
5.4 / A
7.6 / A
7.1 / A WB 6.2 / A 7.4 / A
NB 3.0 / A 4.1 / A
SB 3.2 / A 3.7 / A
TH 316 at Michael Ave
(Minor Stop Control)
EB 0.2 / A
0.5 / A
0.3 / A
0.5 / A WB 0.3 / A 0.5 / A
NB 5.9 / A 4.5 / A
SB
5.3 2024 Phase 1 Build Conditions
Under the Phase 1 build conditions, geometric changes were made based upon guidance
received from MnDOT on January 4, 2023 as part of a provided development review
memorandum. This memorandum outlined the requirement that left and right turn lanes along
TH 316 would need to be provided for the development access points.
Based upon the MnDOT guidance, 300’ left and right turn lanes were provided for the eastbound
and westbound TH 316 approach to Michael Avenue. At the secondary access point, a
westbound 300’ right turn lane was provided along with an eastbound by-pass lane.
With these proposed geometric changes all intersections continue to operate at LOS A during
each peak hour. All intersection approaches also operate at LOS A during both peak hours.
Table 7 shows the 2024 Phase 1 Build traffic operations at the study intersections during the AM
and PM peak hour.
X-C-01
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY LANEQ 170747
Page 19
Table 7 – 2024 Phase 1 Build Traffic Operations
Intersections: Approach
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Approach
(sec/LOS)
Intersection
(sec/LOS)
Approach
(sec/LOS)
Intersection
(sec/LOS)
TH 316 at Tuttle Drive
(Single Lane Roundabout)
EB 6.0 / A
6.1 / A
8.4 / A
7.8 / A WB 7.1 / A 8.2 / A
NB 3.1 / A 4.5 / A
SB 3.9 / A 4.0 / A
TH 316 at Michael Ave
(Minor Stop Control)
EB 0.3 / A
1.5 / A
0.7 / A
1.5 / A WB 1.2 / A 1.3 / A
NB 6.4 / A 7.9 / A
SB 4.7 / A 5.1 / A
TH 316 at Secondary Site Access
(Minor Stop Control)
EB 0.1 / A
0.1 / A
0.2 / A
0.2 / A WB 0.1 / A 0.2 / A
NB
SB
5.4 2029 No Build Conditions
Under the 2029 No Build Conditions, all study intersections continue to operate at LOS A with all
approaches also operating at LOS A during both the AM and PM peak hours.
Table 8 shows the 2029 No Build traffic operations at the study intersections during the AM and
PM peak hour.
Table 8 – 2029 No Build Traffic Operations
Intersections: Approach
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Approach
(sec/LOS)
Intersection
(sec/LOS)
Approach
(sec/LOS)
Intersection
(sec/LOS)
TH 316 at Tuttle Drive
(Single Lane Roundabout)
EB 5.8 / A
5.6 / A
8.1 / A
7.4 / A WB 6.4 / A 7.6 / A
NB 3.2 / A 4.2 / A
SB 3.4 / A 3.7 / A
TH 316 at Michael Ave
(Minor Stop Control)
EB 0.1 / A
0.4 / A
0.3 / A
0.6 / A WB 0.3 / A 0.5 / A
NB 5.9 / A 4.9 / A
SB
X-C-01
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY LANEQ 170747
Page 20
5.5 2029 Full Build Conditions
Under the 2029 full build conditions, the same geometric improvements identified in Section 5.3
were included in the analysis. The full build out of the site includes the addition of 55 single
family homes. These homes are anticipated to use the secondary access point given their
relative location within the site development.
The 2029 Full Build analysis shows that all study intersections operate at LOS A and all
intersection approaches operate at LOS A during both peak hours analyzed.
Table 9 shows the 2029 Full Build traffic operations at the study intersections during the AM and
PM peak hour.
Table 9 – 2029 Full Build Traffic Operations
Intersections: Approach
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Approach
(sec/LOS)
Intersection
(sec/LOS)
Approach
(sec/LOS)
Intersection
(sec/LOS)
TH 316 at Tuttle Drive
(Single Lane Roundabout)
EB 6.2 / A
6.1 / A
9.6 / A
8.7 / A WB 7.2 / A 8.6 / A
NB 3.4 / A 5.3 / A
SB 3.8 / A 4.1 / A
TH 316 at Michael Ave
(Minor Stop Control)
EB 0.4 / A
1.5 / A
0.8 / A
1.5 / A WB 1.3 / A 1.4 / A
NB 7.2 / A 8.0 / A
SB 4.9 / A 5.2 / A
TH 316 at Secondary Site Access
(Minor Stop Control)
EB 0.2 / A
0.1 / A
0.7 / A
0.6 / A WB 0.3 / A 0.4 / A
NB
SB 3.3 / A 4.5 / A
5.6 2034 No Build Conditions
Under the 2034 No Build Conditions, all study intersections operate at LOS A with all approaches
also operating at LOS A during both the AM and PM peak hours.
Table 10 shows the 2034 No Build traffic operations at the study intersections during the AM and
PM peak hour.
X-C-01
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY LANEQ 170747
Page 21
Table 10 – 2034 No Build Traffic Operations
Intersections: Approach
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Approach
(sec/LOS)
Intersection
(sec/LOS)
Approach
(sec/LOS)
Intersection
(sec/LOS)
TH 316 at Tuttle Drive
(Single Lane Roundabout)
EB 5.7 / A
5.6 / A
8.3 / A
7.7 / A WB 6.5 / A 8.2 / A
NB 3.1 / A 4.3 / A
SB 3.4 / A 3.9 / A
TH 316 at Michael Ave
(Minor Stop Control)
EB 0.2 / A
0.5 / A
0.3 / A
0.7 / A WB 0.3 / A 0.6 / A
NB 6.1 / A 5.3 / A
SB
5.7 2034 Build Conditions
The 2034 full build conditions include the full build out of the development site and background
traffic growth to project traffic conditions five years after full build out of the development site.
Under the estimated 2034 Build volumes all intersections operate at LOS A and all approaches
also operate at LOS A in both peak hours. During the PM peak hour, left turn movements from
Michael Avenue onto TH 316 operate at LOS B for northbound and LOS C for southbound.
Table 11 shows the 2034 Build traffic operations at the study intersections during the AM and PM
peak hour.
Table 11 – 2034 Full Build Traffic Operations
Intersections: Approach
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Approach
(sec/LOS)
Intersection
(sec/LOS)
Approach
(sec/LOS)
Intersection
(sec/LOS)
TH 316 at Tuttle Drive
(Single Lane Roundabout)
EB 6.1 / A
6.2 / A
9.4 / A
8.5 / A WB 7.1 / A 8.4 / A
NB 3.2 / A 5.1 / A
SB 3.5 / A 4.1 / A
TH 316 at Michael Ave
(Minor Stop Control)
EB 0.4 / A
1.6 / A
0.8 / A
1.5 / A WB 1.3 / A 1.4 / A
NB 6.8 / A 7.3 / A
SB 4.9 / A 5.5 / A
TH 316 at Secondary Site Access
(Minor Stop Control)
EB 0.2 / A
0.4 / A
0.8 / A
0.7 / A WB 0.3 / A 0.4 / A
NB
SB 3.3 / A 4.4 / A
X-C-01
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY LANEQ 170747
Page 22
6 Conclusion
The proposed Walden at Hastings residential development includes constructing a residential
development in two phases with construction set to begin in 2024. The proposed development
includes the following land uses:
Phase 1 (2024):
• 54 Twin home Units (ITE Land Use: Single Family Attached Housing)
• 68 Townhome Units (ITE Land Use: Single Family Attached Housing)
• 170 Apartment Units (ITE Land Use: Multifamily Housing– Mid-rise)
• 24 Senior Units (ITE Land Use: Assisted Living)
• 60 Active Senior Living Units (ITE Land Use: Senior Adult Housing (Single Family))
• 80 Assisted Living Units (ITE Land Use: Assisted Living)
Phase 2 (2029):
• 55 Single Family Homes (ITE Land Use: Single Family Detached Housing)
The proposed development is expected to generate approximately 2,709 new trips each day (180
trips in the AM peak hour and 226 trips in the PM peak hour) upon full development of the area.
The primary access points to the development will be at the intersection of Michael Avenue with
TH 316 and an additional secondary access point will be provided approximately 1,300 feet to the
east of Michael Avenue.
A traffic operations analysis was conducted to determine the impact of the proposed
development to the surrounding roadway network. Based upon guidance provided by MnDOT,
turn lanes were provided at each development access point along TH 316. With the addition of
these geometric changes, all study intersections operate at LOS A and the minor stop-controlled
approaches also operate at LOS A under all analyzed scenarios.
6.1 Recommendations
Based upon MnDOT guidance the following geometric changes are recommended for the study
intersections:
• Provide dedicated 300’ left and right turn lanes for both TH 316 approaches to Michael
Avenue
• Provide dedicated 300’ right turn lane for the westbound TH 316 approach to the
secondary development access point.
• Provide eastbound bypass lane along TH 316 at the secondary development access
point.
All study intersections operate acceptably under their existing intersection control:
• TH 316 and Tuttle Drive (single lane roundabout control)
• TH 316 and Michael Avenue (minor street stop control)
• TH 316 and Secondary Access Point (minor street stop control)
CMJ
X-C-01
Appendix A
Site Plan
X-C-01
X-C-01
Appendix B
August 2023 Traffic Counts
X-C-01
Location:
Count Date:
Counted By:
Start Time Left Thru Right Ped/Bike Left Thru Right Ped/Bike Left Thru Right Ped/Bike Left Thru Right Ped/Bike Int. Total
6:00 0 0 0 0 0 67 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 110
6:15 0 0 0 0 1 79 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 48 1 0 130
6:30 0 0 0 0 1 89 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 135
6:45 0 0 0 0 2 71 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 43 3 0 123
7:00 0 0 0 0 1 68 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 48 1 0 123
7:15 0 0 0 0 1 86 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 61 3 0 156
7:30 0 0 0 0 2 80 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 55 2 0 143
7:45 0 0 0 0 5 72 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 63 2 0 146
8:00 0 0 0 0 6 61 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 49 9 0 133
8:15 0 0 0 0 2 56 0 0 10 0 7 0 0 56 1 0 132
8:30 0 0 0 0 8 60 0 0 3 0 6 0 0 70 6 0 153
8:45 0 0 0 0 2 52 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 54 4 0 122
9:00 0 0 0 0 7 57 0 0 7 0 2 0 0 58 6 0 137
9:15 0 0 0 0 2 57 0 0 4 0 6 0 0 49 9 0 127
9:30 0 0 0 0 4 71 0 0 8 0 4 0 0 67 11 0 165
9:45 0 0 0 0 3 53 0 0 8 0 4 0 0 62 7 0 137
10:00 0 0 0 0 5 51 0 0 6 0 4 0 0 56 2 0 124
10:15 0 0 0 0 3 65 0 0 6 0 3 0 0 65 5 0 147
10:30 0 0 0 0 4 54 0 0 9 0 6 0 0 62 8 0 143
10:45 0 0 0 2 2 65 0 0 10 0 6 0 0 75 3 0 161
11:00 0 0 0 0 5 63 0 0 5 0 4 0 0 71 5 0 153
11:15 0 0 0 0 4 61 0 0 6 0 6 2 0 67 4 0 148
11:30 0 0 0 0 5 66 0 0 2 0 7 0 0 57 5 0 142
11:45 0 0 0 0 6 72 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 62 4 0 154
12:00 0 0 0 0 5 74 0 0 5 0 4 0 0 85 6 0 179
12:15 0 0 0 0 3 64 0 2 7 0 4 0 0 72 7 0 157
12:30 0 0 0 0 5 53 0 0 3 0 5 0 0 68 3 0 137
12:45 0 0 0 0 4 64 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 79 3 0 154
13:00 0 0 0 0 4 62 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 65 2 0 147
13:15 0 0 0 0 6 68 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 73 3 0 155
13:30 0 0 0 0 3 68 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 93 7 0 181
13:45 0 0 0 0 6 64 0 0 2 0 10 0 0 75 2 0 159
14:00 0 0 0 0 4 73 0 0 3 0 9 0 0 68 4 0 161
14:15 0 0 0 0 5 71 0 0 3 0 4 0 0 97 1 0 181
14:30 0 0 0 0 2 79 0 0 2 0 7 1 0 101 0 0 191
14:45 0 0 0 0 5 72 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 84 9 0 175
15:00 0 0 0 0 6 72 0 0 3 0 7 0 0 103 3 0 194
15:15 0 0 0 0 6 86 0 0 2 0 9 0 0 97 3 0 203
15:30 0 0 0 0 7 104 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 102 7 0 226
15:45 0 0 0 0 5 95 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 102 3 0 211
16:00 0 0 0 0 5 93 0 0 3 0 6 0 0 105 6 0 218
16:15 0 0 0 0 5 110 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 116 3 0 242
16:30 0 0 0 0 3 101 0 0 6 0 7 0 0 105 1 0 223
16:45 0 0 0 0 4 95 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 122 2 0 231
17:00 0 0 0 0 3 67 0 0 1 0 8 0 0 133 2 0 214
17:15 0 0 0 0 3 93 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 110 2 0 210
17:30 0 0 0 0 2 84 0 0 2 0 5 0 0 103 4 0 200
17:45 0 0 0 0 2 69 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 111 3 0 190
18:00 0 0 0 0 3 61 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 69 3 0 141
18:15 0 0 0 0 1 77 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 73 1 0 158
18:30 0 0 0 0 2 49 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 59 1 0 113
18:45 0 0 0 0 0 46 0 0 5 0 3 0 0 72 2 0 128
Total 0 0 0 2 190 3690 0 2 194 0 230 4 0 3925 194 0 8423
Cars+ 0 0 0 0 57 3493 0 0 164 0 93 0 0 3689 175 0 7671
Trucks 0 0 0 2 133 197 0 2 30 0 137 4 0 236 19 0 752
0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 70.0 5.3 0.0 100.0 15.5 0.0 59.6 100.0 0.0 6.0 9.8 0.0% Trucks
MN 316 at Michael Ave
8/10/2023
CountCloud
TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT DATA
N/A MN 316 Michael Ave MN 316
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
All Vehicles + Total Peds/Bikes
8.90.0 8.5 39.4 6.2
X-C-01
Location:
Count Date:
Counted By:
Start Time Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Int. Total
6:00 0 0 0 0 0 62 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 101
6:15 0 0 0 0 1 79 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 46 1 0 128
6:30 0 0 0 0 0 88 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 128
6:45 0 0 0 0 2 69 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 36 1 0 110
7:00 0 0 0 0 1 64 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 40 0 0 108
7:15 0 0 0 0 1 77 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 58 3 0 144
7:30 0 0 0 0 2 79 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 51 2 0 138
7:45 0 0 0 0 4 69 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 60 2 0 137
8:00 0 0 0 0 0 58 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 41 9 0 115
8:15 0 0 0 0 2 52 0 0 10 0 2 0 0 49 1 0 116
8:30 0 0 0 0 2 55 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 66 6 0 135
8:45 0 0 0 0 1 49 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 50 3 0 108
9:00 0 0 0 0 2 53 0 0 5 0 2 0 0 53 6 0 121
9:15 0 0 0 0 0 54 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 40 7 0 105
9:30 0 0 0 0 0 66 0 0 7 0 2 0 0 60 10 0 145
9:45 0 0 0 0 1 51 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 60 6 0 124
10:00 0 0 0 0 1 42 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 49 2 0 99
10:15 0 0 0 0 0 59 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 58 5 0 127
10:30 0 0 0 0 0 49 0 0 9 0 2 0 0 58 8 0 126
10:45 0 0 0 0 0 62 0 0 10 0 2 0 0 67 2 0 143
11:00 0 0 0 0 1 58 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 66 2 0 132
11:15 0 0 0 0 1 54 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 60 3 0 123
11:30 0 0 0 0 1 63 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 53 5 0 127
11:45 0 0 0 0 2 65 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 55 4 0 132
12:00 0 0 0 0 2 71 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 81 5 0 163
12:15 0 0 0 0 0 62 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 66 7 0 141
12:30 0 0 0 0 2 48 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 65 2 0 122
12:45 0 0 0 0 1 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 2 0 138
13:00 0 0 0 0 1 56 0 0 2 0 7 0 0 61 2 0 129
13:15 0 0 0 0 2 61 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 67 3 0 134
13:30 0 0 0 0 0 63 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 84 7 0 160
13:45 0 0 0 0 0 58 0 0 2 0 6 0 0 70 1 0 137
14:00 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 61 3 0 140
14:15 0 0 0 0 1 68 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 95 1 0 167
14:30 0 0 0 0 1 72 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 97 0 0 173
14:45 0 0 0 0 3 68 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 79 8 0 161
15:00 0 0 0 0 2 69 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 99 3 0 179
15:15 0 0 0 0 4 76 0 0 2 0 5 0 0 90 3 0 180
15:30 0 0 0 0 4 97 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 98 7 0 209
15:45 0 0 0 0 2 91 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 94 3 0 194
16:00 0 0 0 0 2 87 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 101 6 0 201
16:15 0 0 0 0 2 108 0 0 4 0 3 0 0 114 3 0 234
16:30 0 0 0 0 1 99 0 0 6 0 3 0 0 102 1 0 212
16:45 0 0 0 0 0 95 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 121 2 0 225
17:00 0 0 0 0 1 66 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 132 2 0 205
17:15 0 0 0 0 0 92 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 108 2 0 203
17:30 0 0 0 0 0 82 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 100 4 0 190
17:45 0 0 0 0 0 67 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 109 3 0 182
18:00 0 0 0 0 0 59 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 69 3 0 134
18:15 0 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 73 1 0 151
18:30 0 0 0 0 1 49 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 58 1 0 111
18:45 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 5 0 2 0 0 71 2 0 124
Total 0 0 0 0 57 3493 0 0 164 0 93 0 0 3689 175 0 7671
MN 316 at Michael Ave
8/10/2023
CountCloud
TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT DATA
Cars + Pedestrians
N/A MN 316 Michael Ave MN 316
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
X-C-01
Location:
Count Date:
Counted By:
Start Time Left Thru Right Bikes Left Thru Right Bikes Left Thru Right Bikes Left Thru Right Bikes Int. Total
6:00 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 9
6:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
6:30 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 7
6:45 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 7 2 0 13
7:00 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 8 1 0 15
7:15 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 12
7:30 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 5
7:45 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 9
8:00 0 0 0 0 6 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 18
8:15 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 7 0 0 16
8:30 0 0 0 0 6 5 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 4 0 0 18
8:45 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 4 1 0 14
9:00 0 0 0 0 5 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 16
9:15 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 9 2 0 22
9:30 0 0 0 0 4 5 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 7 1 0 20
9:45 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 2 1 0 13
10:00 0 0 0 0 4 9 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 7 0 0 25
10:15 0 0 0 0 3 6 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 7 0 0 20
10:30 0 0 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 17
10:45 0 0 0 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 8 1 0 18
11:00 0 0 0 0 4 5 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 5 3 0 21
11:15 0 0 0 0 3 7 0 0 2 0 5 2 0 7 1 0 25
11:30 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 15
11:45 0 0 0 0 4 7 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 7 0 0 22
12:00 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 4 1 0 16
12:15 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 2 1 0 4 0 0 6 0 0 16
12:30 0 0 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 1 0 15
12:45 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 7 1 0 16
13:00 0 0 0 0 3 6 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 18
13:15 0 0 0 0 4 7 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 6 0 0 21
13:30 0 0 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 9 0 0 21
13:45 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 5 1 0 22
14:00 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 7 1 0 21
14:15 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 14
14:30 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 4 0 0 18
14:45 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 1 0 14
15:00 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 15
15:15 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 7 0 0 23
15:30 0 0 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 17
15:45 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 8 0 0 17
16:00 0 0 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 17
16:15 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 8
16:30 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 3 0 0 11
16:45 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 6
17:00 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 9
17:15 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 7
17:30 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 10
17:45 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 8
18:00 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 7
18:15 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 7
18:30 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
18:45 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 4
Total 0 0 0 2 133 197 0 2 30 0 137 4 0 236 19 0 752
MN 316 at Michael Ave
8/10/2023
CountCloud
TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT DATA
Trucks + Bicycles
N/A MN 316 Michael Ave MN 316
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
X-C-01
Location:
Count Date:
Counted By:
Start Time Left Thru Right Bike/Ped Left Thru Right Bike/Ped Left Thru Right Bike/Ped Left Thru Right Bike/Ped Int. Total
7:15 0 0 0 0 1 86 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 61 3 0 156
7:30 0 0 0 0 2 80 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 55 2 0 143
7:45 0 0 0 0 5 72 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 63 2 0 146
8:00 0 0 0 0 6 61 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 49 9 0 133
Total 0 0 0 0 14 299 0 0 17 0 4 0 0 228 16 0 578
% App. Total 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 95.5 0.0 81.0 0.0 19.0 0.0 93.4 6.6
PHF 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.583 0.869 0.000 0.000 0.531 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.905 0.444 0.000 0.926
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 11.8 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 0.0
0 IN OUT 0
0 0 0 0
Right Thru Left Bike/Ped
From 7:15 to 8:15
316 0 Bike/Ped Right 0 313
OUT 0 Left Thru 299 IN
IN 228 Thru Left 14 OUT
244 16 Right Bike/Ped 0 232
Bike/Ped Left Thru Right
0 17 0 4
30 OUT IN 21
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
MN 316 at Michael Ave
8/10/2023
CountCloud
AM PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT DATA
N/A MN 316 Michael Ave MN 316
All Vehicles
7.4 7.6% Trucks
N/A
Total
0
MN 316
0.0 7.3 14.3
560
51
Total
Michael Ave
MN 316
Total
545
AM PEAK HOUR DATA
North
Total
X-C-01
Location:
Count Date:
Counted By:
Start Time Left Thru Right Bike/Ped Left Thru Right Bike/Ped Left Thru Right Bike/Ped Left Thru Right Bike/Ped Int. Total
13:45 0 0 0 0 6 64 0 0 2 0 10 0 0 75 2 0 159
14:00 0 0 0 0 4 73 0 0 3 0 9 0 0 68 4 0 161
14:15 0 0 0 0 5 71 0 0 3 0 4 0 0 97 1 0 181
14:30 0 0 0 0 2 79 0 0 2 0 7 1 0 101 0 0 191
Total 0 0 0 0 17 287 0 0 10 0 30 1 0 341 7 0 692
% App. Total 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 94.4 0.0 25.0 0.0 75.0 0.0 98.0 2.0
PHF 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.708 0.908 0.000 0.000 0.833 0.000 0.750 0.250 0.000 0.844 0.438 0.000 0.906
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 88.2 6.6 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 60.0 100.0 0.0 5.3 28.6 0.0
0 IN OUT 0
0 0 0 0
Right Thru Left Bike/Ped
From 13:45 to 14:45
297 0 Bike/Ped Right 0 304
OUT 0 Left Thru 287 IN
IN 341 Thru Left 17 OUT
348 7 Right Bike/Ped 0 371
Bike/Ped Left Thru Right
1 10 0 30
24 OUT IN 40
675
North
64
Total
MN 316
Total
Michael Ave
N/A
Total
0
MN 316
645
Total MID DAY PEAK HOUR DATA
% Trucks 10.80.0 11.2 52.5 5.7
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
MID DAY PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT DATA
All Vehicles
N/A MN 316 Michael Ave MN 316
MN 316 at Michael Ave
8/10/2023
CountCloud X-C-01
Location:
Count Date:
Counted By:
Start Time Left Thru Right Bike/Ped Left Thru Right Bike/Ped Left Thru Right Bike/Ped Left Thru Right Bike/Ped Int. Total
16:00 0 0 0 0 5 93 0 0 3 0 6 0 0 105 6 0 218
16:15 0 0 0 0 5 110 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 116 3 0 242
16:30 0 0 0 0 3 101 0 0 6 0 7 0 0 105 1 0 223
16:45 0 0 0 0 4 95 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 122 2 0 231
Total 0 0 0 0 17 399 0 0 13 0 25 0 0 448 12 0 914
% App. Total 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 95.9 0.0 34.2 0.0 65.8 0.0 97.4 2.6
PHF 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.850 0.907 0.000 0.000 0.542 0.000 0.781 0.000 0.000 0.918 0.500 0.000 0.944
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 70.6 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0
0 IN OUT 0
0 0 0 0
Right Thru Left Bike/Ped
From 16:00 to 17:00
412 0 Bike/Ped Right 0 416
OUT 0 Left Thru 399 IN
IN 448 Thru Left 17 OUT
460 12 Right Bike/Ped 0 473
Bike/Ped Left Thru Right
0 13 0 25
29 OUT IN 38
889
North
67
Total
MN 316
Total
Michael Ave
N/A
Total
0
MN 316
872
Total PM PEAK HOUR DATA
% Trucks 4.60.0 5.3 26.3 2.2
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
PM PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT DATA
All Vehicles
N/A MN 316 Michael Ave MN 316
MN 316 at Michael Ave
8/10/2023
CountCloud X-C-01
Location:
Count Date:
Counted By:
Start Time Left Thru Right Ped/Bike Left Thru Right Ped/Bike Left Thru Right Ped/Bike Left Thru Right Ped/Bike Int. Total
6:00 2 0 18 0 0 65 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 40 0 0 132
6:15 2 0 15 0 0 80 2 0 6 0 0 0 4 50 1 0 160
6:30 1 0 19 0 0 91 0 0 5 0 0 0 4 44 1 0 165
6:45 0 0 27 0 0 73 0 0 9 0 0 0 4 42 2 0 157
7:00 3 1 24 0 0 69 1 0 6 1 0 0 4 48 1 1 158
7:15 2 0 24 0 0 92 2 0 9 1 0 0 14 59 4 0 207
7:30 1 1 27 0 0 79 2 0 12 0 0 0 5 58 2 0 187
7:45 0 1 25 0 0 76 1 0 9 0 0 0 11 66 5 2 194
8:00 3 0 17 0 0 73 3 0 6 0 0 0 8 53 10 0 173
8:15 0 1 18 2 0 67 3 0 6 0 1 0 9 57 5 0 167
8:30 5 0 14 0 1 64 1 0 11 0 0 0 8 70 5 1 179
8:45 3 1 18 1 1 53 2 0 14 0 1 0 10 55 12 2 170
9:00 0 0 15 0 0 63 2 0 9 1 0 0 7 63 10 0 170
9:15 1 0 8 0 1 59 0 0 10 1 1 0 9 55 5 0 150
9:30 0 0 11 0 0 76 0 0 8 0 0 0 6 81 8 0 190
9:45 2 0 13 8 0 60 2 0 11 0 0 0 13 64 9 0 174
10:00 0 1 7 3 0 54 2 0 13 1 1 0 9 56 12 0 156
10:15 1 1 9 0 0 70 2 1 10 0 0 0 6 69 10 0 178
10:30 1 0 17 0 0 63 1 0 8 0 0 0 10 71 7 0 178
10:45 2 0 13 1 0 73 3 0 7 0 0 0 11 73 8 0 190
11:00 0 0 12 1 0 68 3 0 13 0 2 0 8 76 7 0 189
11:15 1 1 12 1 2 69 1 0 12 0 0 0 3 68 8 0 177
11:30 2 0 13 0 0 63 3 0 8 1 1 0 11 65 9 0 176
11:45 2 0 7 0 0 79 0 0 13 1 0 0 15 62 7 0 186
12:00 0 0 17 0 0 81 0 0 12 0 0 0 13 85 16 0 224
12:15 1 0 8 1 0 68 0 0 8 1 0 0 14 79 8 0 187
12:30 1 0 11 0 0 59 1 0 15 1 0 0 12 73 12 0 185
12:45 0 0 18 0 1 63 1 1 12 0 1 0 6 78 13 0 193
13:00 1 0 7 0 0 67 1 0 4 1 0 0 14 66 7 0 168
13:15 1 0 11 0 0 70 0 1 4 0 0 0 17 74 11 0 188
13:30 3 1 11 0 2 69 1 0 6 0 0 0 15 99 8 0 215
13:45 0 1 14 0 0 64 1 0 13 0 0 0 11 76 6 0 186
14:00 1 1 8 0 0 78 0 0 13 1 1 0 15 70 13 0 201
14:15 0 1 11 0 0 76 2 0 4 0 1 0 18 97 6 0 216
14:30 3 0 11 0 0 76 4 0 9 0 0 0 16 96 7 0 222
14:45 0 0 14 0 1 67 1 0 7 1 0 0 10 92 10 0 203
15:00 2 0 9 1 0 83 0 0 5 0 0 0 23 112 10 0 244
15:15 4 0 19 0 0 86 4 0 9 0 2 0 15 93 9 0 241
15:30 0 1 12 1 0 99 5 0 3 0 0 0 23 106 11 0 260
15:45 1 0 12 0 0 98 2 0 6 0 0 0 29 106 17 0 271
16:00 3 0 22 0 0 97 2 0 13 1 2 0 35 111 8 0 294
16:15 0 0 22 1 0 108 5 0 9 0 0 0 32 115 10 0 301
16:30 2 1 24 0 0 102 5 0 8 1 0 0 20 102 9 0 274
16:45 1 2 35 0 0 101 0 0 12 0 0 0 36 128 13 0 328
17:00 2 0 23 0 0 65 2 0 15 1 0 0 24 124 9 0 265
17:15 2 1 12 0 0 88 0 0 2 0 0 0 27 110 7 0 249
17:30 0 0 11 4 1 91 1 0 14 1 0 0 18 105 10 0 252
17:45 1 0 13 1 1 66 1 2 4 1 1 0 17 111 7 1 223
18:00 1 0 20 2 0 63 0 0 8 0 0 0 19 74 5 0 190
18:15 1 0 8 0 0 75 5 0 6 1 0 0 15 68 8 2 187
18:30 0 0 16 0 0 48 2 0 6 0 0 0 13 62 5 0 152
18:45 1 0 12 2 1 47 0 0 7 0 0 0 12 72 7 0 159
Total 66 17 794 30 12 3834 82 5 452 18 15 0 712 4029 410 9 10441
Cars+ 66 17 792 30 12 3607 80 4 445 18 15 0 712 3771 402 5 9937
Trucks 0 0 2 0 0 227 2 1 7 0 0 0 0 258 8 4 504
0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 5.9 2.4 20.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 2.0 44.4% Trucks
MN 316 at Michael Ave
8/10/2023
CountCloud
TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT DATA
N/A MN 316 Michael Ave MN 316
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
All Vehicles + Total Peds/Bikes
4.80.2 5.8 1.4 5.2
X-C-01
Location:
Count Date:
Counted By:
Start Time Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Int. Total
6:00 2 0 18 0 0 61 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 34 0 0 122
6:15 2 0 15 0 0 79 2 0 6 0 0 0 4 48 1 0 157
6:30 1 0 19 0 0 90 0 0 5 0 0 0 4 38 1 0 158
6:45 0 0 27 0 0 70 0 0 9 0 0 0 4 34 2 0 146
7:00 3 1 24 0 0 62 1 0 6 1 0 0 4 39 1 0 142
7:15 2 0 24 0 0 83 2 0 9 1 0 0 14 56 4 0 195
7:30 1 1 27 0 0 78 2 0 12 0 0 0 5 53 1 0 180
7:45 0 1 25 0 0 72 1 0 9 0 0 0 11 62 5 2 186
8:00 3 0 17 0 0 69 3 0 6 0 0 0 8 45 10 0 161
8:15 0 1 18 2 0 62 3 0 6 0 1 0 9 50 4 0 154
8:30 5 0 14 0 1 58 1 0 10 0 0 0 8 66 5 1 168
8:45 3 1 18 1 1 51 2 0 13 0 1 0 10 50 9 0 159
9:00 0 0 15 0 0 56 2 0 9 1 0 0 7 56 10 0 156
9:15 1 0 8 0 1 57 0 0 10 1 1 0 9 46 5 0 139
9:30 0 0 11 0 0 69 0 0 8 0 0 0 6 73 8 0 175
9:45 2 0 13 8 0 56 2 0 10 0 0 0 13 61 9 0 166
10:00 0 1 7 3 0 47 0 0 12 1 1 0 9 49 11 0 138
10:15 1 1 9 0 0 63 2 0 10 0 0 0 6 62 10 0 164
10:30 1 0 17 0 0 56 1 0 8 0 0 0 10 66 7 0 166
10:45 2 0 13 1 0 69 3 0 7 0 0 0 11 66 8 0 179
11:00 0 0 10 1 0 63 3 0 13 0 2 0 8 68 6 0 173
11:15 1 1 12 1 2 60 1 0 12 0 0 0 3 60 8 0 160
11:30 2 0 13 0 0 60 3 0 8 1 1 0 11 59 9 0 167
11:45 2 0 7 0 0 71 0 0 13 1 0 0 15 57 7 0 173
12:00 0 0 17 0 0 77 0 0 12 0 0 0 13 80 16 0 215
12:15 1 0 8 1 0 63 0 0 8 1 0 0 14 73 8 0 176
12:30 1 0 11 0 0 54 1 0 15 1 0 0 12 69 12 0 176
12:45 0 0 18 0 1 61 1 1 12 0 1 0 6 70 12 0 182
13:00 1 0 7 0 0 59 1 0 4 1 0 0 14 62 7 0 156
13:15 1 0 11 0 0 62 0 1 4 0 0 0 17 67 11 0 173
13:30 3 1 11 0 2 64 1 0 6 0 0 0 15 91 8 0 202
13:45 0 1 14 0 0 59 1 0 12 0 0 0 11 68 6 0 172
14:00 1 1 8 0 0 72 0 0 13 1 1 0 15 65 13 0 190
14:15 0 1 11 0 0 71 2 0 4 0 1 0 18 95 6 0 209
14:30 3 0 11 0 0 69 4 0 9 0 0 0 16 91 7 0 210
14:45 0 0 14 0 1 62 1 0 7 1 0 0 10 87 10 0 193
15:00 2 0 9 1 0 79 0 0 5 0 0 0 23 107 10 0 235
15:15 4 0 19 0 0 76 4 0 8 0 2 0 15 87 9 0 224
15:30 0 1 12 1 0 93 5 0 3 0 0 0 23 102 11 0 250
15:45 1 0 12 0 0 93 2 0 6 0 0 0 29 98 17 0 258
16:00 3 0 22 0 0 91 2 0 13 1 2 0 35 105 8 0 282
16:15 0 0 22 1 0 106 5 0 9 0 0 0 32 114 10 0 298
16:30 2 1 24 0 0 98 5 0 8 1 0 0 20 99 9 0 267
16:45 1 2 35 0 0 101 0 0 12 0 0 0 36 127 13 0 327
17:00 2 0 23 0 0 64 2 0 15 1 0 0 24 123 9 0 263
17:15 2 1 12 0 0 87 0 0 2 0 0 0 27 108 7 0 246
17:30 0 0 11 4 1 91 1 0 13 1 0 0 18 102 10 0 248
17:45 1 0 13 1 1 65 1 2 4 1 1 0 17 109 7 0 220
18:00 1 0 20 2 0 61 0 0 8 0 0 0 19 74 5 0 188
18:15 1 0 8 0 0 74 5 0 6 1 0 0 15 68 8 2 186
18:30 0 0 16 0 0 48 2 0 6 0 0 0 13 61 5 0 151
18:45 1 0 12 2 1 45 0 0 7 0 0 0 12 71 7 0 156
Total 66 17 792 30 12 3607 80 4 445 18 15 0 712 3771 402 5 9937
MN 316 at Michael Ave
8/10/2023
CountCloud
TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT DATA
Cars + Pedestrians
N/A MN 316 Michael Ave MN 316
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
X-C-01
Location:
Count Date:
Counted By:
Start Time Left Thru Right Bikes Left Thru Right Bikes Left Thru Right Bikes Left Thru Right Bikes Int. Total
6:00 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 10
6:15 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3
6:30 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 7
6:45 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 11
7:00 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 1 16
7:15 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 12
7:30 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 7
7:45 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 8
8:00 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 12
8:15 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 13
8:30 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 11
8:45 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 3 2 11
9:00 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 14
9:15 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 11
9:30 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 15
9:45 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 8
10:00 0 0 0 0 0 7 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 18
10:15 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 14
10:30 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 12
10:45 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 11
11:00 0 0 2 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 0 16
11:15 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 17
11:30 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 9
11:45 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 13
12:00 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 9
12:15 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 11
12:30 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 9
12:45 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 0 11
13:00 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 12
13:15 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 15
13:30 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 13
13:45 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 14
14:00 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 11
14:15 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 7
14:30 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 12
14:45 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 10
15:00 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 9
15:15 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 17
15:30 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 10
15:45 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 13
16:00 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 12
16:15 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3
16:30 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 7
16:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
17:00 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
17:15 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3
17:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 4
17:45 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 3
18:00 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
18:15 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
18:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
18:45 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3
Total 0 0 2 0 0 227 2 1 7 0 0 0 0 258 8 4 504
MN 316 at Michael Ave
8/10/2023
CountCloud
TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT DATA
Trucks + Bicycles
N/A MN 316 Michael Ave MN 316
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
X-C-01
Location:
Count Date:
Counted By:
Start Time Left Thru Right Bike/Ped Left Thru Right Bike/Ped Left Thru Right Bike/Ped Left Thru Right Bike/Ped Int. Total
7:15 2 0 24 0 0 92 2 0 9 1 0 0 14 59 4 0 207
7:30 1 1 27 0 0 79 2 0 12 0 0 0 5 58 2 0 187
7:45 0 1 25 0 0 76 1 0 9 0 0 0 11 66 5 2 194
8:00 3 0 17 0 0 73 3 0 6 0 0 0 8 53 10 0 173
Total 6 2 93 0 0 320 8 0 36 1 0 0 38 236 21 2 761
% App. Total 5.9 2.0 92.1 0.0 97.6 2.4 97.3 2.7 0.0 12.9 80.0 7.1
PHF 0.500 0.500 0.861 0.000 0.000 0.870 0.667 0.000 0.750 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.679 0.894 0.525 0.250 0.919
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 4.8 0.0
101 IN OUT 47
93 2 6 0
Right Thru Left Bike/Ped
From 7:15 to 8:15
449 2 Bike/Ped Right 8 328
OUT 38 Left Thru 320 IN
IN 236 Thru Left 0 OUT
295 21 Right Bike/Ped 0 242
Bike/Ped Left Thru Right
0 36 1 0
23 OUT IN 37
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
MN 316 at Michael Ave
8/10/2023
CountCloud
AM PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT DATA
N/A MN 316 Michael Ave MN 316
All Vehicles
7.1 5.1% Trucks
N/A
Total
148
MN 316
0.0 5.5 0.0
744
60
Total
Michael Ave
MN 316
Total
570
AM PEAK HOUR DATA
North
Total
X-C-01
Location:
Count Date:
Counted By:
Start Time Left Thru Right Bike/Ped Left Thru Right Bike/Ped Left Thru Right Bike/Ped Left Thru Right Bike/Ped Int. Total
13:45 0 1 14 0 0 64 1 0 13 0 0 0 11 76 6 0 186
14:00 1 1 8 0 0 78 0 0 13 1 1 0 15 70 13 0 201
14:15 0 1 11 0 0 76 2 0 4 0 1 0 18 97 6 0 216
14:30 3 0 11 0 0 76 4 0 9 0 0 0 16 96 7 0 222
Total 4 3 44 0 0 294 7 0 39 1 2 0 60 339 32 0 825
% App. Total 7.8 5.9 86.3 0.0 97.7 2.3 92.9 2.4 4.8 13.9 78.7 7.4
PHF 0.333 0.750 0.786 0.000 0.000 0.942 0.438 0.000 0.750 0.250 0.500 0.000 0.833 0.874 0.615 0.000 0.929
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.8 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0
51 IN OUT 68
44 3 4 0
Right Thru Left Bike/Ped
From 13:45 to 14:45
377 0 Bike/Ped Right 7 301
OUT 60 Left Thru 294 IN
IN 339 Thru Left 0 OUT
431 32 Right Bike/Ped 0 345
Bike/Ped Left Thru Right
0 39 1 2
35 OUT IN 42
646
North
77
Total
MN 316
Total
Michael Ave
N/A
Total
119
MN 316
808
Total MID DAY PEAK HOUR DATA
% Trucks 5.30.0 7.6 2.4 4.6
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
MID DAY PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT DATA
All Vehicles
N/A MN 316 Michael Ave MN 316
MN 316 at Michael Ave
8/10/2023
CountCloud X-C-01
Location:
Count Date:
Counted By:
Start Time Left Thru Right Bike/Ped Left Thru Right Bike/Ped Left Thru Right Bike/Ped Left Thru Right Bike/Ped Int. Total
16:00 3 0 22 0 0 97 2 0 13 1 2 0 35 111 8 0 294
16:15 0 0 22 1 0 108 5 0 9 0 0 0 32 115 10 0 301
16:30 2 1 24 0 0 102 5 0 8 1 0 0 20 102 9 0 274
16:45 1 2 35 0 0 101 0 0 12 0 0 0 36 128 13 0 328
Total 6 3 103 1 0 408 12 0 42 2 2 0 123 456 40 0 1197
% App. Total 5.4 2.7 92.0 0.0 97.1 2.9 91.3 4.3 4.3 19.9 73.7 6.5
PHF 0.500 0.375 0.736 0.250 0.000 0.944 0.600 0.000 0.808 0.500 0.250 0.000 0.854 0.891 0.769 0.000 0.912
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0
112 IN OUT 137
103 3 6 1
Right Thru Left Bike/Ped
From 16:00 to 17:00
553 0 Bike/Ped Right 12 420
OUT 123 Left Thru 408 IN
IN 456 Thru Left 0 OUT
619 40 Right Bike/Ped 0 464
Bike/Ped Left Thru Right
0 42 2 2
43 OUT IN 46
884
North
89
Total
MN 316
Total
Michael Ave
N/A
Total
249
MN 316
1172
Total PM PEAK HOUR DATA
% Trucks 1.90.0 2.9 0.0 1.8
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
PM PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT DATA
All Vehicles
N/A MN 316 Michael Ave MN 316
MN 316 at Michael Ave
8/10/2023
CountCloud X-C-01
Appendix C
Detailed Warrant Analysis Results
X-C-01
23 of 27
LOCATION:
COUNTY:
REF. POINT:85th% Speed Approach Description Lanes Approach Total
DATE:60 Major App1: TH 316 EB 2 5129
60 Major App3: TH 316 WB 2 4139
OPERATOR: BA 30 Minor App2:Michael Avenue NB 1 442
30 Minor App4: Michael Avenue SB 1 898
Yes
MAJOR MAJOR MINOR MINOR
WARRANT MET
HOUR APP. 1 APP. 3 APP. 2 APP. 4 MAJOR / MINOR
0:00 - 1:00 0 0 0 0 NO / NO
1:00 - 2:00 0 0 0 0 NO / NO
2:00 - 3:00 0 0 0 0 NO / NO
3:00 - 4:00 0 0 0 0 NO / NO
4:00 - 5:00 0 0 0 0 NO / NO
5:00 - 6:00 0 0 0 0 NO / NO
6:00 - 7:00 207 329 8 66 YES / NO
7:00 - 8:00 289 337 18 117 YES / NO
8:00 - 9:00 299 265 46 98 YES / YES
9:00 - 10:00 317 272 46 68 YES / NO
10:00 - 11:00 326 267 53 56 YES / NO
11:00 - 12:00 338 303 42 56 YES / NO
12:00 - 13:00 397 294 33 62 YES / NO
13:00 - 14:00 393 303 44 54 YES / NO
14:00 - 15:00 440 334 34 56 YES / NO
15:00 - 16:00 554 371 35 57 YES / NO
16:00 - 17:00 579 449 39 67 YES / NO
17:00 - 18:00 603 352 23 75 YES / NO
18:00 - 19:00 387 263 21 66 YES / NO
19:00 - 20:00 0 0 0 0 NO / NO
20:00 - 21:00 0 0 0 0 NO / NO
21:00 - 22:00 0 0 0 0 NO / NO
22:00 - 23:00 0 0 0 0 NO / NO
23:00 - 24:00 0 0 0 0 NO / NO
Daily 5129 4139 442 898
Met (Hr)Required (Hr)
Hours met for warrant:1 8
All-way Stop Warrant:
REMARKS:
Dakota
0
8/27/2023
ALL WAY STOP
TH 316 at Michael Avenue
TH 316 at Michael Avenue - 2034 Full Build
WARRANT ANALYSIS
MAJOR APPROACH
TOTAL
MINOR APPROACH
TOTAL
Minimum Volume Requirement
140210
0
Not satisfied
0
0
0
696
774
109
0
536
626
564
0
0
92
106
0
0
0
0
0
98
87
0
0
98
95
98
90
691
641
0
0
925
1028
955
650
593
0
0
0.70 SPEED FACTOR USED?
135
144
114
S (APP.2 + APP. 4)
589
S (APP.1 + APP. 3)
0
0
0
0
74
2034 Full Build TH 316 at Michael Ave.xlsx
X-C-01
24 of 27
LOCATION:
COUNTY:
REF. POINT:85th% Speed Approach Description Lanes Approach
DATE:60 Major App1: TH 316 EB 2 5129
60 Major App3: TH 316 WB 2 4139
OPERATOR: BA 30 Minor App2: Michael Avenue NB 1 196
30 Minor App4: Michael Avenue SB 1 92
40 MPH OR FASTER? YES
POPULATION < 10,000?NO
VOLUME REQ. AT 70%?YES
1A 1B 1A&B (80%)
CORRECTABLE CRASHES: 0 Major Total 420 630 504
(12-month period) Minor Approach 105 53 84
MAJOR MAJOR MINOR MINOR
MAJOR
APPROACH
TOTAL
MAX MINOR
APPROACH
WARRANT 1A - 8
hr
WARRANT 1B - 8
hr
WARRANT 1A &
B
HOUR APP. 1 APP. 3 APP. 2 APP. 4 S (APP.1 + APP. 3)(APP. 2 or 4)MAJOR/MINOR MAJOR/MINOR MAJOR/MINOR
0:00 - 1:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 NO / NO NO / NO NO / NO
1:00 - 2:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 NO / NO NO / NO NO / NO
2:00 - 3:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 NO / NO NO / NO NO / NO
3:00 - 4:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 NO / NO NO / NO NO / NO
4:00 - 5:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 NO / NO NO / NO NO / NO
5:00 - 6:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 NO / NO NO / NO NO / NO
6:00 - 7:00 207 329 6 7 536 7 YES / NO NO / NO YES / NO
7:00 - 8:00 289 337 12 12 626 12 YES / NO NO / NO YES / NO
8:00 - 9:00 299 265 27 10 564 27 YES / NO NO / NO YES / NO
9:00 - 10:00 317 272 27 7 589 27 YES / NO NO / NO YES / NO
10:00 - 11:00 326 267 32 6 593 32 YES / NO NO / NO YES / NO
11:00 - 12:00 338 303 18 6 641 18 YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO
12:00 - 13:00 397 294 16 6 691 16 YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO
13:00 - 14:00 393 303 12 5 696 12 YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO
14:00 - 15:00 440 334 9 6 774 9 YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO
15:00 - 16:00 554 371 10 6 925 10 YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO
16:00 - 17:00 579 449 13 7 1028 13 YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO
17:00 - 18:00 603 352 5 7 955 7 YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO
18:00 - 19:00 387 263 9 7 650 9 YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO
19:00 - 20:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 NO / NO NO / NO NO / NO
20:00 - 21:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 NO / NO NO / NO NO / NO
21:00 - 22:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 NO / NO NO / NO NO / NO
22:00 - 23:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 NO / NO NO / NO NO / NO
23:00 - 24:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 NO / NO NO / NO NO / NO
Daily 5129 4139 196 92
Met (Hr) Required (Hr) WARRANT MET:
Warrant 1 Eight Hour Volumes 0 8 Not satisfied
Warrant 1A Minimum Vehicular Volume 0 8 Not satisfied
Warrant 1B Interruption of Continuous Flow 0 8 Not satisfied
1A & 1B Combination of Warrants 0 8 Not satisfied
Warrant 2 Four Hour Volumes 0 4 Not satisfied
Warrant 3 Peak Hour Volumes 0 1 Not satisfied
Warrant 7 Crash Experience 0 8 Not satisfied
COMMENTS:
Minimum Volume Requirement
TH 316 at Michael Avenue - 2034 Full Build
8/27/2023
SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS
Dakota
TH 316 at Michael Avenue
0
Warrant 1 and Summary
2034 Full Build TH 316 at Michael Ave.xlsx
X-C-01
25 of 27
LOCATION:TH 316 at Michael Avenue
COUNTY:Dakota
REF. POINT:0 85th% Speed Approach Description Lanes Approach
DATE:8/27/2023 60 Major App1: TH 316 EB 2 5129
60 Major App3: TH 316 WB 2 4139
OPERATOR: BA 30 Minor App2:Michael Avenue NB 1 196
30 Minor App4: Michael Avenue SB 1 92
40 MPH OR FASTER? YES
POPULATION < 10,000?NO
VOLUME REQ. AT 70%?YES
Major Minor App. Minor App. Warrant 2 Warrant 3
Approach Four Hour Peak Hour HOUR Sum Major App. Max Minor App.Four Hour Peak Hour
200 320 #N/A 0:00 - 1:00 0 0 NO NO
300 265 380 1:00 - 2:00 0 0 NO NO
400 215 335 2:00 - 3:00 0 0 NO NO
500 170 285 3:00 - 4:00 0 0 NO NO
600 130 240 4:00 - 5:00 0 0 NO NO
700 100 200 5:00 - 6:00 0 0 NO NO
800 80 160 6:00 - 7:00 536 7 NO NO
900 65 135 7:00 - 8:00 626 12 NO NO
1000 60 110 8:00 - 9:00 564 27 NO NO
1100 60 95 9:00 - 10:00 589 27 NO NO
1200 60 75 10:00 - 11:00 593 32 NO NO
1300 60 75 11:00 - 12:00 641 18 NO NO
1400 60 75 12:00 - 13:00 691 16 NO NO
1500 60 75 13:00 - 14:00 696 12 NO NO
1600 60 75 14:00 - 15:00 774 9 NO NO
1700 60 75 15:00 - 16:00 925 10 NO NO
1800 60 75 16:00 - 17:00 1028 13 NO NO
17:00 - 18:00 955 7 NO NO
18:00 - 19:00 650 9 NO NO
19:00 - 20:00 0 0 NO NO
20:00 - 21:00 0 0 NO NO
21:00 - 22:00 0 0 NO NO
22:00 - 23:00 0 0 NO NO
23:00 - 24:00 0 0 NO NO
TH 316 at Michael Avenue - 2034 Full Build
SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS
Warrant Criteria (Graph)Warrants Met:
Actual Hourly Count
Figure 1. Four Hour and Peak Hour Warrant Analysis
Note: For data points outside the graph range, check the minor street volume against the lower thresholds
Warrants 2 and 3
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Mi
n
o
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
-
H
i
g
h
V
o
l
u
m
e
A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
-
VP
H
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - VPH
Four Hour Peak Hour Volumes
2034 Full Build TH 316 at Michael Ave.xlsx
X-C-01
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY LANEQ 170747
Page D-2
Appendix D
Operational MOE Tables
X-C-01
Ta
b
l
e
A
1
Wa
l
d
e
n
a
t
H
a
s
t
i
n
g
s
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
(
2
0
2
3
)
AM
&
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
s
L
T
R
T
o
t
a
l
L
L
O
S
T
L
O
S
R
L
O
S
De
l
a
y
(S
/
V
e
h
)
LO
S
De
l
a
y
(S
/
V
e
h
)
LO
S
Sto
r
a
g
e
(fe
e
t
)
3
Av
g
.
Qu
e
u
e
(fe
e
t
)
1
Ma
x
Qu
e
u
e
(fe
e
t
)
1
% B
l
o
c
k
Th
r
u
(2
)
--
-
-
>
% B
l
o
c
k
Le
f
t
(2
)
<--
-
-
Lin
k
Le
n
g
t
h
(fe
e
t
)
Av
g
.
Qu
e
u
e
(fe
e
t
)
1
Ma
x
Qu
e
u
e
(fe
e
t
)
1
% Block Right (2)---->% Block Thru (2)<----Storage (feet) 3Avg.Queue (feet) 1MaxQueue (feet) 1
TH
3
1
6
a
t
T
u
t
t
l
e
D
r
i
v
e
EB
3
8
2
3
6
2
1
2
9
5
3
.
3
A
6
.
2
A
3
.
5
A
5
.
6
A
0
00
00
81
5
2
0
2
0
00
0
00
WB
0
32
0
8
3
2
8
0.
0
0
6.3
A
3
.
2
A
6
.
2
A
5
.
4
A
0
00
00
11
0
8
2
0
5
4
00
0
00
NB
3
6
1
0
37
2
.
9
A
3
.
0
A
0.0
0
2.9
A
0
00
00
39
4
2
0
3
1
00
0
00
SB
6
2
9
3
1
0
1
3
.
2
A
4
.
6
A
3
.
3
A
3
.
3
A
0
00
00
48
3
2
0
5
8
00
0
00
TH
3
1
6
a
t
M
i
c
h
a
e
l
A
v
e
EB
0
22
8
1
6
2
4
4
0.
0
0
0.2
A
0
.
0
A
0
.
2
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
WB
1
4
2
9
9
0
31
3
0
.
9
A
0
.
3
A
0.0
0
0.3
A
0
.
5
A
0
00
00
17
6
2
0
2
6
00
0
00
NB
1
7
0
4
2
1
6
.
8
A
0.0
0
3.2
A
6
.
1
A
0
00
00
35
4
2
0
4
5
00
0
00
SB
0
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0.0
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
TH
3
1
6
a
t
S
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
A
c
c
e
s
s
E
B
0
23
2
0
23
2
0.
0
0
0.1
A
0.0
0
0.1
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
WB
0
31
3
0
31
3
0.
0
0
0.1
A
0.0
0
0.1
A
0
.
1
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
NB
0
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0.0
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
SB
0
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0.0
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
TH
3
1
6
a
t
T
u
t
t
l
e
D
r
i
v
e
EB
1
2
3
4
5
6
4
0
6
1
9
5
.
4
A
8
.
4
A
5
.
4
A
7
.
6
A
0
00
00
81
5
2
0
5
1
00
0
00
WB
0
40
8
1
2
4
2
0
0.
0
0
7.6
A
4
.
6
A
7
.
5
A
7
.
1
A
0
00
00
11
0
8
3
0
9
2
00
0
00
NB
4
2
2
2
4
6
3
.
9
A
5
.
4
A
5
.
1
A
4
.
1
A
0
00
00
39
4
2
0
5
7
00
0
00
SB
6
3
1
0
3
1
1
2
4
.
6
A
4
.
4
A
3
.
6
A
3
.
7
A
0
00
00
48
3
2
0
6
5
00
0
00
TH
3
1
6
a
t
M
i
c
h
a
e
l
A
v
e
EB
0
44
8
1
2
4
6
0
0.
0
0
0.3
A
0
.
0
A
0
.
3
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
WB
1
7
3
9
9
0
41
6
2
.
3
A
0
.
4
A
0.0
0
0.5
A
0
.
5
A
0
00
00
17
6
2
0
4
2
00
0
00
NB
1
3
0
25
3
8
7
.
4
A
0.0
0
3.0
A
4
.
3
A
0
00
00
35
4
2
2
4
0
00
0
00
SB
0
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0.0
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
TH
3
1
6
a
t
S
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
A
c
c
e
s
s
EB
0
47
3
0
47
3
0.
0
0
0.2
A
0.0
0
0.2
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
WB
0
41
6
0
41
6
0.
0
0
0.2
A
0.0
0
0.2
A
0
.
2
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
NB
0
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0.0
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
SB
0
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0.0
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
NO
T
E
S
1.
I
f
t
h
e
r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
q
u
e
u
e
i
s
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
z
e
r
o
(
0
)
,
b
u
t
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
2
0
f
t
,
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
o
f
2
0
f
t
i
s
r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
.
2.
B
l
o
c
k
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
i
s
p
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
t
i
m
e
(
1
h
o
u
r
)
t
h
e
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
l
a
n
e
o
r
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
l
a
n
e
i
s
b
l
o
c
k
e
d
o
r
b
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
.
3.
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
l
a
n
e
s
o
f
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
l
e
n
g
t
h
a
r
e
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
d
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
t
o
s
h
o
w
t
h
e
"
E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
L
e
n
g
t
h
"
p
e
r
l
a
n
e
.
A
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
Q
u
e
i
n
g
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
e
e
t
)
Right Turn Lane
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
De
m
a
n
d
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
De
l
a
y
(
s
/
v
e
h
)
LO
S
B
y
Ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
LO
S
B
y
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Le
f
t
T
u
r
n
L
a
n
e
Th
r
o
u
g
h
L
a
n
e
(
s
)
X-C-01
Ta
b
l
e
A
2
Wa
l
d
e
n
a
t
H
a
s
t
i
n
g
s
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
No
-
B
u
i
l
d
(
2
0
2
4
)
AM
&
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
s
L
T
R
T
o
t
a
l
L
L
O
S
T
L
O
S
R
L
O
S
De
l
a
y
(S
/
V
e
h
)
LO
S
De
l
a
y
(S
/
V
e
h
)
LO
S
Sto
r
a
g
e
(f
e
e
t
)
3
Av
g
.
Qu
e
u
e
(fe
e
t
)
1
Ma
x
Qu
e
u
e
(fe
e
t
)
1
% B
l
o
c
k
Th
r
u
(2
)
---
-
>
% B
l
o
c
k
Le
f
t
(2)
<-
-
-
-
Lin
k
Le
n
g
t
h
(fe
e
t
)
Av
g
.
Qu
e
u
e
(f
e
e
t
)
1
Ma
x
Qu
e
u
e
(f
e
e
t
)
1
% Block Right (2)---->% Block Thru (2)<----Storage (feet) 3Avg.Queue (feet) 1MaxQueue (feet) 1
TH
3
1
6
a
t
T
u
t
t
l
e
D
r
i
v
e
EB
3
8
2
3
7
2
1
2
9
6
3
.
3
A
6
.
2
A
3
.
4
A
5
.
6
A
0
00
00
81
5
2
0
2
0
00
0
00
WB
0
32
2
8
3
3
0
0.0
0
6.
3
A
3
.
4
A
6
.
2
A
5
.
4
A
0
00
00
11
0
8
2
0
6
9
00
0
00
NB
3
6
1
0
37
3
.
0
A
2
.
4
A
0.0
0
3.
0
A
0
00
00
39
4
2
0
3
1
00
0
00
SB
6
2
9
3
1
0
1
3
.
5
A
4
.
7
A
3
.
2
A
3
.
2
A
0
00
00
48
3
2
0
5
0
00
0
00
TH
3
1
6
a
t
M
i
c
h
a
e
l
A
v
e
EB
0
22
9
1
6
2
4
5
0.0
0
0.
2
A
0
.
0
A
0
.
2
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
WB
1
4
3
0
0
0
31
4
1
.
1
A
0
.
3
A
0.0
0
0.
3
A
0
.
5
A
0
00
00
17
6
2
0
3
1
00
0
00
NB
1
7
0
4
2
1
6
.
5
A
0.
0
0
3.4
A
5
.
9
A
0
00
00
35
4
2
0
4
5
00
0
00
SB
0
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0.
0
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
TH
3
1
6
a
t
S
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
A
c
c
e
s
s
EB
0
23
3
0
23
3
0.0
0
0.
1
A
0.0
0
0.
1
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
WB
0
31
5
0
31
5
0.0
0
0.
1
A
0.0
0
0.
1
A
0
.
1
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
NB
0
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0.
0
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
SB
0
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0.
0
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
TH
3
1
6
a
t
T
u
t
t
l
e
D
r
i
v
e
EB
1
2
4
4
5
8
4
0
6
2
2
5
.
4
A
8
.
4
A
5
.
2
A
7
.
6
A
0
00
00
81
5
2
0
4
9
00
0
00
WB
0
41
0
1
2
4
2
2
0.0
0
7.
5
A
4
.
4
A
7
.
4
A
7
.
0
A
0
00
00
11
0
8
3
0
9
2
00
0
00
NB
4
2
2
2
4
6
3
.
9
A
5
.
4
A
5
.
1
A
4
.
1
A
0
00
00
39
4
2
0
5
7
00
0
00
SB
6
3
1
0
4
1
1
3
4
.
3
A
4
.
4
A
3
.
6
A
3
.
7
A
0
00
00
48
3
2
0
5
7
00
0
00
TH
3
1
6
a
t
M
i
c
h
a
e
l
A
v
e
EB
0
45
0
1
2
4
6
2
0.0
0
0.
3
A
0
.
0
A
0
.
3
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
WB
1
7
4
0
1
0
41
8
2
.
3
A
0
.
4
A
0.0
0
0.
5
A
0
.
5
A
0
00
00
17
6
2
0
4
2
00
0
00
NB
1
3
0
25
3
8
7
.
7
A
0.
0
0
3.1
A
4
.
5
A
0
00
00
35
4
2
2
4
8
00
0
00
SB
0
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0.
0
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
TH
3
1
6
a
t
S
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
A
c
c
e
s
s
EB
0
47
5
0
47
5
0.0
0
0.
2
A
0.0
0
0.
2
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
WB
0
41
8
0
41
8
0.0
0
0.
2
A
0.0
0
0.
2
A
0
.
2
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
NB
0
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0.
0
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
SB
0
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0.
0
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
NO
T
E
S
1.
I
f
t
h
e
r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
q
u
e
u
e
i
s
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
z
e
r
o
(
0
)
,
b
u
t
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
2
0
f
t
,
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
o
f
2
0
f
t
i
s
r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
.
2.
B
l
o
c
k
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
i
s
p
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
t
i
m
e
(
1
h
o
u
r
)
t
h
e
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
l
a
n
e
o
r
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
l
a
n
e
i
s
b
l
o
c
k
e
d
o
r
b
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
.
3.
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
l
a
n
e
s
o
f
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
l
e
n
g
t
h
a
r
e
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
d
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
t
o
s
h
o
w
t
h
e
"
E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
L
e
n
g
t
h
"
p
e
r
l
a
n
e
.
A
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
Q
u
e
i
n
g
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
e
e
t
)
Right Turn Lane
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
De
m
a
n
d
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
De
l
a
y
(
s
/
v
e
h
)
LO
S
B
y
Ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
LO
S
B
y
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Le
f
t
T
u
r
n
L
a
n
e
Th
r
o
u
g
h
L
a
n
e
(
s
)
X-C-01
Ta
b
l
e
A
3
Wa
l
d
e
n
a
t
H
a
s
t
i
n
g
s
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Ph
a
s
e
1
B
u
i
l
d
(
2
0
2
4
)
AM
&
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
s
L
T
R
T
o
t
a
l
L
L
O
S
T
L
O
S
R
L
O
S
De
l
a
y
(S
/
V
e
h
)
LO
S
De
l
a
y
(S
/
V
e
h
)
LO
S
Sto
r
a
g
e
(fe
e
t
)
3
Av
g
.
Qu
e
u
e
(fe
e
t
)
1
Ma
x
Qu
e
u
e
(fe
e
t
)
1
% B
l
o
c
k
Th
r
u
(2
)
--
-
-
>
% B
l
o
c
k
Le
f
t
(2
)
<--
-
-
Lin
k
Le
n
g
t
h
(fe
e
t
)
Av
g
.
Qu
e
u
e
(fe
e
t
)
1
Ma
x
Qu
e
u
e
(fe
e
t
)
1
% Block Right (2)---->% Block Thru (2)<----Storage (feet) 3Avg.Queue (feet) 1MaxQueue (feet) 1
TH
3
1
6
a
t
T
u
t
t
l
e
D
r
i
v
e
EB
3
8
2
7
3
2
1
3
3
2
3
.
5
A
6
.
6
A
3
.
6
A
6
.
0
A
0
00
00
81
5
2
0
2
2
00
0
00
WB
0
41
3
8
4
2
1
0.
0
0
7.1
A
5
.
4
A
7
.
1
A
6
.
1
A
0
00
00
11
0
8
2
0
7
8
00
0
00
NB
3
6
1
0
37
3
.
1
A
2
.
9
A
0.0
0
3.1
A
0
00
00
39
4
2
0
4
5
00
0
00
SB
6
2
9
3
1
0
1
5
.
1
A
4
.
9
A
3
.
8
A
3
.
9
A
0
00
00
48
3
2
0
6
4
00
0
00
TH
3
1
6
a
t
M
i
c
h
a
e
l
A
v
e
EB
3
6
2
2
9
1
6
2
8
1
1
.
1
A
0
.
2
A
0
.
0
A
0
.
3
A
30
0
2
0
3
0
00
0
00
00
0
00
WB
1
4
3
0
0
4
3
1
8
0
.
8
A
1
.
2
A
0
.
1
A
1
.
2
A
1
.
5
A
3
0
0
2
0
2
0
00
0
00
00
0
00
NB
1
7
0
4
2
1
7
.
1
A
0.0
0
2.1
A
6
.
4
A
0
00
00
34
7
2
0
4
9
00
0
00
SB
1
0
0
91
1
0
1
8
.
1
A
0.0
0
4.3
A
4
.
7
A
0
00
00
61
2
2
8
6
5
00
0
00
TH
3
1
6
a
t
S
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
A
c
c
e
s
s
EB
0
24
3
0
24
3
0.
0
0
0.1
A
0.0
0
0.1
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
WB
0
31
9
0
31
9
0.
0
0
0.1
A
0.0
0
0.1
A
0
.
1
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
NB
0
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0.0
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
SB
0
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0.0
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
TH
3
1
6
a
t
T
u
t
t
l
e
D
r
i
v
e
EB
1
2
4
5
4
8
4
0
7
1
2
6
.
3
A
9
.
0
A
6
.
1
A
8
.
4
A
0
00
00
81
5
2
0
6
9
00
0
00
WB
0
47
7
1
2
4
8
9
0.
0
0
8.3
A
4
.
8
A
8
.
2
A
7
.
8
A
0
00
00
11
0
8
3
5
1
1
6
00
0
00
NB
4
2
2
2
4
6
4
.
5
A
4
.
2
A
5
.
3
A
4
.
5
A
0
00
00
39
4
2
0
5
1
00
0
00
SB
6
3
1
0
4
1
1
3
4
.
5
A
5
.
9
A
3
.
9
A
4
.
0
A
0
00
00
48
3
2
3
7
5
00
0
00
TH
3
1
6
a
t
M
i
c
h
a
e
l
A
v
e
EB
9
0
4
5
0
1
2
5
5
2
2
.
3
A
0
.
4
A
0
.
0
A
0
.
7
A
30
0
2
0
5
1
00
0
00
00
0
00
WB
1
7
4
0
1
1
0
4
2
8
1
.
5
A
1
.
3
A
0
.
1
A
1
.
3
A
1
.
5
A
3
0
0
2
0
3
2
00
0
00
00
0
00
NB
1
3
0
25
3
8
1
5
.
2
C
0.0
0
3.8
A
7
.
9
A
0
00
00
34
7
2
0
4
5
00
0
00
SB
7
0
67
7
4
1
1
.
8
B
0.0
0
4.3
A
5
.
1
A
0
00
00
61
2
2
5
7
6
00
0
00
TH
3
1
6
a
t
S
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
A
c
c
e
s
s
EB
0
48
2
0
48
2
0.
0
0
0.2
A
0.0
0
0.2
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
WB
0
42
8
0
42
8
0.
0
0
0.2
A
0.0
0
0.2
A
0
.
2
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
NB
0
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0.0
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
SB
0
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0.0
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
NO
T
E
S
1.
I
f
t
h
e
r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
q
u
e
u
e
i
s
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
z
e
r
o
(
0
)
,
b
u
t
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
2
0
f
t
,
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
o
f
2
0
f
t
i
s
r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
.
2.
B
l
o
c
k
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
i
s
p
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
t
i
m
e
(
1
h
o
u
r
)
t
h
e
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
l
a
n
e
o
r
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
l
a
n
e
i
s
b
l
o
c
k
e
d
o
r
b
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
.
3.
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
l
a
n
e
s
o
f
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
l
e
n
g
t
h
a
r
e
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
d
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
t
o
s
h
o
w
t
h
e
"
E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
L
e
n
g
t
h
"
p
e
r
l
a
n
e
.
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
Q
u
e
i
n
g
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
e
e
t
)
Right Turn Lane
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
De
m
a
n
d
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
De
l
a
y
(
s
/
v
e
h
)
LO
S
B
y
Ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
LO
S
B
y
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Le
f
t
T
u
r
n
L
a
n
e
Th
r
o
u
g
h
L
a
n
e
(
s
)
A
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
X-C-01
Ta
b
l
e
A
4
Wa
l
d
e
n
a
t
H
a
s
t
i
n
g
s
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
No
-
B
u
i
l
d
(
2
0
2
9
)
AM
&
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
s
L
T
R
T
o
t
a
l
L
L
O
S
T
L
O
S
R
L
O
S
De
l
a
y
(S
/
V
e
h
)
LO
S
De
l
a
y
(S
/
V
e
h
)
LO
S
Sto
r
a
g
e
(f
e
e
t
)
3
Av
g
.
Qu
e
u
e
(f
e
e
t
)
1
Ma
x
Qu
e
u
e
(f
e
e
t
)
1
% B
l
o
c
k
Th
r
u
(2
)
---
-
>
%
B
l
o
c
k
Le
f
t
(2)
<-
-
-
-
Lin
k
Le
n
g
t
h
(fe
e
t
)
Av
g
.
Qu
e
u
e
(f
e
e
t
)
1
Ma
x
Qu
e
u
e
(f
e
e
t
)
1
% Block Right (2)---->% Block Thru (2)<----Storage (feet) 3Avg.Queue (feet) 1MaxQueue (feet) 1
TH
3
1
6
a
t
T
u
t
t
l
e
D
r
i
v
e
EB
3
9
2
4
3
2
2
3
0
4
3
.
4
A
6
.
3
A
3
.
6
A
5
.
8
A
0
00
00
81
5
2
0
4
3
00
0
00
WB
0
33
0
8
3
3
8
0.0
0
6.
5
A
3
.
5
A
6
.
4
A
5
.
6
A
0
00
00
11
0
8
2
0
6
6
00
0
00
NB
3
7
1
0
38
3
.
1
A
5
.
3
A
0.0
0
3.
2
A
0
00
00
39
4
2
0
3
1
00
0
00
SB
6
2
9
6
1
0
4
3
.
9
A
4
.
8
A
3
.
3
A
3
.
4
A
0
00
00
48
3
2
0
4
4
00
0
00
TH
3
1
6
a
t
M
i
c
h
a
e
l
A
v
e
EB
0
23
5
1
6
2
5
1
0.0
0
0.
1
A
0
.
0
A
0
.
1
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
WB
1
4
3
0
8
0
32
2
1
.
1
A
0
.
3
A
0.0
0
0.
3
A
0
.
4
A
0
00
00
17
6
2
0
3
0
00
0
00
NB
1
8
0
4
2
2
6
.
8
A
0.
0
0
3.0
A
5
.
9
A
0
00
00
35
4
2
0
3
6
00
0
00
SB
00
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0.
0
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
TH
3
1
6
a
t
S
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
A
c
c
e
s
s
EB
0
23
9
0
23
9
0.0
0
0.
1
A
0.0
0
0.
1
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
WB
0
32
2
0
32
2
0.0
0
0.
1
A
0.0
0
0.
1
A
0
.
1
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
NB
00
0
0
0.00
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0.
0
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
SB
00
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0.
0
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
TH
3
1
6
a
t
T
u
t
t
l
e
D
r
i
v
e
EB
1
2
7
4
7
0
4
1
6
3
8
5
.
9
A
8
.
9
A
6
.
3
A
8
.
1
A
0
00
00
81
5
2
0
1
2
0
00
0
00
WB
0
42
0
1
2
4
3
2
0.0
0
7.
7
A
4
.
1
A
7
.
6
A
7
.
4
A
0
00
00
11
0
8
3
4
1
1
6
00
0
00
NB
4
3
2
2
4
7
4
.
1
A
4
.
7
A
4
.
8
A
4
.
2
A
0
00
00
39
4
2
0
5
8
00
0
00
SB
6
3
1
0
6
1
1
5
3
.
5
A
4
.
6
A
3
.
7
A
3
.
7
A
0
00
00
48
3
2
0
5
8
00
0
00
TH
3
1
6
a
t
M
i
c
h
a
e
l
A
v
e
EB
0
46
1
1
2
4
7
3
0.0
0
0.
3
A
0
.
0
A
0
.
3
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
WB
1
8
4
1
1
0
42
9
2
.
1
A
0
.
4
A
0.0
0
0.
5
A
0
.
6
A
0
00
00
17
6
2
0
5
1
00
0
00
NB
1
3
0
26
3
9
8
.
5
A
0.
0
0
3.1
A
4
.
9
A
0
00
00
35
4
2
4
4
9
00
0
00
SB
00
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0.
0
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
TH
3
1
6
a
t
S
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
A
c
c
e
s
s
EB
0
48
7
0
48
7
0.0
0
0.
2
A
0.0
0
0.
2
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
WB
0
42
8
0
42
8
0.0
0
0.
2
A
0.0
0
0.
2
A
0
.
2
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
NB
00
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0.
0
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
SB
00
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0.
0
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
NO
T
E
S
1.
I
f
t
h
e
r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
q
u
e
u
e
i
s
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
z
e
r
o
(
0
)
,
b
u
t
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
2
0
f
t
,
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
o
f
2
0
f
t
i
s
r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
.
2.
B
l
o
c
k
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
i
s
p
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
t
i
m
e
(
1
h
o
u
r
)
t
h
e
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
l
a
n
e
o
r
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
l
a
n
e
i
s
b
l
o
c
k
e
d
o
r
b
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
.
3.
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
l
a
n
e
s
o
f
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
l
e
n
g
t
h
a
r
e
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
d
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
t
o
s
h
o
w
t
h
e
"
E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
L
e
n
g
t
h
"
p
e
r
l
a
n
e
.
A
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
Q
u
e
i
n
g
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
e
e
t
)
Right Turn Lane
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
De
m
a
n
d
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
De
l
a
y
(
s
/
v
e
h
)
LO
S
B
y
Ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
LO
S
B
y
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Le
f
t
T
u
r
n
L
a
n
e
Th
r
o
u
g
h
L
a
n
e
(
s
)
X-C-01
Ta
b
l
e
A
5
Wa
l
d
e
n
a
t
H
a
s
t
i
n
g
s
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Fu
l
l
B
u
i
l
d
(
2
0
2
9
)
AM
&
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
s
L
T
R
T
o
t
a
l
L
L
O
S
T
L
O
S
R
L
O
S
De
l
a
y
(S
/
V
e
h
)
LO
S
De
l
a
y
(S
/
V
e
h
)
LO
S
Sto
r
a
g
e
(fe
e
t
)
3
Av
g
.
Qu
e
u
e
(fe
e
t
)
1
Ma
x
Qu
e
u
e
(fe
e
t
)
1
% B
l
o
c
k
Th
r
u
(2
)
--
-
-
>
% B
l
o
c
k
Le
f
t
(2
)
<--
-
-
Lin
k
Le
n
g
t
h
(fe
e
t
)
Av
g
.
Qu
e
u
e
(fe
e
t
)
1
Ma
x
Qu
e
u
e
(fe
e
t
)
1
% Block Right (2)---->% Block Thru (2)<----Storage (feet) 3Avg.Queue (feet) 1MaxQueue (feet) 1
TH
3
1
6
a
t
T
u
t
t
l
e
D
r
i
v
e
EB
3
9
2
8
8
2
2
3
4
9
3
.
9
A
6
.
7
A
3
.
5
A
6
.
2
A
0
00
00
81
5
2
0
2
0
00
0
00
WB
0
44
7
8
4
5
5
0.
0
0
7.2
A
4
.
3
A
7
.
2
A
6
.
3
A
0
00
00
11
0
8
2
0
8
6
00
0
00
NB
3
7
1
0
38
3
.
4
A
3
.
7
A
0.0
0
3.4
A
0
00
00
39
4
2
0
4
3
00
0
00
SB
6
2
9
6
1
0
4
3
.
1
A
4
.
0
A
3
.
8
A
3
.
8
A
0
00
00
48
3
2
0
5
4
00
0
00
TH
3
1
6
a
t
M
i
c
h
a
e
l
A
v
e
EB
3
6
2
4
4
1
6
2
9
6
1
.
7
A
0
.
3
A
0
.
0
A
0
.
4
A
30
0
2
0
4
1
00
0
00
00
0
00
WB
1
4
3
3
4
4
3
5
2
0
.
8
A
1
.
3
A
0
.
1
A
1
.
3
A
1
.
6
A
3
0
0
2
0
2
4
00
0
00
00
0
00
NB
1
8
0
4
2
2
8
.
3
A
0.0
0
3.3
A
7
.
2
A
0
00
00
34
7
2
0
2
8
00
0
00
SB
1
0
0
91
1
0
1
8
.
1
A
0.0
0
4.5
A
4
.
9
A
0
00
00
61
2
3
0
7
4
00
0
00
TH
3
1
6
a
t
S
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
A
c
c
e
s
s
EB
9
2
4
9
0
25
8
1
.
4
A
0
.
2
A
0.0
0
0.2
A
0
00
00
24
8
2
0
3
1
00
0
00
WB
0
32
6
1
3
2
7
0.
0
0
0.3
A
0
.
0
A
0
.
3
A
0
.
4
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
NB
0
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0.0
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
SB
3
0
26
2
9
9
.
6
A
0.0
0
2.9
A
3.3
A
0
00
00
53
6
2
0
3
7
00
0
00
TH
3
1
6
a
t
T
u
t
t
l
e
D
r
i
v
e
EB
1
2
7
5
9
0
4
1
7
5
8
7
.
3
A
1
0
.
2
B
6
.
8
A
9
.
6
A
0
00
00
81
5
2
0
1
5
7
00
0
00
WB
0
50
4
1
2
5
1
6
0.
0
0
8.7
A
5
.
6
A
8
.
6
A
8
.
7
A
0
00
00
11
0
8
4
2
1
1
4
00
0
00
NB
4
3
2
2
4
7
5
.
3
A
6
.
4
A
4
.
4
A
5
.
3
A
0
00
00
39
4
2
0
4
5
00
0
00
SB
6
3
1
0
6
1
1
5
4
.
5
A
5
.
8
A
4
.
0
A
4
.
1
A
0
00
00
48
3
2
3
6
1
00
0
00
TH
3
1
6
a
t
M
i
c
h
a
e
l
A
v
e
EB
9
0
4
9
1
1
2
5
9
3
2
.
5
A
0
.
5
A
0
.
0
A
0
.
8
A
30
0
2
1
5
8
00
0
00
00
0
00
WB
1
8
4
2
8
1
0
4
5
6
1
.
9
A
1
.
4
A
0
.
1
A
1
.
4
A
1
.
5
A
3
0
0
2
0
2
6
00
0
00
00
0
00
NB
1
3
0
26
3
9
1
5
.
1
C
0.0
0
4.9
A
8
.
0
A
0
00
00
34
7
2
0
5
5
00
0
00
SB
7
0
67
7
4
1
2
.
9
B
0.0
0
4.6
A
5
.
2
A
0
00
00
61
2
2
5
5
6
00
0
00
TH
3
1
6
a
t
S
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
A
c
c
e
s
s
EB
3
0
4
9
4
0
52
4
1
.
9
A
0
.
6
A
0.0
0
0.7
A
0
00
00
24
8
2
0
5
9
00
0
00
WB
0
43
8
3
4
4
1
0.
0
0
0.4
A
0
.
0
A
0
.
4
A
0
.
6
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
NB
0
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0.0
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
SB
2
0
17
19
1
6
.
1
C
0.0
0
3.1
A
4
.
5
A
0
00
00
53
6
2
0
3
0
00
0
00
NO
T
E
S
1.
I
f
t
h
e
r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
q
u
e
u
e
i
s
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
z
e
r
o
(
0
)
,
b
u
t
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
2
0
f
t
,
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
o
f
2
0
f
t
i
s
r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
.
2.
B
l
o
c
k
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
i
s
p
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
t
i
m
e
(
1
h
o
u
r
)
t
h
e
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
l
a
n
e
o
r
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
l
a
n
e
i
s
b
l
o
c
k
e
d
o
r
b
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
.
3.
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
l
a
n
e
s
o
f
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
l
e
n
g
t
h
a
r
e
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
d
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
t
o
s
h
o
w
t
h
e
"
E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
L
e
n
g
t
h
"
p
e
r
l
a
n
e
.
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
Q
u
e
i
n
g
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
e
e
t
)
Right Turn Lane
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
De
m
a
n
d
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
De
l
a
y
(
s
/
v
e
h
)
LO
S
B
y
Ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
LO
S
B
y
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Le
f
t
T
u
r
n
L
a
n
e
Th
r
o
u
g
h
L
a
n
e
(
s
)
A
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
X-C-01
Ta
b
l
e
A
6
Wa
l
d
e
n
a
t
H
a
s
t
i
n
g
s
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
No
-
B
u
i
l
d
(
2
0
3
4
)
AM
&
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
s
L
T
R
T
o
t
a
l
L
L
O
S
T
L
O
S
R
L
O
S
De
l
a
y
(S
/
V
e
h
)
LO
S
De
l
a
y
(S
/
V
e
h
)
LO
S
Sto
r
a
g
e
(f
e
e
t
)
3
Av
g
.
Qu
e
u
e
(f
e
e
t
)
1
Ma
x
Qu
e
u
e
(f
e
e
t
)
1
% B
l
o
c
k
Th
r
u
(2
)
---
-
>
%
B
l
o
c
k
Le
f
t
(2)
<-
-
-
-
Lin
k
Le
n
g
t
h
(fe
e
t
)
Av
g
.
Qu
e
u
e
(f
e
e
t
)
1
Ma
x
Qu
e
u
e
(f
e
e
t
)
1
% Block Right (2)---->% Block Thru (2)<----Storage (feet) 3Avg.Queue (feet) 1MaxQueue (feet) 1
TH
3
1
6
a
t
T
u
t
t
l
e
D
r
i
v
e
EB
4
0
2
4
9
2
2
3
1
1
3
.
3
A
6
.
3
A
3
.
6
A
5
.
7
A
0
00
00
81
5
0
20
00
0
00
WB
0
33
8
8
3
4
6
0.0
0
6.
6
A
3
.
7
A
6
.
5
A
5
.
6
A
0
00
00
11
0
8
2
0
5
4
00
0
00
NB
3
8
1
0
39
3
.
1
A
3
.
2
A
0.0
0
3.
1
A
0
00
00
39
4
2
0
4
1
00
0
00
SB
6
2
9
8
1
0
6
4
.
1
A
4
.
2
A
3
.
4
A
3
.
4
A
0
00
00
48
3
2
0
6
1
00
0
00
TH
3
1
6
a
t
M
i
c
h
a
e
l
A
v
e
EB
0
24
1
1
7
2
5
8
0.0
0
0.
2
A
0
.
0
A
0
.
2
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
WB
1
5
3
1
5
0
33
0
1
.
4
A
0
.
3
A
0.0
0
0.
3
A
0
.
5
A
0
00
00
17
6
2
0
3
7
00
0
00
NB
1
8
0
4
2
2
6
.
8
A
0.
0
0
2.6
A
6
.
1
A
0
00
00
35
4
2
0
4
4
00
0
00
SB
00
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0.
0
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
TH
3
1
6
a
t
S
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
A
c
c
e
s
s
EB
0
24
5
0
24
5
0.0
0
0.
1
A
0.0
0
0.
1
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
WB
0
33
0
0
33
0
0.0
0
0.
2
A
0.0
0
0.
2
A
0.
2
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
NB
00
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0.
0
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
SB
00
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0.
0
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
TH
3
1
6
a
t
T
u
t
t
l
e
D
r
i
v
e
EB
1
3
0
4
8
1
4
2
6
5
3
6
.
0
A
9
.
1
A
6
.
5
A
8
.
3
A
0
00
00
81
5
2
0
1
1
8
00
0
00
WB
0
43
0
1
3
4
4
3
0.0
0
8.
3
A
5
.
0
A
8
.
2
A
7
.
7
A
0
00
00
11
0
8
3
8
1
1
6
00
0
00
NB
4
4
2
2
4
8
4
.
2
A
5
.
7
A
4
.
3
A
4
.
3
A
0
00
00
39
4
2
0
6
1
00
0
00
SB
6
3
1
0
9
1
1
8
4
.
3
A
4
.
4
A
3
.
8
A
3
.
9
A
0
00
00
48
3
2
1
5
4
00
0
00
TH
3
1
6
a
t
M
i
c
h
a
e
l
A
v
e
EB
0
47
3
1
3
4
8
6
0.0
0
0.
3
A
0
.
0
A
0
.
3
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
WB
1
8
4
2
1
0
43
9
2
.
2
A
0
.
5
A
0.0
0
0.
6
A
0
.
7
A
0
00
00
17
6
2
0
5
6
00
0
00
NB
1
4
0
26
4
0
1
0
.
9
B
0.
0
0
2.9
A
5
.
3
A
0
00
00
35
4
2
5
4
5
00
0
00
SB
00
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0.
0
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
TH
3
1
6
a
t
S
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
A
c
c
e
s
s
EB
0
49
9
0
49
9
0.0
0
0.
2
A
0.0
0
0.
2
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
WB
0
43
9
0
43
9
0.0
0
0.
2
A
0.0
0
0.
2
A
0
.
2
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
NB
00
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0.
0
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
SB
00
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0.
0
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
NO
T
E
S
1.
I
f
t
h
e
r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
q
u
e
u
e
i
s
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
z
e
r
o
(
0
)
,
b
u
t
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
2
0
f
t
,
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
o
f
2
0
f
t
i
s
r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
.
2.
B
l
o
c
k
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
i
s
p
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
t
i
m
e
(
1
h
o
u
r
)
t
h
e
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
l
a
n
e
o
r
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
l
a
n
e
i
s
b
l
o
c
k
e
d
o
r
b
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
.
3.
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
l
a
n
e
s
o
f
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
l
e
n
g
t
h
a
r
e
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
d
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
t
o
s
h
o
w
t
h
e
"
E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
L
e
n
g
t
h
"
p
e
r
l
a
n
e
.
A
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
Q
u
e
i
n
g
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
e
e
t
)
Right Turn Lane
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
De
m
a
n
d
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
De
l
a
y
(
s
/
v
e
h
)
LO
S
B
y
Ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
LO
S
B
y
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Le
f
t
T
u
r
n
L
a
n
e
Th
r
o
u
g
h
L
a
n
e
(
s
)
X-C-01
Ta
b
l
e
A
7
Wa
l
d
e
n
a
t
H
a
s
t
i
n
g
s
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Fu
l
l
B
u
i
l
d
(
2
0
3
4
)
AM
&
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
s
L
T
R
T
o
t
a
l
L
L
O
S
T
L
O
S
R
L
O
S
De
l
a
y
(S
/
V
e
h
)
LO
S
De
l
a
y
(S
/
V
e
h
)
LO
S
Sto
r
a
g
e
(fe
e
t
)
3
Av
g
.
Qu
e
u
e
(fe
e
t
)
1
Ma
x
Qu
e
u
e
(fe
e
t
)
1
% B
l
o
c
k
Th
r
u
(2
)
--
-
-
>
% B
l
o
c
k
Le
f
t
(2
)
<--
-
-
Lin
k
Le
n
g
t
h
(fe
e
t
)
Av
g
.
Qu
e
u
e
(fe
e
t
)
1
Ma
x
Qu
e
u
e
(fe
e
t
)
1
% Block Right (2)---->% Block Thru (2)<----Storage (feet) 3Avg.Queue (feet) 1MaxQueue (feet) 1
TH
3
1
6
a
t
T
u
t
t
l
e
D
r
i
v
e
EB
4
0
2
9
4
2
2
3
5
6
3
.
7
A
6
.
6
A
3
.
7
A
6
.
1
A
0
00
00
81
5
2
0
2
0
00
0
00
WB
0
45
5
8
4
6
3
0.
0
0
7.1
A
4
.
1
A
7
.
1
A
6
.
2
A
0
00
00
11
0
8
2
0
7
6
00
0
00
NB
3
8
1
0
39
3
.
2
A
4
.
7
A
0.0
0
3.2
A
0
00
00
39
4
2
0
3
9
00
0
00
SB
6
2
9
8
1
0
6
3
.
1
A
5
.
8
A
3
.
5
A
3
.
5
A
0
00
00
48
3
2
0
5
0
00
0
00
TH
3
1
6
a
t
M
i
c
h
a
e
l
A
v
e
EB
3
6
2
5
0
1
7
3
0
3
1
.
8
A
0
.
2
A
0
.
0
A
0
.
4
A
30
0
2
0
3
9
00
0
00
00
0
00
WB
1
5
3
4
1
4
3
6
0
0
.
8
A
1
.
3
A
0
.
1
A
1
.
3
A
1
.
6
A
3
0
0
2
0
2
4
00
0
00
00
0
00
NB
1
8
0
4
2
2
8
.
0
A
0.0
0
2.0
A
6
.
8
A
0
00
00
34
7
2
0
2
8
00
0
00
SB
1
0
0
91
1
0
1
8
.
4
A
0.0
0
4.5
A
4
.
9
A
0
00
00
61
2
3
1
7
1
00
0
00
TH
3
1
6
a
t
N
e
w
A
c
c
e
s
s
EB
9
2
5
5
0
26
4
1
.
7
A
0
.
2
A
0.0
0
0.2
A
0
00
00
24
8
2
0
3
1
00
0
00
WB
0
33
4
1
3
3
5
0.
0
0
0.3
A
0
.
0
A
0
.
3
A
0
.
4
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
NB
00
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0.0
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
SB
3
0
26
2
9
7
.
4
A
0.0
0
2.8
A
3.3
A
0
00
00
53
6
2
0
2
9
00
0
00
TH
3
1
6
a
t
T
u
t
t
l
e
D
r
i
v
e
EB
1
3
0
6
0
1
4
2
7
7
3
7
.
2
A
1
0
.
0
B
7
.
4
A
9
.
4
A
0
00
00
81
5
2
0
1
5
3
00
0
00
WB
0
51
4
1
3
5
2
7
0.
0
0
8.5
A
5
.
2
A
8
.
4
A
8
.
5
A
0
00
00
11
0
8
3
7
1
1
3
00
0
00
NB
4
4
2
2
4
8
5
.
1
A
4
.
8
A
4
.
3
A
5
.
1
A
0
00
00
39
4
2
0
6
1
00
0
00
SB
6
3
1
0
9
1
1
8
4
.
8
A
5
.
3
A
4
.
0
A
4
.
1
A
0
00
00
48
3
2
4
6
5
00
0
00
TH
3
1
6
a
t
M
i
c
h
a
e
l
A
v
e
EB
9
0
5
0
3
1
3
6
0
6
2
.
6
A
0
.
5
A
0
.
0
A
0
.
8
A
30
0
2
0
5
4
00
0
00
00
0
00
WB
1
8
4
3
8
1
0
4
6
6
1
.
8
A
1
.
4
A
0
.
1
A
1
.
4
A
1
.
5
A
3
0
0
2
0
2
7
00
0
00
00
0
00
NB
1
4
0
26
4
0
1
2
.
7
B
0.0
0
4.6
A
7
.
3
A
0
00
00
34
7
2
0
4
1
00
0
00
SB
7
0
67
7
4
1
5
.
5
C
0.0
0
4.4
A
5
.
5
A
0
00
00
61
2
2
5
5
1
00
0
00
TH
3
1
6
a
t
N
e
w
A
c
c
e
s
s
EB
3
0
5
0
6
0
53
6
1
.
9
A
0
.
7
A
0.0
0
0.8
A
0
00
00
24
8
2
0
6
2
00
0
00
WB
0
44
9
3
4
5
2
0.
0
0
0.4
A
0
.
0
A
0
.
4
A
0
.
7
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
NB
00
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0.0
A
0
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
SB
2
0
17
19
9
.
7
A
0.0
0
3.4
A
4
.
4
A
0
00
00
53
6
2
0
2
9
00
0
00
NO
T
E
S
1.
I
f
t
h
e
r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
q
u
e
u
e
i
s
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
z
e
r
o
(
0
)
,
b
u
t
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
2
0
f
t
,
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
o
f
2
0
f
t
i
s
r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
.
2.
B
l
o
c
k
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
i
s
p
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
t
i
m
e
(
1
h
o
u
r
)
t
h
e
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
l
a
n
e
o
r
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
l
a
n
e
i
s
b
l
o
c
k
e
d
o
r
b
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
.
3.
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
l
a
n
e
s
o
f
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
l
e
n
g
t
h
a
r
e
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
d
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
t
o
s
h
o
w
t
h
e
"
E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
L
e
n
g
t
h
"
p
e
r
l
a
n
e
.
A
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
Q
u
e
i
n
g
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
e
e
t
)
Right Turn Lane
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
De
m
a
n
d
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
De
l
a
y
(
s
/
v
e
h
)
LO
S
B
y
Ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
LO
S
B
y
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Le
f
t
T
u
r
n
L
a
n
e
Th
r
o
u
g
h
L
a
n
e
(
s
)
X-C-01
X-C-01