HomeMy WebLinkAbout20250730 EB Combined PacketMeeting guidelines on reverse side.
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD AGENDA
Wednesday, July 30, 2025
Broadcast on Cable TV Channel 16
and northmetrotv.com/lino-lakes-stream
ADVISORY BOARD MEETING, 6:30 P.M.
Council Chambers (televised)
1. Call to Order and Roll Call
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Public Comment (sign-in prior to start of meeting per Rules of Decorum)
4. Setting the Agenda: Addition or Deletion of Agenda Items
5. Approval of Minutes: June 25, 2025
6. Action Items
A. Lino Lakes Main Street Final AUAR
B. Storm Water Pond Pilot Program
7. Discussion Items
A. Recycling Updates
ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF LINO LAKES
ADVISORY BOARD MEETING GUIDELINES
Advisory boards are fact-finding bodies established to aid the City Council in specific areas. The
decisions of any board are considered advisory only and all final decisions rest with the City Council.
Board meetings shall operate in accordance with the procedures established by the City Council.
The following meeting guidelines are derived from the City Council Rules of Decorum.
Members of the Audience – No person in the audience shall engage in disorderly or disruptive
conduct such as audible commentary during a meeting, hand clapping, stamping of feet, whistling,
using profane language, yelling and similar demonstrations, which conduct disturbs the peace and
good order of the meeting.
Public Comment– Comments from the public will be accepted on any matter, whether on the
agenda or not. Comments will not be accepted during specific agenda items unless a Public Hearing
has been noticed. Please remember to be courteous and respectful and abide by the following
guidelines:
• Sign-in prior to the start of the meeting
• Step up to the microphone when recognized by the Presiding Officer (Chair or Vice-Chair)
• State your name and address for the record
• State the subject to be discussed
• Limit comments to 4 minutes
• Address comments to the board as a whole, not any specific member
• No question may be asked of a board member or staff member without the permission of
the Presiding Officer (Chair or Vice-Chair)
• Elect a spokesperson for a group of persons who wish to address the board on the same
subject
Public Hearing – A public hearing is a separate item of business on the agenda. It gives the public
an opportunity to comment on the topic identified. Please remember to be courteous and
respectful and abide by the guidelines outlined for public comment (although no sign-in required).
Typically, a public hearing proceeds as follows:
1. The Presiding Officer (Chair or Vice-Chair) will announce the agenda item and staff will
present their report.
2. Board members have the opportunity to ask staff questions about the item.
3. The Presiding Officer (Chair or Vice-Chair) opens the public hearing and will recognize those
who want to speak.
4. The Presiding Officer (Chair or Vice-Chair) shall close the public hearing.
5. The Board will then discuss the item. No further public comments are allowed.
6. The Board will make a recommendation and/or decision.
After a motion has been made or a public hearing has been closed, no member of the public shall
address the board from the audience on the matter under consideration. The Presiding Officer
(Chair or Vice-Chair) shall maintain strict order and etiquette at all meetings.
Environmental Board
June 25, 2025
Page 1
CITY OF LINO LAKES
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Vice Chair Holmes called the Environmental meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. on June 25,
2025.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. PUBLIC COMMENT (sign in prior to start of meeting per Rules of Decorum)
Vice Chair Holmes declared open mike at 6:31 p.m.
There was no one present for open mike therefore it was closed at 6:31 p.m.
4. SETTING THE AGENDA: Addition or Deletion of Agenda Items
Ms. Holmes made a motion to approve the June 25, 2025 agenda. Motion carried 5 – 0.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 24, 2024
Ms. Buchmeier made a motion to approve the May 28, 2025 minutes. Ms. Nelson
seconded. Motion carried 5 – 0.
6. ACTION ITEMS
A. I35E AUAR 2025 Update
DATE: June 25, 2025
TIME STARTED: 6:30 p.m.
TIME ENDED: 7:44 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Shawn Holmes, Julia Nelson, Elizabeth Larkin
Lindsay Buchmeier, Jonathan Parsons
MEMBERS ABSENT: Alex Schwartz, Mary Jo Stevenson
STAFF PRESENT: Tom Hoffman, Marissa Ertel
Environmental Board
June 25, 2025
Page 2
DRAFT MINUTES
The I-35E Corridor Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) is an environmental
review document that analyzed potential impacts of development within a study area of
4,660 acres. The final document was originally adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council
on October 24, 2005. The AUAR serves as a substitute environmental review. As long as
a development project is consistent with the assumptions of the analyses in the AUAR,
no additional environmental review is required. A key component of the AUAR is the
mitigation plan that addresses cumulative impacts of development as the corridor
develops.
Alison Harwood, WSB, presented the I35E AUAR presentation and was available for
questions.
Ms. Nelson had questions regarding the fluidity of AUAR documents. Ms. Nelson wanted
to know whether the AUAR would be changed if a developer wanted to come in and
build something outside of the existing AUAR. Ms. Harwood told the Board that the
developer would either complete their own environmental study or the AUAR would
need to be amended, with both having to go before City Council.
Ms. Buchmeier wanted to know when the AUAR would no longer be reviewed. Ms.
Harwood stated it would be once the area of the development is completed.
Ms. Buchmeier made a motion to adopt the I35E AUAR. Ms. Holmes seconded. Motion
carried 5 – 0.
B. Peltier Ponds Preliminary Plat
The applicant, Lennar, is proposing a master planned development located on the West
side of 20th Ave N (CSAH 54) just across from Watermark, East of Peltier Lake Drive, and
North of the Centerville border. The development contains approximately 125.02 gross
acres, 64.32 developable and consists of mix of residential housing. The proposed
development is called Peltier Ponds.
Ms. Holmes had questions about two of the outlots on site and whether they would
would be residential lots. Mr. Hoffman stated that they would most likely remain
outlots.
Mr. Parsons had questions about who would be responsible for the mowed park path.
Mr. Hoffman stated that staff recommend that an HOA be responsible for that area.
Ms. Larkin had questions about the timeline for the parks. Mr. Hoffman stated there
would be three to five phases. Mr. Hoffman stated that the parks would most likely be
completed around the same time the houses are completed.
Environmental Board
June 25, 2025
Page 3
DRAFT MINUTES
Mr. Parsons asked who is currently responsible for the road that is along the lake. Mr.
Hoffman stated that the road is owned by the City, but the space between the road and
the lake is owned by the water supply company.
Ms. Nelson had questions about whether the development will be required to reuse
storm water. Mr. Hoffman stated that the City is requiring all developers to reuse water
for irrigation purposes. Ms. Nelson had questions about when the lake would be
considered “pristine”. Mr. Hoffman stated that with development it would be more
likely the water quality would go up.
Ms. Larkin had questions about the blockage of sediment that would potentially go into
Peltier Lake. Mr. Hoffman stated there would be mitigation outreach and that
stormwater would be treated before being discharged. Ms. Larkin wanted to know if the
City provides materials to the developer to give to new residents. Mr. Hoffman stated
that the City does send out packets to new homeowners that include this information.
Ms. Holmes had concerns about the lots that are along Peltier Lake. Ms. Holmes wanted
to recommend that the developer would wait to develop the lots closer to the lake. Mr.
Hoffman reminded the board that the since there will be no road in that area and would
provide a buffer.
Ms. Holmes made a motion to approve the recommendations by staff. Ms. Buchmeier
seconded. Motion carried 5 – 0.
7. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Recycling Updates
8. ADJOURN
Ms. Holmes made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:44 p.m.
Motion was seconded by Ms. Nelson.
Motion carried 5 – 0.
Respectfully submitted,
Marissa Ertel – Community Development Administrative Assistant
1
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD
AGENDA ITEM 6A
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Tom Hoffman, Environmental Coordinator
MEETING DATE: July 30, 2025
TOPIC: Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR), Lino Lakes Main
Street Final AUAR
______________________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND
In September of 2024, the City Council approved a professional services contract with Kimley
Horn to prepare a master plan and complete an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR).
The study area includes 980 acres of the northwest portion of Lino Lakes. The process has
included multiple community outreach opportunities, involvement of study area stakeholders
and review by the City advisory boards and City Council.
Three development scenarios originally emerged, one being the existing 2040 Comprehensive
Plan. Each scenario maintained essentially the same residential unit count with a mix of land
use types but provided for different design alternatives. Through the design process scenarios
2 and 3 merged into Scenario 2.1, which establishes a gateway into the City at the border with
Blaine. Scenario 1 and Scenario 2.1 are proposed to be carried through the environmental
review process.
Resolution No. 25-51 authorized the preparation of the draft AUAR document. The
development scenarios were analyzed for potential environmental impacts. A mitigation plan
was created to address the environmental impacts.
The draft AUAR became available for public comment on May 27th and closed on June 26, 2025.
Five comment letters were received from government agencies and 12 comment letters were
received from the public. Responses to those comments are included in the AUAR and copies
of the comment letters can be found in Appendix F.
Staff has completed the review process for the Final AUAR and is currently within the 10-day
objection period.
RECOMMENDATION
Approving Lino Lakes Main Street Final AUAR and Recommending Council Approval
2
ATTACHMENTS
1. Final AUAR
Lino Lakes Main Street
Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR)
July 2025
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR i July 2025
Table of Contents
1. Project Title ...................................................................................................................................... 3 2. Proposer........................................................................................................................................... 3 3. RGU ................................................................................................................................................. 3
4. Reason for EAW Preparation .......................................................................................................... 3 5. Project Location ............................................................................................................................... 4 6. Project Description ........................................................................................................................... 7 7. Climate Adaptation and Resilience................................................................................................ 11 8. Cover Types ................................................................................................................................... 17 9. Permits and Approvals Required ................................................................................................... 20 10. Land Use ........................................................................................................................................ 22 11. Geology, Soils, and Topography/Landforms ................................................................................. 31 12. Water Resources ........................................................................................................................... 35 13. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes ................................................................................ 52 14. Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources (Rare Features) ........... 56 15. Historic Properties.......................................................................................................................... 67 16. Visual ............................................................................................................................................. 67
17. Air ................................................................................................................................................... 67 18. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions/Carbon Footprint .................................................................. 69 19. Noise .............................................................................................................................................. 71 20. Transportation ................................................................................................................................ 72 21. Cumulative Potential Effects .......................................................................................................... 78 22. Other Potential Environmental Effects........................................................................................... 78 Mitigation Plan ...................................................................................................................................... 79
List of Tables
Table 1: Development Scenarios ........................................................................................................... 8 Table 2: Climate Considerations and Adaptations .............................................................................. 14 Table 3: Cover Types ........................................................................................................................... 18 Table 4: Trees ...................................................................................................................................... 18 Table 5: Permits and Approvals Required ........................................................................................... 20
Table 6: Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan Designations within the AUAR Study Area ............. 24 Table 7: Soil Types .............................................................................................................................. 33 Table 8: Projected Wastewater Demands ........................................................................................... 42 Table 9: Project Water Demands ......................................................................................................... 50 Table 10: MPCA “What’s in My Neighborhood?” Sites ....................................................................... 52 Table 11: Construction Emissions ....................................................................................................... 70 Table 12: Operational Emissions ......................................................................................................... 70 Table 13: Trip Generation Forecasts ................................................................................................... 73 Table 14: Intersection LOS .................................................................................................................. 74 Table 15: Mitigation Plan ..................................................................................................................... 79
List of Figures
Figure 1: USGS Map .............................................................................................................................. 5 Figure 2: AUAR Study Area ................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 3: Scenario 1 ............................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 4: Scenario 2 ............................................................................................................................. 10 Figure 5: NCEI County Time Series - Average Temperature Trends for Anoka County .................... 11
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR ii July 2025
Figure 6: NCEI County Time Series - Average Precipitation Trends for Anoka County ..................... 12 Figure 7: Existing Cover Types ............................................................................................................ 19
Figure 8: Existing Land Use ................................................................................................................. 23 Figure 9: 2040 Land Use ..................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 10: Existing Zoning ................................................................................................................... 27 Figure 11: FEMA 100-year Floodplain ................................................................................................. 29 Figure 12: Soil Types ........................................................................................................................... 34 Figure 13: Surface Water Resources Within the Study Area .............................................................. 37 Figure 14: Surface Water Resources Within 1 Mile of AUAR Study Area .......................................... 38 Figure 15: Minnesota Well Index ......................................................................................................... 40 Figure 16: Full Build – Sewer Infrastructure ........................................................................................ 43 Figure 17: Cross Section View of Drainage and Conservation Framework ........................................ 49 Figure 18: MPCA Sites ........................................................................................................................ 54 Figure 19: Native Plant Communities, Sites of Biodiversity Significance, and Regionally Significant Ecological Areas .................................................................................................................................. 66
Figure 20: Traffic Study Intersections .................................................................................................. 77
List of Appendices
Appendix A: List of Tax Parcels within Study Area
Appendix B: Agency Correspondence
Appendix C: Greenhouse Gas Analysis
Appendix D: Traffic Study
Appendix E: Comment Responses
Appendix F: Comments
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 3 July 2025
Alternative Urban Areawide Review
This Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) follows the format of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) (December 2022 version). Where the AUAR guidance provided by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) indicates that an AUAR response should differ
notably from what is required for an EAW, the guidance is noted in italics.
1. Project Title
Lino Lakes Main Street AUAR
2. Proposer
Proposer: City of Lino Lakes Contact Person: Michael Grochala Title: Community Development Director Address: 600 Town Center Pkwy City, State, ZIP: Lino Lakes, MN 55014-1182 Phone: 651-982-2427 Email: mgrochala@linolakes.us
3. RGU
RGU: City of Lino Lakes Contact Person: Michael Grochala Title: Community Development Director Address: 600 Town Center Pkwy City, State, ZIP: Lino Lakes, MN 55014-1182 Phone: 651-982-2427 Email: mgrochala@linolakes.us
4. Reason for EAW Preparation
AUAR Guidance: Not applicable to an AUAR.
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 4 July 2025
5. Project Location
County: Anoka City/Township: Lino Lakes PLS Location (¼, ¼, Section, Township, Range): Section 6 and 7, Township 31N, Range 22W Watershed (81 major watershed scale): Mississippi River – Twin Cities GPS Coordinates: Approximately 45.196527, -93.132409 Tax Parcel Number: See Appendix A for full list. At a minimum, attach each of the following to the AUAR:
• US Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (see Figure 1)
• Map depicting the boundaries of the AUAR and any subdistricts used in the AUAR analysis (see Figure 2)
• 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)
• Cover types map as required for Item 8 (see Figure 7)
• Land use and planning and zoning maps as required in conjunction with Item 10 (see Figure 8, Figure 9, and Figure 10)
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 5 July 2025
Figure 1: USGS Map
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 6 July 2025
Figure 2: AUAR Study Area
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 7 July 2025
6. Project Description
AUAR Guidance: Instead of the information called for on the EAW form, the description section of an AUAR should include the following elements for each major development scenario included:
• Anticipated types and intensity (density) of residential and commercial/warehouse/light industrial development throughout the AUAR area
• Infrastructure planned to serve development (roads, sewers, water, stormwater system, etc.).
Roadways intended primarily to serve as adjoining land uses within an AUAR area are normally
expected to be reviewed as part of an AUAR. More “arterial” types of roadways that would cross an AUAR area are an optional inclusion in the AUAR analysis; if they are included, a more intensive level of review, generally including an analysis of alternative routes, is necessary.
• Information about the anticipated staging of various developments, to the extent known, and of the infrastructure, and how the infrastructure staging will influence the development schedule
The AUAR study area encompasses 316 tax parcels on approximately 962 acres in the city of Lino Lakes, Anoka County, Minnesota. The study area is bound by Pine Street NE to the north, Sunset Avenue (CSAH 53) to the west, Century Trail and Carl Street to the south, and 4th Avenue to the east. Main Street (CSAH 14) is an east-west road that bisects the study area. The surrounding area generally consists of private residences ranging from medium-density housing to farmsteads. The study area is currently used for residential and agricultural (sod) purposes.
Development Scenarios Two development scenarios evaluated in this AUAR are defined in Table 1 and shown on Figure 3 and Figure 4. Development within the study area may start as early as Spring 2026 and will be constructed over multiple phases over the next 30+ years, depending on market conditions.
The intent of the AUAR is to recognize the potential impacts of the maximum build-out and identify mitigation measures that may be taken to compensate for those impacts. Redevelopment of the study area would include new infrastructure, including streets, water service, sewer systems, stormwater infrastructure, and utilities. All of these new services would be extensions to existing infrastructure or upgrades to existing systems to support the new land development.
Scenario 1 Scenario 1 (Figure 3) is the city’s existing 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Scenario 1 focuses on higher-density and commercial development along both sides of Main Street, with lower-density residential development to the north and south. Medium-density housing would bridge the space between the high-density areas and the low-density areas.
Scenario 2 Scenario 2 (Figure 4) centralizes higher- and medium-density housing and commercial development near the Lino Lakes/Blaine border around the Main Street and Sunset Avenue, with low-density prioritized on the eastern side of the study area, backing up to existing Lino Lakes housing.
Proposed Infrastructure Roadway Network In both scenarios, a proposed collector road would serve as a north-south connection from Robinson Drive to Main Street and continue north to Pine Street. Another collector road is anticipated to be built to provide an east-west connection from Robinson Drive to 4th Avenue. Additional neighborhood road connections are expected to be built to link future developments to these main roads. See Item 20: Transportation for more analysis on the impact the proposed development will have on the existing transportation system.
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 8 July 2025
Parks and Trails A portion of the study area for both scenarios is anticipated to be used for city park use, as well
as several greenway systems, which allow for a natural resource enhancement/conservation area. The area's development will feature the construction of a segment of the Bunker-Chain of Lakes Regional Trail along Main Street. Upon completion, the trail will span three cities, extend 14.5 miles, and connect to a wider regional trail system. Both scenarios also propose a network of trails throughout the future development, totaling approximately 41,500 linear feet (LF) of asphalt trail and 5,200 LF of regional trail.
Utilities For both Scenarios, the City’s existing water and sanitary sewer collection system will need to be extended to serve the new development. Stormwater management facilities will also need to be expanded. See Item 12: Water Resources for further analysis of existing and proposed systems.
Development Staging According to the City's Utility Staging Plan, development near the study area will advance from south to north, depending on the locations of existing utilities. In Scenario 2, changes in
development staging can be expected due to its variation from the comprehensive plan outlined in Scenario 1. Additionally, changes may arise from factors such as land ownership patterns, market conditions, and other influences.
Table 1: Development Scenarios
Component Scenario 1 (Current Comprehensive Plan) Scenario 2 (Preferred Development Scenario)
Low Density Residential 1,600 units 1,500 units
Medium Density Residential 600 units 900 units
High Density Residential 1,200 units 1,100 units
Commercial 60,000 square feet 62,000 square feet
Total Project Area 962 acres 962 acres
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 9 July 2025
Figure 3: Scenario 1
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 10 July 2025
Figure 4: Scenario 2
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 11 July 2025
7. Climate Adaptation and Resilience
a. Describe the climate trends in the general location of the project (see guidance: Climate Adaptation and Resilience) and how climate change is anticipated to affect that location during the life of the project. Trends in temperature, precipitation, flood risk, and cooling degree days are described below for the general project location. Some of these climate predictions use specific scenarios called SSPs (Shared Socioeconomic Pathways) or RCPs (Representative Concentration Pathways) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. SSP 245 and RCP 4.5 are intermediate scenarios where emissions peak around 2040 and then decrease. SSP 370 and RCP 8.5 are high-emissions scenarios where emissions continue to rise through the century.1 In an intermediate scenario, greenhouse gas emissions stabilize, whereas in a high emissions scenario, they continue to increase significantly.2
Temperature According to the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), the historical
average temperature in Anoka County between 2004 and 2024 was approximately 45.15°F, with the lowest average in 2014 (40.5°F) and the highest average in 2024 (48.8°F), as shown in Figure 5.3 According to the Minnesota Climate Mapping and Analysis Tool, the annual daily average temperature in the study area is projected to increase to 49.2°F from 2040 to 2059 under an intermediate emissions pathway (SSP 245).In 2080-2099, the annual daily average temperature is projected to further increase to 52.2°F and 54.4°F under an
intermediate (SSP 245) and high emissions pathway (SSP 370), respectively.4
Figure 5: NCEI County Time Series - Average Temperature Trends for Anoka County
Urban Heat Island Surfaces and structures such as roads, parking lots, and buildings absorb and re-emit more heat from the sun than natural landscapes. This can significantly raise air temperature and
1 Climate Explorer Metadata. Available at https://climate.umn.edu/dnrs-climate-explorer-tool-cmip5 2 Climate Explorer Metadata. Available at https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/climate/climate-explorer-metadata.html.
3 National Centers for Environmental Information, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. County Time Series. Available at: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/county/time-series. 4 Minnesota CliMAT. University of Minnesota. Available at https://app.climate.umn.edu/?output_type=modelVal&scenario=ssp370_2080-2099&model=ensemble&variable=tmax-degF&time_frame=yearly&aoi=none#intro_pane
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 12 July 2025
overall extreme heat vulnerability in urban areas where there are dense concentrations of these surfaces. This is referred to as urban heat island effect.
Extreme heat vulnerability means how likely people or communities are to suffer from health problems due to extreme heat. The Metropolitan Council’s Extreme Heat Map Tool shows land surface temperature for the Twin Cities region with green representing areas of low land surface temperature, yellow representing medium temperature, and red representing high temperature. According to the map, the AUAR study area is located in an area of medium heat vulnerability.5
Precipitation According to the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEIS), historic average annual precipitation in Anoka County between 2004 and 2024 was approximately 30.49 inches, with the lowest average in 2022 (20.97 inches) and the highest average in 2020 (37.6 inches), as shown in Figure 6. Average annual precipitation under an immediate emissions pathway (SSP 245) in Anoka County from 2040-2059 is projected to be 34.4 inches. From 2080-2099, average annual precipitation is projected to be 33.3 inches and
33.4 under RCP 4.5 and 35.70 under an intermediate (SSP 245) and high emissions pathway (SSP 370), respectively.6
Figure 6: NCEI County Time Series - Average Precipitation Trends for Anoka County
Flood Risk The study area has mapped floodplain from both FEMA and Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD). The FEMA floodplain is delineated as Special Flood Hazard Zone A. Zone A is determined through approximate methods and does not have a base flood elevation associated with the delineation. The 100-year floodplain is delineated based on the area that has a 1% chance or greater of inundation from a flooding source in any given year. According to RCWD, the majority of the 100-year floodplain within the study area is one foot in depth or less outside of the ditch systems. Both FEMA and RCWD floodplain areas require permitting approvals prior to impacts or construction within the floodplain.
5 Extreme Heat Map Tool. Metropolitan Council. Available at https://metrocouncil.org/Communities/Planning/Local-Planning-Assistance/CVA/Tools-Resources.aspx 6 Minnesota CliMAT. University of Minnesota. Available at https://app.climate.umn.edu/?output_type=modelVal&scenario=ssp370_2080-2099&model=ensemble&variable=tmax-degF&time_frame=yearly&aoi=none#intro_pane
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 13 July 2025
Additionally, the Metropolitan Council’s Localized Flood Map Screening Tool7 identifies localized flood hazards, referred to as Bluespots, which are broken into risk categories based
on potential flood water depth. This tool is meant to show potential localized flood risk areas during short-term, extreme rain events. The tool shows several Primary, Secondary, Tertiary, and Shallow Bluespots mapped throughout the study area with maximum depths ranging from 0.37 feet to 8.92 feet. Primary Bluespots are the first areas to fill with water and are generally considered higher risk, while Secondary Bluespots are separate, isolated low areas generally considered low risk.
All three sources of flood data show a risk of flooding within the study area. Consideration should be taken during the design and review of individual proposed development to verify that appropriate flood mitigation measures are being implemented to protect future development as well as neighboring properties.
Further analysis of flood risks and mitigation is described in Item 12: Water Resources.
Cooling Degree Days As defined by the National Weather Service, degree days are based on the assumption that
when the outside temperature is 65°F, heating or cooling is not needed to be comfortable. Degree days are the difference between the daily temperature mean and 65°F. If the temperature mean is above 65°F, 65 is subtracted from the mean and the result is the cooling degree days. For example, if the mean temperature over a 24-hour period is 70°F, then there have been 5 cooling degree days.8 Cooling degree days are used as a proxy to estimate cooling needs for buildings.
According to Heat Vulnerability in Minnesota, the number of cooling degree days in 2019 for Anoka County was 379. The number of cooling days in 2050 for Anoka County is projected to be 453 and 598 for RCP 4.5 and 8.5, respectively.9
7 Localized Flood Map Screening Tool. Metropolitan Council Available at https://metrocouncil.org/Communities/Planning/Local-Planning-Assistance/CVA/Tools-Resources.aspx. 8 “What Are Heating and Cooling Degree Days.” National Weather Service. Available at https://www.weather.gov/key/climate_heat_cool. 9 Heat Vulnerability in Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Health and the University of Minnesota. Available at https://maps.umn.edu/climatehealthtool/heat_app/.
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 14 July 2025
b. For each resource category in the table below, describe 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 2: Climate Considerations and Adaptations
Resource Category Climate Considerations
Project Information
Climate Change Risks and Vulnerabilities
Adaptations (Scenario 1 and Scenario 2)
Project Design Aspects of building architecture/materials choices and site design may impact urban heat island conditions in the surrounding area, including changing climate zones, temperature trends, and potential for extended heat waves.
In the coming decades, the location of the study area is anticipated to experience:
• Increased annual temperatures
• Increased annual precipitation and more frequent heavy rainfall events
• Increased freeze thaw cycles
• Medium urban heat island effect
• Buildings could be constructed with rooftop-ready infrastructure for solar power generation and green or light colored roofs to reduce cooling needs.
• Building shells could be designed so that they are more energy efficient by reducing the heating and cooling load.
• City ordinance 1007.049 requires that boulevard trees be planted at a rate of one tree per lot for single and two-family properties. 10
• For townhome and multi-family properties, one tree is required for every 70 linear feet of street frontage, according to City zoning ordinance 1007.049.
• Tree trenches may be used to provide additional stormwater capacity.
• New trees and landscaping planted with future development could reduce runoff and mitigate urban heat island effect. City zoning ordinance 1007.049 requires a minimum canopy coverage for commercial parking areas.
• Permeable pavers may be used and would reduce runoff by allowing rain to soak into the ground.
10 Source: City Code 1007.049
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 15 July 2025
Resource Category Climate Considerations
Project Information
Climate Change Risks and Vulnerabilities
Adaptations (Scenario 1 and Scenario 2)
Land Use No 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. A portion of the study area is located in a FEMA flood zone, where there is a 1% annual chance of flooding and a 26% chance of flooding over a 30-year period (FEMA Zone A). More details on flood areas and risks are provided in Items 10: Land Use and 12: Water Resources.
A portion of the proposed development is in an area with a risk of flooding.
• Future design of the study area and associated stormwater
management facilities will be completed to reduce the risk of flooding in the AUAR study area. Buildings will be set at elevations to maintain clearance above 100-year flood elevations. Infiltration areas, such as native landscaping, may be used and would improve water quality
and stormwater runoff in the project vicinity. Stormwater and Floodplain Mitigation items are detailed in Item 12: Water Resources.
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 16 July 2025
Resource Category Climate Considerations
Project Information
Climate Change Risks and Vulnerabilities
Adaptations (Scenario 1 and Scenario 2)
Water Resources Current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated climate change in the general location of the project may influence water resources.
Water resources in the general project area may become warmer, more polluted, and change in volume due to increased temperatures and runoff. There may be more evaporation and water available when it rains leading to an increase in the flood potential. It is projected that there will be more severe storm events with high, intense rain amounts which will require drainage systems to be adequately maintained to accommodate for the increase in water volume.
• Chapter 1011 of City Code requires native buffers around stormwater ponds, wetlands, streams, and ditches, and
infiltration where necessary.11
• Developers will consider native plants and perennials for landscaping and stormwater features to absorb water and reduce the water demand for irrigation.
• Water reuse systems may be implemented to reduce water usage.
• Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be designed to weather a 100-year storm event in accordance with City / Watershed requirements as the property is developed, see Item 12: Water Resources.
• In the event that a greater than 100-year storm event occurs, site layouts and location of proposed BMP should be designed to ensure that emergency stormwater overflow routes will be achievable.
Contamination/ Hazardous Materials/ Wastes
Current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated climate change in the general location of the project may influence the potential environmental effects of generation/use/storage of hazardous waste and materials.
Proposed residential and small-scale commercial development is not anticipated to generate hazardous waste or materials.
Not applicable.
11 Source: Chapter 1011 of City Code: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/linolakes/latest/linolakes_mn/0-0-0-24002
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 17 July 2025
Resource Category Climate Considerations
Project Information
Climate Change Risks and Vulnerabilities
Adaptations (Scenario 1 and Scenario 2)
Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources (Rare Features)
Current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated climate change in the general location of the project may influence the local species and suitable habitat.
Suitable habitat for species may become unsuitable due to land use changes, increased temperature, and increased runoff.
• Native plantings and stormwater BMPs could
provide suitable habitat for small mammals, insects, and bird species.
• Creation of greenways and/or interconnecting wildlife corridors will be incorporated as development plans advance.
8. Cover Types
Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development.
AUAR Guidance: The following information should be provided:
• A cover type map, at least at the scale of a USGS topographic map, depicting:
o Wetlands (identified by Circular 39 type)
o Watercourses (rivers, streams, creeks, ditches)
o Lakes (identify public waters status and shoreland management classification)
o Woodlands (break down by classes where possible)
o Grassland (identify native and old field)
o Cropland
o Current development
• An overlay map showing anticipated development in relation to the cover types. This
map should also depict any “protection areas,” existing or proposed, that will preserve
sensitive cover types. Separate maps for each major development scenario should be
generally provided.
The AUAR study area covers 962 acres of land. Existing and proposed cover types within the study area are shown in Table 3 and Figure 7 and were determined by reviewing aerial photography, National Wetland Inventory data, land cover classification maps. There are several wetlands throughout the study area, primarily in the southwest corner and north central portions of the study area.12 The majority of the existing land use is wooded and used for agricultural (sod farms).
Scenario 1 and 2
Table 3 provides a high level estimate for cover types in both scenarios within the AUAR area. A detailed analysis of impacts on natural and semi-natural land cover types cannot be completed until specific projects are determined; however, a "Conservation Design Framework" will be used 12 Wetland delineations have not been completed as part of this AUAR; therefore, jurisdictional wetland locations and exact wetland boundaries have not been confirmed. Wetland delineations will be required as individual development projects are proposed.
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 18 July 2025
to guide future development. This Framework is focused on conservation of natural plant communities and high quality wildlife habitat. Its use will provide guidance to protect natural plant
community and wildlife conservation in the AUAR area. A summary of the conservation design principles behind the Framework include:
• Protect streams, lakes, and groundwater by purifying, filtering, and infiltrating surface runoff to the maximum extent possible
• Preserve, restore, and enhance existing natural and semi-natural areas and wildlife habitat
• Create wildlife opportunities by restoring and managing wildlife habitat
• Establish wide buffers and connections around and between core and outlier habitats through greenway corridors
See Item 12: Water Resources for more information on the Conservation Design Framework as is relates to stormwater facilities and Figure 17 and Figure 18 for potential locations of the greenway corridors. Additionally, green infrastructure does not currently exist within the study area. Infiltration systems, tree trenches and tree boxes, wetlands, green roofs, and permeable pavements could be constructed as part of future development plans.
Table 3: Cover Types
Cover Type Existing (Acres) Proposed for Scenarios 1 and 2 (Acres)13
Wetlands 89 89
Wooded 155 180
Grassland 13 20 Cropland (horticulture) 525 0
Lawn/Landscaping 43 285 Ditches/Stormwater 76 196
Impervious Surface 61 192
Total 962 acres 962 acres
Table 4: Trees
Trees Percent Number
Percent of Tree Canopy Removed Approximately 50% of the existing tree coverage within the study area. This number assumes most trees around the high-priority wetlands would remain.
N/A
Number of New Trees Planted N/A 4,80014
Removal or damage to existing trees would have to follow tree replacement guidelines as outlined in City Ordinance 1007.049.15
13 Note: Proposed cover types are a high level estimate and could change as development occurs within the study area. 14 This was estimated using City Code Section 1007.049 (3) Canopy Cover, (4) Foundation landscape, (5) Open Areas, (7) Boulevard Trees, and (7)(b) single family and townhome/multi family Boulevard Tree requirements. 15 Source: City Code 1007.049
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 19 July 2025
Figure 7: Existing Cover Types
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 20 July 2025
9. Permits and Approvals Required
AUAR Guidance: A listing of major approvals (including any comprehensive plan amendments and zoning amendments) and public financial assistance and infrastructure likely to be required by the anticipated types of development projects should be given for each major development scenario. This list will help orient reviewers to the framework that will protect environmental resources. The list can also serve as a starting point for the development of the implementation aspects of the mitigation plan to be developed as part of the AUAR.
Table 5: Permits and Approvals Required
Unit of Government Type of Application Status
Federal
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit To be applied for, if applicable
Approved Jurisdictional Determination To be applied for, if applicable
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Incidental Take Permit To be applied for, if applicable
Federal Emergency
Management Agency
Letter of Map Revision To be applied for, if applicable
Conditional Letter of Map Revision To be applied for, if
applicable
Letter of Map Amendment To be applied for, if applicable
State
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Antidegradation Assessment To be submitted, if applicable
Construction Contingency Plan and Response Action Plan approval To be applied for, if applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Stormwater Permit for Construction Activities and General Permit
To be applied for, if applicable
Notice of Intent of Demolition To be applied for, if applicable
Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit To be applied for, if applicable
Section 401 Water Quality Certification To be applied for, if applicable
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
General Permit 97-0005 for Temporary Water Appropriations (need if more than 10,000 gallons per day of water is appropriated)
To be applied for; if applicable
Preliminary Well Construction Assessment To be applied for; if applicable
Water Appropriations Permit To be applied for; if applicable
Public Waters Work Permit To be applied for; if applicable
Minnesota Department of Health
Watermain Plan Review and Extension Approval To be applied for; if applicable
Notification of Asbestos Related Work To be applied for; if
applicable
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 21 July 2025
Unit of Government Type of Application Status
Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit Approval To be applied for, if applicable
Well Location and Construction Approval To be applied for, if applicable
Regional
Anoka County Right-of-Way Permit To be applied for, if applicable
Road Access Permits To be applied for, if applicable
Metropolitan Council
Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit To be applied for, if
applicable
Direct Connection Permit To be applied for, if applicable
Encroachment Permit To be applied for, if applicable Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) Allocation
Adjustment
To be applied for, if
applicable
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review To be applied for, if applicable
Local
Rice Creek Watershed District
Stormwater Management Plan To be applied for, if
applicable
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan To be applied for, if applicable
Floodplain Alteration Permit To be applied for, if applicable Drainage Authority Review and Approval – Mn.
Stat. Section 103E.227 (impoundments &
diversion) and/or Mn. Stat. Section 103E.805
(abandonment proceedings)
To be applied for, if
applicable
Wetland Delineation Boundary Confirmation To be applied for, if applicable
Wetland Conversation Act Replacement Plan Approval To be applied for, if applicable
Regional Conveyance Systems Permit To be applied for, if applicable
Public Drainage Systems Permit To be applied for, if applicable
Appropriation of Public Waters Permit To be applied for, if applicable
City of Lino Lakes
AUAR Approval In process
Building Permit To be applied for, if applicable
Comprehensive Plan Amendment To be applied for, if applicable
Demolition Permit To be applied for, if applicable
Surface Water Management Plan Approval To be applied for, if applicable
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 22 July 2025
Unit of Government Type of Application Status
Erosion Control Plan To be applied for, if applicable
Preliminary/Final Plat To be applied for, if applicable
Right-of-Way Permit To be applied for, if applicable
Rezoning To be applied for, if
applicable
Site and Building Plan Approval To be applied for, if applicable
Sanitary Sewer Connection Permit To be applied for, if applicable
Municipal Water Connection Permit To be applied for, if applicable
Planned Unit Development Preliminary and Final Plan Approval To be applied for, if applicable
Use Permit – Floodplain District To be applied for, if applicable
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, and prime or unique farmlands.
Existing Land Use The study area is located in the northwest corner of Lino Lakes, bordering Blaine to the west and Columbus to the north. The study area consists of 316 parcels that are currently used for agricultural use and low to medium-density housing, mostly located in the southwest corner of the study area and along Pine Street. The 962-acre study area is bounded by Sunset Ave to the west, 4th Ave to the east, Pine Street to the north, and Century Trail and Carl Street to the south. Land uses adjacent to the study area include residential land to the east and south, a small air park/airport to the south, agricultural land and open space to the north, and residential housing and open space to the west. There is one park within the study area and two nearby parks south of the study area.
According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, approximately 134 acres of the study area contain soils that are considered prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance (see Table 6).
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 23 July 2025
Figure 8: Existing Land Use
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 24 July 2025
ii. Planned land use as identified in comprehensive plans (if available) and any other applicable plan for land use, water, or resource management by a local, regional, state, or federal agency.
AUAR Guidance: Water-related land use management districts should be delineated on appropriate maps, and the land use restrictions applicable in those districts should be described. If any variances or deviations from these restrictions within the AUAR area are envisioned, this should be discussed.
2040 Comprehensive Plan The City of Lino Lake’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan was adopted in November 2020 and identifies the study area as low-density residential, medium-density residential, high-density residential, planned residential/commercial, and urban reserve (see Figure 9).16
The plan emphasizes balanced growth, environmental stewardship, and integration of different land uses to enhance the overall living experience in Lino Lakes. A goal defined in the Plan is to “Increase commercial/residential development in appropriate
and designated areas in the City of Lino Lakes.” The City of Blaine’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan identifies the land west of the study area as low-density residential, and the City of Columbus identifies the land north of the study area as rural residential and as a wildlife management area.
The Comprehensive Plan identified two new city parks and trails throughout the study area that are anticipated to be built as development occurs to serve future residential areas.
Table 6: Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan Designations within the AUAR Study Area
Future Land Use Designation Purpose
Low Density Residential
Land guided for residential development with 1.6 to 3 dwelling units per acre. The city's future residential land use will predominantly be low-density residential.
Medium Density Residential Land guided for residential development with 4 to 6 dwelling units per acre.
High Density Residential Land guided for residential development with 6 to
8 units per acre.
Planned Residential / Commercial
Land guided for a mix of residential, retail, and office uses to be incorporated within one building, structure, or development. Residential
development in these areas may include higher-density housing options with densities ranging from 8 to 10 units per acre. This land use district
provides opportunities for limited neighborhood-scale supportive commercial uses that are accessory to residential.
Urban Reserve
Land guided for post-2040 development to
promote orderly and efficient expansion of future urban services and to prevent premature expansion.
16 Source: 2040 Comprehensive Plan, City of Lino Lakes
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 25 July 2025
Figure 9: 2040 Land Use
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 26 July 2025
Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) 2020 Plan The 2020 RCWD Watershed Management Plan outlines goals and strategies to
address watershed challenges. Key focuses include water quality management, flood control, and natural resource preservation. RCWD aims to improve water quality and ensure sustainable water resource management through monitoring programs, watershed modeling, and BMPs. The plan highlights initiatives such as monitoring programs, BMPs, and stormwater management techniques tailored to the watershed's unique challenges.
The 2020 Plan will govern RCWD through 2029, and planning for the next update will begin in 2028.
iii. Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild and scenic rivers, critical area, agricultural preserves, etc.
Existing Zoning The majority of the study area is currently zoned R, Rural. The southwest corner of the study area is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development (see Figure 9). The
purpose of the rural district is to preserve open land for agricultural purposes, maintain open space near urban areas, to help guide the development of urban and rural areas, and to allow urban farms to economically preserve land. The Planned Unit Development zoning grants flexibility from certain zoning regulations in order to achieve public benefits that may not otherwise be obtained under standard zoning regulations. It is further intended that PUDs are to be characterized by central management, integrated planning and architecture, a higher level of urban amenities, preservation of natural open space, and more economically efficient use of land.
Existing zoning in Lino Lakes to the east and south of the study area includes Rural, (R), Light Industrial (LI), General Industrial (GI), General Business (GB), Neighborhood Business (NB), and Public Semi-Public (PSP). Land in Blaine just west of the study area includes Development Flex (DF) and Farm Residence (FB). Zoning to the north of the study area in Columbus and Ham Lake is Rural Residential.
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 27 July 2025
Figure 10: Existing Zoning
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 28 July 2025
Other Designations The study area does not fall within or adjacent to a wild and scenic river, critical area,
agricultural preserve, or shoreland overlay district.
Floodplains within the study area have been identified using the RCWD mapped floodplains and are shown in Figure 11. Most of the study area is mapped as Flood Zone A. Additionally, Flood Zone AE is mapped offsite to the south and west. Rice Creek Watershed District has mapped the area as floodplain in their 2025 floodplain mapping and modeling update. The floodplain areas from FEMA and RCWD generally align in location and extent, with FEMA being slightly larger. Requirements from both agencies must be met for alterations or impacts to the floodplain.
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 29 July 2025
Figure 11: Rice Creek Watershed District Floodplain
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 30 July 2025
iv. If any critical facilities (i.e., facilities necessary for public health and safety, those storing hazardous materials, or those 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 critical facilities are proposed as part of future development within the study area.
b. Discuss the project’s compatibility with nearby land uses, zoning, and plans listed in Item 10a above, concentrating on implications for environmental effects.
AUAR Guidance: The extent of conversion of existing farmlands anticipated in the AUAR
should be described. If any farmland will be preserved by special protection programs, this
should be discussed.
If development of the AUAR will interfere or change the use of any existing designated parks,
recreation areas, or trails, this should be described in the AUAR. The RGU may also want to
discuss under this item any proposed parks, recreation areas, or trails to be developed in
conjunction with development of the AUAR area.
The AUAR must include a statement of certification from the RGU that its comprehensive plan complies with the requirements set out at Minnesota Rules, part 4410.3610, subpart 1. The AUAR document should discuss the proposed AUAR area development in the context of the comprehensive plan. If this has not been done as part of the responses to Items 6, 10, 12, 20, and others, it must be addressed here; a brief synopsis should be presented here if the material has been presented in detail under other items. Necessary amendments to comprehensive plan elements to allow for any of the development scenarios should be noted. If there are any management plans of any other local, state, or federal agencies applicable to the AUAR area, the document must discuss the compatibility of the plan with the various development scenarios studied, with emphasis on any incompatible elements.
Compatibility with Existing Land Use Both scenarios are consistent with existing surrounding land uses, which include residential uses to the south, west, and east. All new development, redevelopment, change in land use, or change in zoning are required to be consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Consistency with 2040 Comprehensive Plan Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 assume the transition of the existing agricultural land to
residential and small-scale commercial land uses over a period of 30+ years. They also both address the full build-out of the area and provide a foundation for future updates to the Comprehensive Plan. Development of either scenario would not impact existing or future designated parks, recreation areas, or trails as described in the comprehensive plan.
The City of Lino Lakes has certified that 2040 Comprehensive Plan complies with the requirements set forth in Minnesota Rules, part 4410.3610, subpart 1.
Existing Zoning The existing R, Rural zoning does not allow for single-family lots of less than 10 acres or medium to high-density residential uses. Both scenarios would require a zoning change to allow for residential and commercial uses.
Rice Creek Watershed District 2020 Plan Both scenarios would be consistent with the goals and strategies identified in the RCWD plan.
c. Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any potential incompatibility as discussed in Item 10b above and any risk potential.
Scenario 1
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 31 July 2025
Scenario 1 is consistent with all rules and regulations pertaining to future land use and would require a rezoning for the areas designated as Rural. An amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan is required to allocate land for urban services beyond the 2030 utility staging area.
Scenario 2
Scenario 2 would require a comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning for the areas designated as Rural.
Scenario 1 and Scenario 2
Future development will be required to meet the stormwater requirements of the surface water management plans of the City of Lino Lakes, Rice Creek Watershed District, and the MPCA NPDES General Permit. Additionally, all construction and development within will follow best management practices regarding stormwater, erosion control, and drainage.
The City will coordinate with the Metropolitan Council to increase the Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) allocations, if needed.
11. Geology, Soils, and Topography/Landforms
d. Geology – Describe the geology underlying the project area and identify and map any susceptible geologic features such as sinkholes, shallow limestone formations, unconfined/shallow aquifers, or karst conditions. Discuss any limitations of these features for the project and any effects the project could have on these features. Identify any project designs or mitigation measures to address effects to geologic features.
AUAR Guidance: A map should be included to show any groundwater hazards identified.
According to the Geologic Atlas of Anoka County (Minnesota Geological Survey, 2016), the AUAR study area is underlain by peat and muck and sand facies.
Bedrock is encountered at varying depths across the AUAR study area, ranging in depth from approximately 101 to 250 feet below ground surface (bgs) across most of the study area. Bedrock is comprised of Cambrian systems including Jordan sandstone and St. Lawrence formation.
No known sinkholes, unconfined/shallow aquifers, or karst conditions were located within the AUAR study area. Additionally, there are no known limitations regarding geology and buildability of the project area.
e. Soils and Topography – Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications and descriptions, including limitations of soils. Describe topography, any special site conditions relating to erosion potential, soil stability, or other soil limitations, such as steep slopes or highly permeable soils. Provide estimated volume and acreage of soil excavation and/or grading. Discuss impacts from project activities (distinguish between construction and operational activities) related to soils and topography. Identify measures during and after project construction to address soil limitations including stabilization, soil corrections, or other measures. Erosion/sedimentation control related to stormwater runoff should be addressed in response to Item 12.b.ii.
AUAR Guidance: The number of acres to be graded and number of cubic yards of soil to be moved need not be given; instead, a general discussion of the likely earthmoving needs for
development of the area should be given, with an emphasis on unusual or problem areas. In
discussing mitigation measures, both the standard requirements of the local ordinances and any special measures that would be added for AUAR purposes should be included. A standard soils map for the area should be included.
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 32 July 2025
According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, the area is comprised of eight different soil types (see Table 6 and Figure 12). The erosion
hazard rating included in Table 6 indicates the hazard of soil loss from off-road areas after disturbance activities that expose the soil surface. Within the study area, the soils are almost entirely mapped as a slight hazard, meaning that erosion is unlikely under ordinary climate conditions. The remaining 0.1% of the study area is mapped as cut and fill land which is not rated for soil erosion hazard.
A previous Geotechnical Evaluation Report was conducted for a portion of the study area in 2021 for another proposed development that did not advance. Soil borings were conducted and noted topsoil in the area was mostly black and brown soils consisting of peat with lesser amounts of clay and silty sand. Topsoil in the area was found to be generally moist in nature. Discovered below the topsoil was a layer generally consisting of sand, with some silt or sand-silt mixtures also recorded. This report only covers a portion of the AUAR study area, south of Main Street to Robinson Drive. It is anticipated that future developers will complete a geotechnical report that would provide recommendations for structural and foundation
design based on the soil types in the study area.
Topography within the study area varies from 892 to 912 feet above mean sea level in elevation. The study area generally drains south via agricultural ditches located throughout the study area.
Scenario 1 and 2
Under Scenarios 1 and 2, grading activities would be designed to preserve the current drainage patterns and protect the sensitive areas. Grading is expected to be done in phases as the individual developments are approved and will need to follow the overall drainage patterns of the area. Building pads will be constructed to meet the floodplain separation criteria and water quality features and will be graded into the terrain throughout the AUAR area. Impacts to sensitive areas and natural features will be taken into account when developing the grading plans for the development and will follow all local, state and federal guidelines for any impacts to these sensitive areas. Floodplain fill will most likely occur on the site, and areas of floodplain mitigation will be developed as part of the grading plans for each development based on their specific impacts. It is unclear on how much fill will be needed for each development until they are specifically refined and approved by the local jurisdictions,
but in general it is anticipated that earthmoving within the study area will consist of developing several water feature areas (i.e. stormwater ponds) and using onsite materials to elevate the building and road areas throughout this area. Some import material may be required for the specific developments and this material will need to meet the standards for clean fill as set by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) for residential and commercial developments.
Where appropriate, slope stabilization will be provided by means of vegetation establishment, erosion control blankets, or other standard methods of erosion and sediment control. The proposed development within the AUAR study area will comply with the City of Lino Lakes erosion and sediment control standards.17
A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction Stormwater Permit (NPDES) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) will be obtained prior to any earthwork or grading activities within the AUAR study area.
To the extent possible, existing soils will be used for future development. Based on the NRCS soil map, the site will likely require typical subgrade preparation.
17 Source: Ordinance: §1007.050 DRAINAGE
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 33 July 2025
Table 7: Soil Types
Map Unit Symbol Soil Type Farmland Classification Erosion Hazard
Hydric
Rating
Hydrologic Soil Group
Acres within Study Area
Percent of Study Area
Cu Cut and fill land Not prime farmland Not rated Non-hydric N/A 1.2 0.1
Iw Isanti fine sandy
loam
Not prime farmland Slight Predominantly
hydric A/D 318.6 32.4
LnA
Lino loamy fine sand, 0 to 4 percent
slopes
Farmland of statewide importance Slight Predominantly non-hydric A/D 35.5 3.6
Ma
Markey muck, occasionally ponded, 0
to 1
percent
slopes
Not prime farmland Slight Hydric Soils A/D 240.3 24.5
Mc Marsh Not prime farmland Slight Hydric A/D 2.4 0.2
Rf Rifle mucky peat
Not prime farmland Slight Hydric A/D 258.3 26.3
SoA
Soderville fine sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes
Farmland of statewide importance Slight Predominantly non-hydric A/D 98.4 10.0
ZmB
Zimmerm
an fine sand, 1 to 6 percent slopes
Not prime
farmland Slight Predominantly non-hydric
A 27.6 2.8
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 34 July 2025
Figure 12: Soil Types
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 35 July 2025
12. Water Resources
AUAR Guidance: The information called for on the EAW form should be supplied for any of the infrastructure associated with the AUAR development scenarios, and for any development expected to physically impact any water resources. Where it is uncertain whether water resources will be impacted depending on the exact design of future development, the AUAR should cover the possible impacts through a “worst case scenario” or else prevent impacts through the provisions of the mitigation plan.
a. Describe surface water and groundwater features on or near the site below.
i. Surface Water – lakes, streams, wetlands, intermittent channels, and county/judicial ditches. Include any special designations such as public waters, shoreland classification and floodplain/floodway, 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.
Kimley-Horn reviewed available background desktop data to identify potential surface water resources within the study area (see Figure 13). According to National Wetland Inventory (NWI)18, 156.4 acres of freshwater emergent, freshwater forested/shrub, and freshwater pond wetlands were identified within the AUAR study area, as well as 17.5 acres of riverine features. The Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) Comprehensive Wetland Protection Management Plan (CWPMP) establishes protections to the Wetland Management Corridors. High priority wetlands establish critical nodes and linkages for what will become the Wetland Management Corridors. Wetland quality was assessed by looking at the function of the wetland habitat, characteristic wetland hydrology and water quality, wetland role in downstream flooding, as well as plant species and community diversity. The
northeastern and southern portions of the study area include wetlands that are designated as high priority status and are shown in Figure 13.Therefore, a Wetland Management Corridor is identified within the study area and development practices must abide by the guidelines identified in Rule F.6. of the CWPMC19. All aquatic resource data is based upon a desktop review and has not been field verified.
The site generally drains through the existing public and private ditch systems which bisect the study area from the northwest to the south, with discharges to the onsite wetlands before flowing offsite to the southeast. The ditches mapped throughout the study area align with mapped National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) flowlines and NWI riverine features. These ditches are generally located between agricultural fields or adjacent to existing roadways and congregate in the southeastern portion of the study area before flowing offsite to the south. The public ditches located onsite are part of the Anoka County Ditch (ACD) system 10-22-32, denoted as the Public
Drainage System on Figure 13. Three unnamed Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) public water wetlands are mapped in the northeast corner of the study area and generally align with NWI mapped wetlands.
Multiple NWI wetlands and riverine features are mapped within one mile of the study area (see Figure 14). These features generally align with offsite high priority wetlands identified by the Lino Lakes Resource Management Plan. Additionally, multiple NHD flowlines and waterbodies are mapped within one mile of the study
18 Source: National Wetland Inventory for Minnesota (2019) 19 Source: Rice Creek Watershed District Comprehensive Wetland Protection Management Plan Rule F.6.
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 36 July 2025
area. A portion of the mapped NWI, NHD, and Lino Lakes High Priority Wetlands are mapped adjacent to the study area and are likely extensions of on-site resources.
A review of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) Part 303d Impaired Waters List within one mile of the study area was conducted. No impaired lakes, wetlands, or streams were identified within the study area or within one mile of the study area. Multiple DNR public waterbodies are mapped within one mile of the study area to the north and southwest. No DNR designated trout streams or public watercourses were located within the study area or within one mile of the study area.
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 37 July 2025
Figure 13: Surface Water Resources Within the Study Area
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 38 July 2025
Figure 14: Surface Water Resources Within 1 Mile of AUAR Study Area
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 39 July 2025
ii. Groundwater – aquifers, springs, and seeps. Include 1) depth to groundwater; 2) if project is within a MDH wellhead protection area; and 3) identification of any onsite and/or nearby wells, including unique numbers and well logs, if available. If there are no wells known on site or nearby, explain the methodology used to determine this.
According to the Minnesota DNR’s Minnesota Hydrogeology Atlas, the depth to water table in the study area is mapped with an elevation of 0-10 feet and the water table elevation is mapped from 860 to 920 feet above sea level.
According to the Minnesota Department of Health’s (MDH’s) Minnesota Well Index, there are 76 wells within 500 feet of the study area. Well depth was recorded from 59 to 278 feet below the surface, see Figure 15.
According to MDH’s Source Water Protection Web Map Viewer, the study area is not located within a wellhead protection area or drinking water supply management area. There are also no aquifers, springs, or seeps within the study area.
Scenario 1 and 2
With future stormwater BMPs, no adverse impacts to groundwater are anticipated as a result of future development projects.
Onsite wells will continue to serve the existing parcels for the foreseeable future. As development occurs, wells located within the AUAR study area would be properly sealed by a licensed well contractor prior to redevelopment within the AUAR study area per Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) well sealing requirements.
If unidentified wells are found, the Department of Health Well division will be notified and determine if the well is in service or not. Wells will be sealed per the MDH well sealing requirements by a licensed well driller.
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 40 July 2025
Figure 15: Minnesota Well Index
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 41 July 2025
b. Describe effects from project activities on water resources and measures to minimize or mitigate the effects below.
iii. Wastewater – For each of the following, describe the sources, quantities, and composition of all sanitary, municipal/domestic, and industrial wastewaters projected or treated at the site.
AUAR Guidance: Observe the following points of guidance in an AUAR:
• Only domestic wastewater should be considered in an AUAR—industrial wastewater would be coming from industrial uses that are excluded from review through an AUAR process
• Wastewater flows should be estimated by land use subareas of the AUAR area; the
basis of flow estimates should be explained
• The major sewer system features should be shown on a map and the expected flows
should be identified
• If not explained under Item 6, the expected staging of the sewer system construction
should be described
• The relationship of the sewer system extension to the RGU’s comprehensive sewer plan
and (for metro area AUARs) to Metropolitan Council regional systems plans, including
MUSA expansions, should be discussed. For non-metro area AUARs, the AUAR must
discuss the capacity of the RGU’s wastewater treatment system compared to the flows
from the AUAR area; any necessary improvements should be described.
• If on-site systems will serve part of the AUAR, the guidance in the February 2000 edition
of the EAW Guidelines on page 16 regarding item 18b under Residential development
should be followed.
1) If the wastewater discharge is to a publicly owned treatment facility, identify any pretreatment measures and the ability of the facility to handle the added water and waste loadings, including any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal wastewater infrastructure.
The existing wastewater infrastructure within the study area includes an existing 12-inch diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) sanitary sewer along Robinson Drive and 15-inch diameter PVC sanitary sewer along Century Trail. A sewer stub extends to the north from the manhole at the intersection of Robinson Drive and Century Trail with an invert of 879.78. There is a sanitary manhole at the north end of Cardinal Way with an invert of 883.18. The sanitary sewer on Cardinal Way is 10-inch diameter PVC. Inverts are according to record plans for the Century Farms North development.
Scenario 1 and 2
The types and amounts of wastewater produced will be typical of residential and commercial uses. The proposed development is expected to generate approximately 502,000 gallons per day (GPD) of wastewater under Scenario 1
and approximately 557,100 GPD under Scenario 2. This volume was estimated using the Metropolitan Council’s Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) tool for the following land uses (see Table 8).
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 42 July 2025
Table 8: Projected Wastewater Demands
Wastewater Demands Scenario 1 Average Daily
Flow (GPD)
Scenario 2 Average Daily
Flow (GPD)
Residential 493,200 548,000
Commercial 8,800 9,100
Total 502,000 557,100
The City’s sanitary sewer collection system will be extended to serve the study area through a combination of 1) gravity sewer extensions from the existing sanitary sewer system, and 2) a new trunk sewer, lift station, and forcemain. All proposed units will be required to connect to the City’s sanitary sewer system.
A new trunk line will need be extended from Met Council Interceptor 8361 located on North Road to the northwest sanitary sewer service sub-district 2J. This is outlined in the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan Figure 8-5 with a forcemain along Sunset Avenue and a lift station north of Main Street. The area would be served by 10-inch and 12-inch trunk lines along Main Street (see Figure 16).
The City’s sanitary sewer district 2 discharges to Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) Meter M211 and Interceptor 8361, and MCES will evaluate necessary improvements to their interceptor system. Wastewater is
then conveyed to the Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant (Metro WWTP). The Metro WWTP has a capacity of 314 million gallons per day (MGD) and receives 180 MGD of flow as of June 2024. The Metro WWTP is expected to have capacity to treat demand from both scenarios. The wastewater from the study area is anticipated to be of typical domestic strength and character, so pretreatment is not necessary.
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 43 July 2025
Figure 16: Full Build – Sewer Infrastructure
Study Area
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 44 July 2025
2) If the wastewater discharge is to a subsurface sewage treatment system (SSTS), describe the system used, the design flow, and suitability of site conditions for such a system. 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.
There are subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS) for the existing properties within the study area. The residential properties within the project area will remain until such time development starts. The SSTS systems will be pumped, collapsed, filled, and abandoned per the MPCA chapter 7080 code, along with any county and city requirements as well.
No subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS) are anticipated within the AUAR study area for either development scenario.
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.
No wastewater discharge to surface waters is anticipated for either development scenario.
c. 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 additional requirements for special and/or impaired waters.
AUAR Guidance: For an AUAR the following additional guidance should be followed in
addition to that in EAW Guidelines:
• It is expected that an AUAR will have a detailed analysis of stormwater issues
• A map of the proposed stormwater management system and of the water bodies that will receive stormwater should be provided
• The description of the stormwater systems would identify on-site and “regional” detention ponding and also indicate whether the various ponds will be new water bodies or converted existing ponds or wetlands. Where on-site ponds will be used but have not yet been designed, the discussion should indicate the design standards that will be followed.
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 45 July 2025
• If present in or adjoining the AUAR area, the following types of water bodies must be
given special analyses:
o Lakes: Within the Twin Cities metro area, a nutrient budget analysis must be
prepared for any “priority lake” identified by the Metropolitan Council. Outside of
the metro area, lakes needing a nutrient budget analysis must be determined by
consultation with the MPCA and DNR staffs.
o Trout streams: If stormwater discharges will enter or affect a trout stream, an evaluation of the impacts on the chemical composition and temperature regime of the stream and the consequent impacts on the trout population (and other species of concern) must be included.
Environmental Effects Stormwater runoff can cause a number of environmental problems. When untreated stormwater drains from man-made locations such as agricultural fields, impervious surfaces, and construction sites, it can carry sediments and/or chemical pollutants that harm aquatic ecosystems and wildlife.
It is assumed that infiltration practices will not be allowed onsite due to the assumed presence of clay and organic soil and high ground water table. Prior to the creation of the extensive ditch system throughout the site, the area was a marsh. In the event infiltration requirements cannot be met on the site, alternate means of runoff abstraction and water quality treatment will need to be reviewed for the site to be in compliance with current watershed, state, and local stormwater management plans. The developments will need to follow the minimal impact design standard guidelines
for alternative design as documented in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual for abstraction such as filtration, irrigation reuse, or other methods to meet the water quality and abstraction requirements.
Existing Conditions In existing conditions, the study area is a mix of sod farm, low-density residential, and forested area. According to the City stormwater database, there are no stormwater management practices in place to treat stormwater runoff outside of the Century Farm Subdivisions in the southwest corner of the study area and a large stormwater quality basin constructed as part of the new roundabout at the intersection of Sunset Avenue and Main Street. The remainder of the study area has numerous ditches, county and privately owned, that were constructed in the mid-1950s. The ditches have been realigned multiple times. Even with the existing ditch system, there is a significant portion of the site (~40-45% by area) that is covered in
FEMA Zone A floodplain. Rice Creek Watershed District completed floodplain modeling and mapping in 2025 that shows similar, albeit less, floodplain areas within the study area.
During Construction During construction, erosion and sediment control BMPs will be implemented to prevent impacts to aquatic ecosystems. The proposed alternatives include proposed impervious surfaces that vary depending on alternative and future design options.
Additionally, the following design/construction standards are to be adhered to during construction:
• Grading of the water quality basins shall be accomplished using low-impact, earthmoving equipment to prevent compaction of the underlying soils.
• Water quality basin excavation shall be held 1 foot above the bottom of the excavation until the contributing drainage areas with exposed soils have been fully stabilized.
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 46 July 2025
• Divert upland drainage areas to prevent runoff from entering the excavated basins or into the work areas.
• Installation with dry soil conditions is critical to prevent smearing and compaction. Schedule work for periods of dry weather.
• In the event that the sediment is introduced into the BMP during or immediately following excavation, remove sediment prior to initiating the next step in the water quality basin construction process.
• Temporary erosion protection or permanent cover over exposed soil shall be initiated immediately and completed no later than seven days after an area is no longer being worked.
• Realignment of the Anoka County Ditch (ACD) system 10-22-32 and private ditches may be required as development occurs to meet future drainage requirements and allow for efficient development of the study area.
After Construction The proposed future development within the AUAR study area will require compliance with the stormwater rules and standards of the City of Lino Lakes, the Rice Creek Watershed District, and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Permit for water quality, volume control, rate control, floodplain management, erosion control, and maintenance/monitoring.
As required by Chapter 1011 of the City of Lino Lakes code of ordinances, development projects within the AUAR study area will be required to provide stormwater BMPs to manage the rate, quantity, and quality of the stormwater runoff.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Permit requires treatment of 1-inch of runoff for the new impervious area since more than one acre of disturbance will occur. Additionally, the post-development discharge rates shall be less than or equal to the existing runoff rates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year, 24-hour rainfall events, as required by the Rice Creek Watershed District.
RCWD Rule C: Stormwater Management requires that proposed developments will provide 1.1 inch of volume reduction over the proposed impervious surface coverage for the development through a combination of infiltration/filtration/reuse BMPs. The treatment volume is reduced by a total phosphorus removal factor based on BMP type as stated in Table C1 of the Rice Creek Watershed Rules (effective 1/1/2025).
Additionally, RCWD requires public linear projects to provide treatment for the greater of 1.0 inches over the new impervious or 0.5 inches over the new and reconstructed impervious surface. There is no total phosphorus removal factor for
public linear projects. Treatment is currently planned to be provided through a
distributed approach across the project area. Local water quality basins will be
installed along with each proposed development followed by larger detention areas,
as needed, to provide rate control for multiple proposed developments as well as
provide compensatory storage for floodplain mitigation. The detention areas then outlet to the greenway corridors to convey stormwater discharge downstream through naturalized areas to the main discharge points in the south-southeastern portions of the study area.
Floodplains The study area includes large areas of FEMA Zone A floodplain and Rice Creek Watershed 100-year floodplain. The areas of floodplain generally align with the FEMA floodplain being more expansive across the project site. The FEMA Zone A floodplain does not have a base flood elevation associated with the mapping
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 47 July 2025
delineations, but the RCWD floodplain data does include base flood elevations. The base flood elevation at a specific property can be requested from RCWD staff. The
proposed scenarios for development of the project site will result in significant realignment of existing ditch systems as well as alternation to the floodplains (FEMA and RCWD).
FEMA delegates the ordinance creation and enforcement to local communities thus the city of Lino Lakes administers the FEMA floodplain and requires the following be met for floodplain alteration:
1. Locations where floodway and flood fringe districts are not delineated on the floodplain maps are considered to fall within the General Floodplain District and the floodway district standards apply.
a. Once a floodway boundary is determined, the flood fringe district standards may apply outside of the floodway.
2. All structures located within the flood fringe district must be elevated on fill so that the lowest floor is at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation.
The full floodplain ordinance can be found in Chapter 1103 of the City of Lino Lakes Code of Ordinances. Any development should review the current applicable floodplain ordinance to verify all design standards are met for the proposed development.
RCWD has additional floodplain impact requirements as stated in Rule E: Floodplain Alteration:
1. Provide compensatory storage volume.
2. Any structure/embankment placed within the floodplain will be capable of passing the 100-year flood without increasing 100-year flood elevation.
3. All structures constructed within the floodplain shall have 2 feet of freeboard to the lowest floor.
4. Drainage/flowage easements are required over stormwater management facilities, stormwater conveyances, ponds, wetlands, on-site floodplain up to the 100-year event, or any other hydrologic feature, only if required by the land use authority.
a. Additionally, open channel systems shall be placed under easement
for the right to the District to maintain the system. A minimum easement width includes the channel and the area on each side of the channel within 20 feet of the top of bank.
Areas that are covered by Rule E are also subject to Rule F: Wetland Alteration, as applicable.
Scenario 1 and 2
The city of Lino Lakes developed a plan to implement greenway corridors as the “backbone” of the stormwater, floodplain, and wetland management system for the study area through a conservation design framework. The greenway corridors are designed to connect the larger and higher quality natural areas. These corridors will provide three main services: 1) stormwater collection and conveyance, 2) ecological corridors for wildlife movement and native plant dispersal, and 3) recreational trails for people. Certain greenway corridors may warrant design for specific wildlife
species, may provide certain stormwater management opportunities, or may need to accommodate different types of trails or passive recreational uses. Design
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 48 July 2025
considerations may include corridor width, appropriate vegetation structure, human access and use, and whether or not it is appropriate for a corridor to cross a
particular type of roadway.
Conservation Design Framework
The City of Lino Lakes expects the current Anoka County ditch system through the area to remain in place in terms of function, but not in terms of location or overall quality. The ditch system can be relocated within a proposed development to facilitate drainage of stormwater runoff, aesthetics, passive recreational facilities, and habitat creation. The realigned ditch system shall meet the following expectations:
1) Easements
a. RCWD requires a 20-foot easement on either side of the county ditch system, measured from the top of the bank, to provide access for maintenance.
b. Lino Lakes proposes an average buffer width of 50-feett on either side of the county ditch system with a minimum of 20 feet, measured from the
top of the bank, to provide space for the greenway corridor creation.
2) Lake/Pond Construction in-line with Ditch
a. In the event that a proposed development will create an in-line lake or pond area in relation to the ditch system, the proposed development is required to provide:
i. RCWD with a 20-foot easement from top of bank along the alignment of the ditch and extend into the pond based on the average width of easement at the entrance and exit location of the ditch into the lake/pond.
ii. The RCWD easement shall be along a bank of the lake/pond, and not through the center of the pond to limit maintenance responsibility on the District.
iii. Water Quality Basins shall be provided prior to discharge of
stormwater runoff into the lake/pond.
iv. City requires establishment of a buffer around a constructed
lake/pond with minimum buffer based on function of the BMP.
1. Buffers may vary around the perimeter of the constructed lake/pond but must meet the minimum and average distances along their edges.
3) Realignment
a. The city of Lino Lakes is in support of realignment of the county ditch system when proposed to be consistent with the goals of the master plan.
i. Realignment must be approved by RCWD through Rule I.
ii. Additional buffer widths may be required through land use and zoning requirements.
See Figure 16 for a cross section view of the easement and buffer requirements.
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 49 July 2025
Figure 17: Cross Section View of Drainage and Conservation Framework
iv. 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.
AUAR Guidance: If the area requires new water supply wells, specific information about that appropriation and its potential impacts on groundwater levels should be given; if groundwater levels would be affected, any impacts resulting on other resources should be addressed.
Dewatering Construction dewatering may be required for the development of the AUAR study area. No permanent dewatering is anticipated as no underground structures will be constructed adjacent to a water body. Construction activities associated with dewatering will include discharging into temporary sedimentation basins to reduce the rate of water discharged from the site, as well as discharging to temporary stormwater BMPs. Any temporary dewatering will require a DNR Temporary Water Appropriations General Permit 1997-0005 if 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 50 July 2025
gallons per year are withdrawn. It is anticipated that the temporary dewatering would only occur during utility installation and potential construction of building foundations.
Estimated Water Supply Existing water infrastructure within the study area includes a 12-inch diameter ductile iron pipe (DIP) watermain along Robinson Drive and Century Trail south of the site and 8-inch DIP watermain on Carl Street (west cul-de-sac). There is a 10-inch DIP water stub for the Robinson Property off of Cardinal Way and two 12-inch diameter DIP watermain stubs at the intersection of Robinson Drive and Century Trail.
The City’s DNR water appropriation permit currently allows an annual withdrawal volume of 900 million gallons per year (MGY). The City’s existing annual demand plus the projected annual demand for the study area will exceed this volume. Therefore, the City’s DNR appropriation permit annual withdrawal volume will need to be amended prior to full build out of the study area.
Scenario 1 and 2
The projected water demand for the proposed development scenarios is
approximately 559,800 gallons per day (GPD) for Scenario 1 and approximately 620,100 GPD for Scenario 2 (see Table 9).
Table 9: Project Water Demands
Water Demands Scenario 1 Average Daily Flow (GPD) Scenario 2 Average Daily Flow (GPD)
Residential 550,000 610,000
Commercial 9,800 10,100
Total 559,800 620,100
The City’s current water production capacity will not be sufficient to serve the entire study area. It is anticipated that only a small percentage of the area could be served by the City’s existing system assuming the City’s proposed Well No. 7 is constructed in 2026. The City will need to install new wells, Wells No. 8 and 9, to serve the entirety of the study area and satisfy City-wide water demands. The 2040 Comprehensive Water Plan provides additional details on water demand for the city through the projected 2040 planning period.
It is feasible to extend the watermain to serve future lots. However, the size and
layout of the watermain will have to be determined during preliminary design, and the watermain will need to be looped through the site. At a minimum, the larger 12-inch diameter trunk watermain will need to be looped through the high density residential areas. All proposed units will be required to connect to the City’s water system.
The City is constructing a water treatment plant for manganese removal which will be placed in service in the fall of 2026 and will provide adequate treatment capacity through Well No. 9. The City’s total elevated storage volume is 3.5 million gallons (MG), which is projected to be sufficient for the entire study area.
v. Surface Waters
4) 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
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 51 July 2025
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.
Scenario 1 and 2
As development of the study area begins, wetland impacts will be avoided or minimized to the extent practicable, especially wetlands which are within the Wetland Management Corridor under the City of Lino Lakes Comprehensive Water Management Plan (CWPMP). Future development will comply with all federal, state, and local wetland requirements including wetland mitigation requirements. If it is determined that there are impacts to on-site regulated wetlands, wetland banking credits will be purchased and applicable City of Lino Lakes and/or Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) approvals will be obtained prior to development. If required, on-site wetland replacement will be evaluated as design progresses within
the AUAR study area. If on-site mitigation is not feasible, mitigation will be provided via purchase of credits from an approved wetland bank. The mitigation replacement ratio will be confirmed with RCWD.
Wetlands that will be preserved on site will need to comply with Rice Creek Watershed District’s wetland buffer requirements as outlined in Rule F: Wetland Alteration.
5) 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.
AUAR Guidance: Water surface use need only be addressed if the AUAR area would include or adjoin recreational water bodies.
Scenario 1 and 2
Realignment of the ACD system 10-22-32 is proposed in both scenarios. The result of the realignment of the ACD 10-22-32 must continue to provide sufficient flow capacity to not impact upstream properties in terms of high-water levels during a flood event or impact downstream properties in terms of higher discharge rates and velocities during a flood event. Private ditches may also be rerouted or changed to facilitate the proposed scenarios but any changes must demonstrate no negative impact in terms of high-water level, discharge rate, or velocity in the ACD 10-22-32
system. Rice Creek Watershed district requires a buffer of 20 feet on either side of the creek to complete maintenance and that the buffer be clear of obstructions such as trees and buildings.
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 52 July 2025
No alternations to other surface waters are anticipated as part of the development scenario. The AUAR study area does not contain and is not adjacent to any
recreational water bodies.
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 groundwater contamination, abandoned dumps, closed landfills, existing or abandoned storage tanks, and hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. Discuss any potential environmental effects from pre-project site conditions that would be caused or exacerbated by project construction and operation. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from existing contamination or potential environmental hazards. Include development of a Contingency Plan or Response Action Plan.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) What’s In My Neighborhood (WIMN)
database was reviewed to determine if any known contaminated properties or potential environmental hazards are located within 250 feet of the study area. During this review, nine active sites and one inactive site were found within 250 feet of the study area (see Table 10 and Figure 18).
Table 10: MPCA “What’s in My Neighborhood?” Sites
Site ID Site Name Activity Status Activities Program
16576 A & L Sold Inc. Active
Tank leak site, Petroleum remediation, Minimal quantity hazardous waste generator
Multiple Programs
257812 SP 002-614-049 Active Construction Stormwater Stormwater
18236 Caroll Busch Residence Inactive Tank site leak, Petroleum remediation Investigation and Cleanup
146100 LeVahn Bros Active Hazardous Waste, Minimal quantity generator Hazardous Waste
212682 Century Farm North 6th Addition Active20 Construction stormwater Stormwater
157490 Morell Borrow Pit Active21 Construction Stormwater Stormwater
226150 Century Farm North 7th Active Construction stormwater Stormwater
141380 Anoka County ditch 10-22032 Maintenace Inactive Construction Stormwater Stormwater
107177 Goldade Richard J Inactive UST Tanks
Future developers will need to complete a Phase I/II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prior to construction and coordinate with the MPCA on safe handling and disposal of any contamination and hazardous materials found on the site prior to and during construction. An asbestos and regulated materials (ARM) assessment would need to be completed prior to the demolition of any structures and a demolition notification will be made to the
20 MPCA’s database shows these as active; however, the city is aware these projects did not advance and status should be changed to inactive.
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 53 July 2025
MPCA/Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) if asbestos containing material (ACM) is identified during the ARM assessment. If ACM and/or other regulated solid waste is identified
during the ARM assessment requiring removal, generated solid waste will be disposed of at an MPCA permitted landfill.
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 54 July 2025
Figure 18: MPCA Sites
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 55 July 2025
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.
AUAR Guidance: Generally, only the estimated total quantity of municipal solid waste generated and information about any recycling or source separation programs of the RGU need to be included.
According to Anoka County’s Hazardous Waste Ordinance 2018-7 and Solid Waste Management Ordinance number 2022, Anoka County will ensure compliance with applicable laws, rules, and ordinances related to the management of solid and hazardous waste as required by Minnesota Statutes, section 473.811.
Construction Generated Solid Waste Construction of the proposed development would generate construction-related waste
materials such as wood, packaging, excess materials, and other wastes, which would either be recycled or disposed of in the proper facilities in accordance with City of Lino Lakes Ordinances and state regulations and guidelines.
Redevelopment of portions of the site may generate earth materials and debris during demolition activities. Demolition debris is inert material such as concrete, brick, bituminous, and rock. The solid wastes generated during demolition would be recycled or disposed of at a state-permitted landfill. For solid waste generated from the completed project, a source recycling/separation plan would be implemented, and wastes that cannot be recycled would be managed in accordance with state regulations and guidelines.
Operation Generated Solid Waste Once constructed, future development should only generate municipal solid waste and household hazardous waste.
Scenario 1 and 2
Proposed development will generate new demands on solid waste management and
sanitation services provided in the study area. It is estimated that 4.9 pounds of municipal
solid waste (MSW) will be generated per person per day. An average household occupancy
of 2.62 was applied to the estimated residential units based on 2015-2019 US Census Bureau data. The resulting residential MSW generated per year based upon the number of residences proposed in Scenario 1 is 6,373 tons, and Scenario 2 is 6,560. It is estimated that the non-residential (commercial/industrial) waste stream will be 720 tons and 744 tons per year under Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, respectively.
Under both development scenarios, recycling for buildings in the AUAR study area will be conducted in accordance with the 2016 Recycling Law (Minnesota Statutes, sections 115A.151 and 115A.552).
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 spills or releases of hazardous materials. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from the use/storage of chemicals/hazardous materials including source reduction and recycling. Include development of a spill prevention plan.
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 56 July 2025
AUAR Guidance: Not required for an AUAR. Potential locations of storage tanks associated
with commercial uses in the AUAR should be identified (e.g., gasoline tanks at service
stations).
No underground or above ground storage tanks have been identified for the proposed development scenarios.
a. Project Related Generation/Storage of Hazardous Wastes – Describe hazardous wastes generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from hazardous waste handling, storage, and disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of hazardous wastes including source reduction and recycling.
AUAR Guidance: Not required for an AUAR.
Not required for an AUAR.
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 near the site.
AUAR Guidance: The description of fish and wildlife resources should be related to the habitat types depicted on the cover types map. Any differences in impacts between development scenarios should be highlighted in the discussion.
The majority of the land within the AUAR study area has been previously disturbed through agricultural and private residential development. There are three public water wetlands, one area of Minnesota Biological Survey Site of Biodiversity Significance, and 21 Regionally Significant Ecological Areas (RSEAs) located within one mile of the study area (see Figure 19). There are 21 native plant communities within one mile of the study area. Approximately 155 acres of the site consist of wooded land cover and 89 acres of wetlands. Existing cover types are shown in Figure 7 and Table 3.
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 (LA-1074) 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 results.
AUAR Guidance: For an AUAR, prior consultation with the DNR Division of Ecological Resources for information about reports of rare plant and animal species in the vicinity is required. Include the reference numbers called for on the EAW form in the AUAR and include the DNR’s response letter. If such consultation indicates the need, an on-site habitat survey for rare species in the appropriate portions of the AUAR area is required. Areas of on-
site surveys should be depicted on a map, as should any “protection zones” established as a
result.
Federally Listed Species The IPaC project planning tool provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was used to identify federally-listed threatened, endangered, and special concern species within the study area. The IPaC tool identified five federally-listed species within this area:
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 57 July 2025
• Monarch Butterfly: The monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) is designated as a proposed threatened species by the USFWS in 2024 and is documented within Anoka County. According to the USFWS, there are many potential reasons for the butterfly’s decline, including habitat loss at breeding and overwintering sites, disease, pesticides, logging at overwintering sites, and climate change. Potential suitable habitat for the Monarch Butterfly may be located in the unmanicured portions of the
study area.
• Rusty Patched Bumble Bee: The rusty patched bumble bee (Bombus affinis) was designated as a federal endangered species by the USFWS in February 2017 and is
documented within Anoka County. According to the USFWS, habitat for this species includes grasslands with flowering plants from April through October, underground and abandoned rodent cavities or clumps of grasses above ground as nesting sites,
and undisturbed soil for hibernating queens to overwinter. The majority of the study area is located within a low potential zone for the Rusty Patched Bumble Bee and a section of the southwest corner is located within a high potential zone.21 Potential suitable habitat for the rusty patched bumble bee may be located in the unmanicured portions of the study area.
• Whooping Crane The whooping crane (Grus Americana) is designated as an experimental population, non-essential species by the USFWS in Minnesota in 2001 and is documented in Anoka County. Non-essential experimental populations are treated as threatened species on national wildlife refuges and national park lands, and as a proposed species on private land. The preferred habitat for the species includes shallow marshes and adjacent, open grasslands. Potential suitable habitat for the whooping crane may be located within the study area due to the presence of mapped NWI wetlands, NHD waterbodies, and Public Water Wetlands within the study area along with the presence of adjacent unmanicured areas present throughout the study area.
• Western Regal Fritillary: The western regal fritillary (Speyeria idalia) was designated as proposed threatened by the USFWS in 2024 and is documented in Anoka County. The western regal fritillary is most often found in native prairie habitat regions, specifically in prairies that contain violets (Viola sp). Larval development may occur in upland prairie, and larvae feed exclusively on violets. The adult western
regal fritillary feeds on a variety of floral nectar. Potential suitable habitat for the western regal fritillary may be located in the unmanicured portions of the study area.
• Salamander Mussel: The salamander mussel (Simpsonaias ambiguea) was
designated as proposed threatened 2023. Before the species was federally listed in 2023, it was listed as a threatened species in Minnesota in 1996. The salamander mussel is a small, thin-shelled mussel that inhabits swift-flowing rivers and streams with areas of shelter under rocks or in crevices. rivers, streams, and in some cases lakes with natural flow regimes. Seasonal low flow is expected in some systems and can be tolerated by salamander mussel, though periodic drying or intermittent flow in river habitats generally do not support mussels. No suitable habitat for the salamander mussel was identified within the study area due to lack of identified deep water flowing streams. Reviewed NWI riverine and NHD flowline features were considered intermittent in nature and therefore unsuitable for the salamander mussel.
21 Rusty Patched Bumble Bee Map. Available at https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/insects/rpbb/rpbbmap.html
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 58 July 2025
State-Listed Species Kimley-Horn conducted a review of the DNR Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) per
license agreement LA-1074. According to the NHIS mapped data, no records within the study area itself. Within one mile of the study area, 15 species were identified, as listed below. Additionally, Kimley-Horn initiated consultation with the Minnesota DNR for the study area. A Natural Herriage Review letter was provided by the DNR and is included in Appendix B.
• A Bristle Berry: A bristle berry (Rubus stipulates) is a Midwestern plant with a very limited distribution in Minnesota and adjacent states. They are most often found in shallow wetlands on the Anoka Sandplain. They prefer open and sunny habitats with soils that consist of a thin layer of peat over a saturated layer of sand. Potential suitable habitat for a bristle berry may be located within the study area due to the presence of mapped NWI wetlands, NHD waterbodies, and Public Water Wetlands within the study area along with the presence of mapped sandy soils within the study area.
• Autumn Fimbry: The autumn fimbry (Fimbristylis autumnalis) is a plant most commonly found in wet meadows and along the margins of shallow lakes or ponds on the Anoka sand plain. In many cases these plants occur on level areas with minimal depth to water table. Potential suitable habitat for the autumn fimbry may be located within the study area due to the presence of mapped NWI wetlands, NHD waterbodies, and Public Water Wetlands within the study area along with the presence of mapped sandy soils within the study area.
• Black Huckleberry: The black huckleberry (Gaylussacia baccata) is an understory shrub most often found in well drained and sandy soils within fire dependent forests. These species are often associated with fire dependent trees such as the pin oak, jack pine, and red pines. Potential suitable habitat for the black huckleberry may be located within the study area due to the forested portions located throughout the study area.
• Blanding's Turtle: Blanding’s turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) is a small reptile, roughly 5-10 inches and is most commonly found in wetland complexes with adjacent sandy uplands. Suitable wetlands for Blanding’s turtle habitat require calm shallow waters with rich aquatic vegetation. Potential suitable habitat for the Blanding’s turtle may be
located within the study area due to the presence of mapped NWI wetlands, NHD waterbodies, and Public Water Wetlands within the study area along with the presence of mapped sandy soils within the study area.
• Blunt-lobed Grapefern: The blunt-lobed grapefern (Sceptridium oneidense) occurs in the understory of hardwood forests of maple, birch, ash, and oak trees. Within these forested areas, the blunt-lobed grapefern is located in moist to wet areas such as swamp edges and depressions that hold temporary surface water during rain
periods. Sightings of this species generally note that it occurs in scattered clumps among more common fern species.
• Clinton’s Bulrush: Clinton’s bulrush (Trichophorum clintonii) is a plant that occurs in
a variety of habitats, with few obvious features in common. Conditions are usually sunny or partially shaded and range from dry to moist. Soils are often sandy or sandy-loams, though sometimes heavy clay-loams. In Minnesota, these species have been observed to inhabit open prairies and edges of fire dependent forests. Potential suitable habitat for the Clinton’s bulrush may be located within the study area due to the forested portions and unmanicured areas located throughout the study area.
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 59 July 2025
• Cross-leaved Milkwort: The cross-leaved milkwort (Polygala cruciate) is a plant that has been observed in Minnesota primarily on wet sandy shores of shallow lakes in the Anoka Sandplain, and in sandy or peaty meadows or swales. These habitats may be in low depressions or at the margins of emergent wetlands. Habitats are typically open and sunny with acidic soils and dynamic water tables. Potential suitable habitat for the cross-leaved milkwort may be located within the study area due to the
presence of mapped NWI wetlands, NHD waterbodies, and Public Water Wetlands within the study area along with the presence of mapped sandy soils within the study area.
• Fuller’s Bristle-berry: Fuller’s bristle-berry (Rubus fulleri) is a plant that has been observed on the Anoka sandplain in swales and wet meadows. Suitable habitat consists of shallow wetlands sustained by a high-water table and have a ground
layer of sedges, broad-leaved herbaceous plants, and often scattered shrubs. Adjacent uplands may also be suitable, if there is direct sunlight and little competition Potential suitable habitat for the Fuller’s bristle-berry may be located within the study area due to the presence of mapped NWI wetlands, NHD waterbodies, and Public Water Wetlands within the study area along with the presence of mapped sandy soils within the study area.
• Lance-leaved Violet: The lance-leaved violet (Viola lanceolata) is a plant which occurs in low, moist meadows with a sandy substrate, moist swales in sand dunes and savannas, and occasionally on sandy lakeshores. Potential suitable habitat for the lance-leaved violet may be located within the study area due to the presence of mapped NWI wetlands, NHD waterbodies, and Public Water Wetlands within the study area along with the presence of mapped sandy soils within the study area.
• Pale Sedge: The pale sedge (Carex pallescens) is a vascular plant that has been observed on the margins of fire-dependent forests which inhabit pine, spruce, aspen, and birch. It is most commonly associated with the Lake Superior shoreline but has been documented in Anoka County as well. Potential suitable habitat for the pale sedge may be located within the study area due to the forested portions located throughout the study area.
• Slimspike Three-awn: The slimspike three-awn (Aristida longespica) is a vascular plant that has been observed in wet meadow and wet prairie habitats associated with the Anoka Sandplain. Soils located in suitable habitat for the three-awn are generally sandy and saturated for a large portion of the year. Potential suitable habitat for the slimspike three-awn may be located within the study area due to the presence of
mapped NWI wetlands, NHD waterbodies, and Public Water Wetlands within the
study area along with the presence of mapped sandy soils within the study area.
• St. Lawrence Grapefern: The St. Lawrence greapefern (Sceptridium rugulosum) is a vascular plant that grows in low and moist habitats in brushy or grassy areas and in open forested areas. It can be found growing in mossy areas in fire-dependent pine forests. Potential suitable habitat for the grapefern has also been documented in the transition zone between these habitats and adjacent habitats. The St. Lawrence
grapefern may be located within the study area due to the forested portions located throughout the study area.
• Swamp Blackberry: The swamp Blackberry (Rubus semisetosus) is a vascular plant
that inhabits moist sand along the margins of groundwater-fed swales or marshes but also in surface-dry uplands that are just above the water table. These are usually grass- or sedge-dominated habitats with scattered brush. Potential suitable habitat for the swamp blackberry may be located within the study area due to the presence
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 60 July 2025
of mapped NWI wetlands, NHD waterbodies, and Public Water Wetlands within the study area along with the presence of mapped sandy soils within the study area.
• Toothcup: The toothcup (Rotala ramosior) is a vascular plant which typically occurs on the sandy shores of small shallow lakes set in a savanna landscape. Potential suitable habitat for the toothcup is unlikely to be present within the study area due to the absence of larger lakes and lakeshore within the study area.
• Tubercled Rein Orchid: The tubercked rein orchid (Platanthera flava var. herbiola) is a vascular plant which inhabits wet meadows or sunny savanna swales. It also occurs at the margins of shallow marshy lakes, especially where there is a turf of low-growing native grasses or sedges. Potential suitable habitat for the trubercled rein orchid may be located within the study area due to the presence of mapped NWI wetlands, NHD waterbodies, and Public Water Wetlands within the study area along
with the presence of mapped sandy soils within the study area.
• Twisted Yellow-eyed Grass: The twisted yellow-eyed grass (Xyris torta) is a vascular plant that inhabits wet, sandy shores of shallow lakes in the Anoka Sandplain and in sandy or peaty meadows or swales. These environments are
typically open and sunny, with acidic soils and fluctuating water tables. Potential suitable habitat for the twisted yellow-eyed grass may be located within the study area due to the presence of mapped NWI wetlands, NHD waterbodies, and Public Water Wetlands within the study area along with the presence of mapped sandy soils within the study area.
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.
Federally Listed Species
• Monarch Butterfly: The proposed project may affect monarch butterflies and/or suitable monarch habitat, but disturbances are anticipated to be temporary in nature and/or insignificant given available foraging and breeding habitat in the surrounding landscape; therefore, long-term impacts to the monarch butterfly are not anticipated.
Additionally, the use of native species in seed mixes may be used to promote pollinator friendly habitat within the study area. Current climate trends may impact the availability of suitable habitat in the study area.
• Rusty Patched Bumble Bee: The proposed project may affect the rusty patched bumble bee and/or suitable bee habitat, but disturbances are anticipated to be
temporary in nature and/or insignificant given available foraging and breeding habitat
in the surrounding landscape; therefore, long-term impacts to the rusty patch bumble
bee are not anticipated. Additionally, the use of native species in seed mixes may be used to promote pollinator friendly habitat within the study area. Current climate trends may impact the availability of suitable habitat in the study area.
• Whooping Crane: The proposed project may affect the whooping crane and/or suitable crane habitat. Given that the whooping crane is designated as an experimental population, non-essential species by the USFWS and the Proposed Action would be completed on lands outside of a National Wildlife Refuge or National Park. The proposed project is not expected to significantly diminish the quality or extent of whooping crane suitable habitat within the study area vicinity. Therefore,
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 61 July 2025
the proposed project is not anticipated to have an adverse impact on the whooping crane.
• Western Regal Fritillary: The proposed project may affect the western regal fritillary and/or suitable fritillary habitat, but disturbances are anticipated to be temporary in nature and/or insignificant given available foraging and breeding habitat in the surrounding landscape; therefore, long-term impacts to western regal fritillary are not
anticipated. Additionally, the use of native species in seed mixes may be used to promote pollinator friendly habitat within the study area. Current climate trends may impact the availability of suitable habitat in the study area.
• Salamander Mussel: The proposed project is not anticipated to affect the salamander mussel as a result of the lack suitable mussel habitat identified within the study area or directly adjacent to the study area.
State-Listed Species The MnDNR Natural Heritage Review (NHR) letter identified the following state-listed species may be affected by the proposed project scenarios. Many state-listed plant species were identified as having the potential to be affected by the proposed development scenarios:
• A Bristle Berry (Rubus stipulates) - State-listed endangered species
• Autumn Fimbry (Fimbristylis autumnalis) - State-listed threatened species
• Black Huckleberry (Gaylussacia baccata) – State-listed threatened species
• Blunt-lobed Grapefern (Sceptridium oneidense) – State-listed threatened species
• Clinton’s Bulrush (Trichophorum clintonii) – State-listed threatened species
• Cross-leaved Milkwort (Polygala cruciata) – State-listed endangered species
• Fuller’s Bristle-berry (Rubus fulleri) – State-listed threatened species
• Lance-leaved Violet (Viola lanceolata) – State-listed threatened species
• Pale Sedge (Carex pallescens) – State-listed endangered species
• Slimspike Three-awn (Aristida longespica var. geniculata) – State-listed endangered species
• St. Lawrence Grapefern (Sceptridium rugulosum) - State-listed threatened species
• Swamp Blackberry (Rubus semisetosus) – State-listed threatened species
• Toothcup (Rotala ramosior) – State-listed threatened species
• Tubercled Rein Orchid (Platanthera flava var. herbiola) – State-listed threatened species
• Twisted Yellow-eyed Grass (Xyris torta) – State-listed endangered species
Blanding’s turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) is a state-listed threatened species has been documented in the vicinity of the study area.
Bald and Golden Eagles Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) have federal-level protections under the Bald and Golden Eagle Treaty Act (BGEPA) (16 U.S.C. 668-668d). Originally enacted in 1940, and since amended, BGEPA prohibits anyone without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior from take of bald or golden eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs. In February 2024, the USFWS published a final rule pertaining to the issuance of
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 62 July 2025
permits for eagle incidental take and eagle nest take in the Federal Register (89 FR 9920). The new rule is effective as of April 12, 2024. Bald and golden eagles have the potential to occur
within the study area. In the event a bald or golden eagle nest is observed within the AUAR study area, all BGEPA protections will be adhered to, including USFWS Incidental Take guidelines. If required, an Incidental Take permit will be applied for from the USFWS.
Invasive Species Invasive species are a major cause of biodiversity loss and are considered biological pollutants by the DNR. Invasive species can be moved on construction equipment, landscaping equipment, and other debris.
Stormwater Stormwater run-off can cause a number of environmental problems. When stormwater drains off a site, it can carry sediment and pollutants that harm lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands which in turn may harm wildlife.
Tree Removal The AUAR study area contains approximately 155 acres of wooded land (see Figure 7). Forests
and forested areas provide an important natural resource in Minnesota. Forest clearing and tree removal creates a variety of environmental impacts including habitat destruction, biodiversity impairment, soil erosion, and loss of carbon sinks. Although some tree removal will be
necessary, the scope of removal will be limited as much as feasible to support the proposed development. All tree removal will be completed during the winter months (November 1 to March 31) to reduce potential for disease spreading, along with impacts to insects, nesting wildlife, and bat species. If winter tree clearing is not feasible, technical consultation with the USFWS may be required. Tree removal will adhere to the City's tree preservation requirements. The City of Lino Lakes regulates tree preservation and requires builders to submit a tree preservation plan prior to construction. City staff review these plans and attempt to identify and save as many significant trees as feasible.22
Other Sensitive Ecological Resources Two Regionally Significant Ecological Areas (RESAs) are located within the project limits. One
RSEA is entirely located within a previously developed area in the southwest portion of the
AUAR study area and therefore no adverse impacts are anticipated. The second RSEA is
located in a forested area in the east-central portion of the AUAR study area. Ground
disturbance in this area could impact the RSEA. If future development in the area proposes impacts near the mapped RESA in the east-central portion of the study area, a survey may be required. If impacts are proposed to the field surveyed resource, avoidance and minimization measures would be discussed with the DNR to identify next steps. No native plant communities are located within or adjacent to the study area.
d. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources.
Federally Listed Species
• Monarch Butterfly: The use of native plant species in seed mixes may be used to promote pollinator friendly habitat within the study area.
• Rusty Patched Bumble Bee: The use of native plant species, including flowering plants, in seed mixes may be used to promote pollinator friendly habitat within the study area. Additional mitigation measures include the minimization of mowing during the active season, keeping some areas un-mowed, using a high cutting height (ideally 12-16 inches), and incorporating additional wildflower planting/restoration. As
22 Source: Lino Lakes, Minn., Municipal Code § 1008.12 530
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 63 July 2025
the RPBB High Potential Zone in the study area may contain suitable habitat, a habitat assessment may be required.
• Whooping Crane: No mitigation measures are anticipated to be required.
• Western Regal Fritillary: The use of native plant species in seed mixes may be used to promote pollinator friendly habitat within the study area.
• Salamander Mussel: Avoidance of swift flowing streams and rivers that display a rocky substrate is recommended to avoid impacts to the mussel.
State Listed Species Avoidance and minimization recommendations were provided for the following species below from the DNR.
• To demonstrate avoidance, a qualified surveyor will need to determine if suitable habitat exists within the activity impact area and, if so, conduct a survey prior to any project activities for the following species:
o A Bristle Berry (Rubus stipulates) - State-listed endangered species
o Autumn Fimbry (Fimbristylis autumnalis) - State-listed threatened species
o Black Huckleberry (Gaylussacia baccata) – State-listed threatened species
o Blunt-lobed Grapefern (Sceptridium oneidense) – State-listed threatened
species
o Clinton’s Bulrush (Trichophorum clintonii) – State-listed threatened species
o Cross-leaved Milkwort (Polygala cruciata) – State-listed endangered species
o Fuller’s Bristle-berry (Rubus fulleri) – State-listed threatened species
o Lance-leaved Violet (Viola lanceolata) – State-listed threatened species
o Pale Sedge (Carex pallescens) – State-listed endangered species
o Slimspike Three-awn (Aristida longespica var. geniculata) – State-listed endangered species
o St. Lawrence Grapefern (Sceptridium rugulosum) - State-listed threatened species
o Swamp Blackberry (Rubus semisetosus) – State-listed threatened species
o Toothcup (Rotala ramosior) – State-listed threatened species
o Tubercled Rein Orchid (Platanthera flava var. herbiola) – State-listed threatened species
o Twisted Yellow-eyed Grass (Xyris torta) – State-listed endangered species
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 64 July 2025
The MnDNR required specific mitigation efforts for the Blanding’s turtle, which include:
• Avoid wetland and aquatic impacts during hibernation season, between September 15 and April 15, if the area is suitable for hibernation.
• Limit erosion and sediment control to wildlife friendly erosion control.23
• Check bare ground within construction areas for turtles before the use of heavy equipment or any ground disturbance.
• Inspect trenches, holes, or depressions prior to starting work each day and immediately prior to filling. Upon completion, holes and trenches must be filled.
• The Blanding’s turtle flyer sheet24 must be given to all contractors working in the
area.
• Report any sightings using the DNR Plant and Animal Observation Form.25
• If turtles are in imminent danger, move them by hand out of harm’s way following Minnesota DNR’s guidelines26; otherwise, they are to be left undisturbed. Directions on how to move turtles safely can be found at Helping Turtles Across the Road Additional voluntary mitigation measures were provided in the Natural Heritage Review Letter which are not required by the DNR, but were still recommended include:
• Recommendations from List 1 of the Blanding’s turtle fact Sheet.27 If greater protection for turtles is desired, implement recommendations from List 2.
• Nesting occurs in open (grassy or brushy) sandy uplands. Blanding’s turtles have been known to nest in residential areas, farm fields, and areas of exposed soil/sand/sediment (including soil stockpiles and gravel pads). To minimize impacts: o Avoid impacts to potential nesting habitat from June 1 through September 15, or
o Exclude Blanding’s turtles from potential nesting habitat from May 15 through
July 15. To exclude turtles from potential nesting habitat: Install a barrier,
buried 10 inches, around suitable nesting habitat.
• Minimize impacts to small, vegetated temporary wetlands (Types 2 & 3) as much as possible.
• Avoid hydro-mulch products that contain any materials with synthetic (plastic) fiber additives, as the fibers can re-suspend and flow into waterbodies.
• Disturbed ground should be restored to pre-construction contours and re-vegetated with native species suitable to the local habitat.28
• Culverts should be 36 inches or greater in diameter, at least twice as wide as the normal width of open water, and have an elliptical bottom, flat bottom, or be embedded.
• Roads should be ditched, not curbed or below grade. If curbs must be used, install wildlife friendly curbs to allow turtles to leave the road. Gutters and stormwater inlets should be designed to prevent turtles from entering the storm sewer.
Sensitive Ecological Resources The southern RSEA is completely located within an existing housing development, and therefore no impacts are expected. The RSEA along the eastern border of the study area is currently a wooded area with some single-family residential use in the vicinity. Potential impacts to this area are proposed in both AUAR scenarios. Coordination with the DNR is ongoing to determine if
mitigation is needed.
23 Wildlife-friendly Erosion Control Fact Sheet. 24 Blanding’s Turtle Flyer Sheet.
25 Plant and Animal Observation Form.
26 Helping Turtles Across the Road Guidelines.
27 Blanding’s Turtle Fact Seet.
28 Native Plant ID and Information Guidance.
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 65 July 2025
Native Plant Communities No adverse impacts are anticipated to native plant communities as there is none located within
the AUAR study area or directly adjacent to the study area.
Invasive Species Invasive species will be controlled onsite during construction. Additionally, both Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 include areas of added green space with native plantings that may provide some additional habitat for songbirds, small mammals, and insects.
Stormwater The proposed development scenarios include stormwater management and treatment of all stormwater runoff within the AUAR study area (discussed in Item 12.b.ii), which will improve water quality.
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 66 July 2025
Figure 19: Native Plant Communities, Sites of Biodiversity Significance, and Regionally Significant
Ecological Areas
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 67 July 2025
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.
AUAR Guidance: For an AUAR, contact with the State Historic Preservation Office and State
Archeologist is required to determine whether there are areas of potential impacts to these
resources. If any exist, an appropriate site survey of high probability areas is needed to address
the issue in more detail. The mitigation plan must include mitigation for any impacts identified.
A review of Minnesota’s Statewide Historic Inventory Portal (MNSHIP) mapper was conducted for potential historical resources and there are none listed within or adjacent to the study area.
A review of the Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA) mapper was conducted for
archaeological sites inventoried by the OSA and archaeological and cultural sites inventoried by the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council (MIAC) and there are no known archaeological sites within the study area.
If a federal nexus is identified during preparation of project permits (if a U.S. Army Corps of Engineer permit is required due to impacts to regulated wetlands), a Phase I Archaeological Assessment may be necessary. Additionally, if human remains are recovered at any time during archaeological investigation or development, all activities must stop and consultation initiated with the OSA and MIAC.
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. AUAR Guidance: Any impacts on scenic views and vistas present in the AUAR should be addressed. This would include both direct physical impacts and impacts on visual quality or integrity. EAW Guidelines contains a list of possible scenic resources.
If any non-routine visual impacts would occur from the anticipated development, this should be discussed here along with appropriate mitigation.
The AUAR study area includes existing agricultural and residential land that is not near any unique designated scenic views or vistas. Any development of agricultural land will have an impact on the visual look of a property. Future development would conform with the city ordinances for building height, building form, landscape screening, and lighting to avoid impacts to neighboring properties and species. No significant visual impacts are anticipated.
As building and site designs advance, lighting practices will be selected to address ecological
concerns and prevent avoidable impacts to insects, wildlife, rare plants, and adjacent natural areas. Guidance from the USFWS to minimize blue light, uplight, and backlight will be adhered to the extent practicable.
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 and criteria pollutants. Discuss effects to air quality including any sensitive receptors, human health, or applicable regulatory
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 68 July 2025
criteria. Include a discussion of any methods used to assess the project’s effect on air quality and the results of that assessment. Identify pollution control equipment and other measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from stationary source emissions.
AUAR Guidance: This item is not applicable to an AUAR. Any stationary air emissions source large enough to merit environmental review requires individual review.
Not applicable for an AUAR.
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.
AUAR Guidance: Although the MPCA no longer issues Indirect Source Permits, traffic-
related air quality may still be an issue if the analysis in Item 20 indicates that development
would cause or worsen traffic congestion. The general guidance from the EAW form should
still be followed. Questions about the details of air quality analysis should be directed to
MPCA staff.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has developed a screening method designed to identify intersections that will not cause a carbon monoxide (CO) impact above state standards. MnDOT has demonstrated that even the 10 highest traffic volume intersections in the Twin Cities do not experience CO impacts.29 Therefore, intersections with traffic volumes lower than these 10 highest intersections will not cause a CO impact above state standards. MnDOT’s screening method demonstrates that intersections with total daily approaching traffic volumes below 82,300 vehicles per day will not have the potential for causing CO air pollution problems. None of the intersections in the AUAR study area exceed the criteria that would lead to a violation of the air quality standards.
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.
AUAR Guidance: Dust and odors need not be addressed in an AUAR, unless there is some
unusual reason to do so. The RGU might want to discuss as part of the mitigation plan, however, any dust control ordinances in effect.
The proposed development may generate temporary fugitive dust emissions during construction. The City of Lino Lakes regulates dust in accordance with MPCA standards.30
Dust will be generated during the construction process on the site. The contractors will be required to control dust generation by using watering trucks. The adjacent residential parcels will be the nearest receptors of the dust. Mitigation of the short-term dust and odor impacts will be managed through proper coordination and construction planning.
In either scenario, the construction and operation of the project is not expected to generate objectionable odors.
29 Source: MnDOT CO Hot Spot Screening Method. https://www.dot.state.mn.us/project-development/subject-guidance/airquality/ process.html#:~:text=The%20Twin%20Cities%20area%20has,carbon%20monoxide%20(CO)%20violations 30 Source: Lino Lakes, Minn., Municipal Code § 1007.043
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 69 July 2025
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.
About Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) Certain gases in the earth's atmosphere, classified as greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical role in determining the earth's surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the earth's atmosphere from space. A portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth's surface and a smaller portion of this radiation is reflected back toward space. This absorbed radiation is then emitted from the earth as low-frequency infrared radiation. The frequencies at which bodies emit radiation are proportional to temperature. Because the earth has a much lower
temperature than the sun, it emits lower-frequency radiation. Most solar radiation passes through GHGs; however, infrared radiation is absorbed by these gases. As a result, radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is instead "trapped," resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on earth.
The primary GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Fluorinated gases also make up a small fraction of the GHGs that contribute to climate change. Examples of fluorinated gases include chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3); however, it is noted that these gases are not associated with typical land use development. Human-caused emissions of GHGs exceeding natural ambient concentrations are believed to be responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and leading to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth's climate, known
as global climate change or global warming.31
Project Related GHG Emissions This section describes the GHG emissions from the existing buildings within the study area and include an estimated quantification of the following GHG emissions associated with the proposed scenarios:
• Carbon dioxide (CO2)
• Nitrous oxide (N2O)
• Methane (CH4)
The projected GHG emissions are provided on an average annual basis using the CO2 equivalent (CO2e) and include the proposer’s best estimate of average annual emissions
over the proposed life/design service life of future development. The estimates include
emissions from the construction and operating phases of the scenarios. Emissions were
estimated using the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Simplified GHG Emissions
Calculator (SGEC) (Version 7 June 2021)32 and are summarized in Table 11 and Table 12 by project phase (i.e., construction and operations) and source type (e.g., combustion from mobile equipment, off-site electricity) (see Appendix C for tables).
31 Summarized from U.S. EPA, Overview of Greenhouse Gases: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-
greenhouse-gases 32 Source: https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/simplified-ghg-emissions-calculator
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 70 July 2025
Construction emissions for the two proposed scenarios are based on length of construction33 and are from mobile equipment, including passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium and
heavy-duty trucks, and construction equipment (both gasoline and diesel).
Existing emissions during operations (full build out of either scenario) include natural gas (stationary equipment) for heating buildings and water, on-site generator testing, use of off-site electricity, and off-site waste management. Emissions from cooling and refrigeration systems are not accounted for in this analysis as GHGs from refrigerants are approximately less than 5 percent of the total GHG emissions of a building.34
Table 11: Construction Emissions
Scope35 Emission Type Emission Sub-Type Emitant
Scenario 1
Project-Related CO2e Emissions
Scenario 2
Project-Related CO2e Emissions
Scope 1 Combustion Mobile equipment CO2, N2O, CH4 278,006 336,743
Total 278,006 282,965
Table 12: Operational Emissions
Scope Emission Type Emission Sub-Type Emitant
Existing
CO2e Emissions (tons/year)
Scenario 1
Project-Related
CO2e Emissions (tons/year)
Scenario 2
Project-Related
CO2e Emissions (tons/year)
Scope 1 Combustion Stationary equipment CO2, N2O, CH4 534 7,154 7,291
Scope 2 Off-site electricity Grid-based CO2, N2O, CH4 862 12,066 12,324
Scope 3 Off-site waste management Area CO2, CH4 261 3,537 3,642
Total 1,657 22,757 23,257
b. GHG Assessment
i. Describe any mitigation considered to reduce the project’s GHG emissions.
In both Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, the following are potential design strategies and sustainability measures that could be taken into consideration for future development to reduce emissions:
33 Total construction duration of the site is estimated to be completed over 6 to 8 construction seasons, over 30+ years. 34 Source: https://practicegreenhealth.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/PracticeGreenhealth_GHG_Toolkit_0.pdf 35 Emissions are categorized as either direct or indirect. Scope 1 emissions are direct emissions that are released directly from properties owned or under the control of the project proposer. This includes, for example, the use of mobile equipment during construction. Scope 2 and 3 emissions are indirect emissions. Scope 2 emissions are associated with the offsite generation of purchased electricity and/or steam. Scope 3 emissions are from the offsite provision of waste management services, including land disposal (landfilling), recycling, and solid waste composting.
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 71 July 2025
• Use energy efficient appliances, equipment, and lighting
• Energy efficient building shells
• Encouragement of the use of alternative modes of transportation to and from the project through site design
• Implement waste best management practices and to recycle and compost appropriate material when applicable
• On-site landscaping to absorb water
• Trees, tree trenches and additional landscaping could be planted to improve local air quality, absorb greenhouse gas emissions, and reduce local urban heat island effect
• Provide electric vehicle ready charging infrastructure
Implementation of the above strategies will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on code requirements, feasibility, availability of materials, schedule, and tenant considerations.
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 potential mitigation listed in Item 18.b.ii. was selected to comply with best management practices for new construction and reduce GHG emissions where practicable during operations.
iii. Quantify the proposed project’s predicted net lifetime GHG emissions (total tons per number 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 Next Generation Energy Act requires the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the state by 80 percent between 2005 and 2050, while supporting clean energy, energy efficiency, and supplementing other renewable energy standards in Minnesota. The MPCA’s biennial GHG emissions reduction report from 2021 identifies strategies for reducing emissions in the three economic sectors with the
highest emissions – transportation, electricity generation, and agriculture, forestry,
and land use.
In both Scenarios, the expected lifespan of the project is 50 years, this equates to a
total estimated 1,137,850 CO2e metric tons over the lifetime of the development for
Scenario 1 and 1,162,850 CO2e metric tons for Scenario 2 (for operational emissions). Future developers will evaluate implementing the sustainability measures listed in Item 18.b.i. to reduce operational emissions to the extent practicable. The proposed project will be built in compliance with state regulations and city code.
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
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 72 July 2025
receptors; 3) conformance to state noise standards; and 4) quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of noise.
AUAR Guidance: Construction noise need not be addressed in an AUAR, unless there is some unusual reason to do so. The RGU might want to discuss as part of the mitigation plan, however, any construction noise ordinances in effect.
If the area will include or adjoin major noise sources, a noise analysis is needed to determine if any noise levels in excess of standards would occur, and if so, to identify appropriate mitigation measures. With respect to traffic-generated noise, the noise analysis should be based on the traffic analysis of Item 20.
Existing Noise The AUAR study area is currently mostly an undeveloped area with 61 acres of existing low to medium residential homes in the southwest quadrant. The existing noise sources within the study area consist mainly of noise from the surrounding roadways and land uses. The nearest receptors to future development are the residential homes in the southwest corner and northern portion of the study area. These nearest noise receptors will experience noise levels during
construction that are elevated in comparison to existing noise levels. Grading and excavation
activities on site will require heavy construction equipment.
Traffic Generated Noise
A sound increase of 3 A-weighted decibels (dBA) is barely noticeable by the human ear, a 5 dBA increase is clearly noticeable, and a 10 dBA increase is heard as twice as loud. For example, if the sound energy is doubled (i.e., the amount of traffic doubles), there is a 3 dBA increase in noise, which is just barely noticeable to most people. On the other hand, if traffic increases by a factor of 10, the resulting sound level will increase by about 10 dBA and be heard as twice as loud.
Scenario 1 and 2 Traffic volumes in the study area are either on roadways that do not have receivers that are sensitive to noise, or the traffic levels attributable to the future development are well below the amount that would generate a sound increase that could be noticeable. The change in traffic
noise levels is not anticipated to be readily perceptible.
Construction Noise
As stated in the AUAR guidelines, construction noise need not be addressed unless there is
some unusual reason to do so. No unusual circumstances have been identified that would necessitate a detailed construction noise analysis.
Scenario 1 and 2 The Lino Lakes Code of Ordinances regulates both the hours of operation for construction equipment and allowable noise levels. Normal construction hours are 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Construction of the proposed project would comply with these requirements.
Operational Noise
Scenario 1 and 2 The Lino Lakes Code of Ordinances and the MPCA regulate mechanical noise associated with building operation. Construction equipment would be fitted with mufflers that would be properly maintained during the construction process. All future development will be required to comply with these requirements.
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
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 73 July 2025
traffic generated; 3) estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence; 4) source of trip generation rates used in the estimates; and 5) availability of transit and/or other alternative transportation modes.
Traffic Generation The trip generation of the proposed development scenarios were estimated based on data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. A combination of ITE Land Use Code (LUC) 210 (Single-Family Detached Housing), LUC 215 (Single-Family Attached Housing), LUC 220 (Multifamily Residential, Low rise), and LUC 821 (Shopping Plaza) were utilized to estimate the trip generation potential of the two development scenarios. Estimated trip generation figures are given below in Table 13.
Table 13: Trip Generation Forecasts
Scenario AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Total In Out Total In Out
Scenario 1 1,992 532 1,460 2,769 1,687 1,082 31,516
Scenario 2 2,029 543 1,487 2,806 1,702 1,104 32,193
The full traffic study conducted for the AUAR can be found in Appendix D.
Parking The development will conform to the off-street parking requirements outlined in section
1007.052 of the City of Lino Lakes Code of Ordinances.
Transit There is no transit service located near the study area.
Bike and Pedestrian Infrastructure The development of the AUAR site will include connections to the nearby trail systems, including a regional trail along Main Street which will connect from Lexington Avenue to the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Park Reserve trails southeast of the site. Sidewalks will be a priority for any development that occurs in the AUAR area.
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.
AUAR Guidance: For AUAR reviews, a detailed traffic analysis will be needed, conforming to the MnDOT guidance as listed on the EAW form. The results of the traffic analysis must be used in the response to Items 17 and 19.
A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was completed in May 2025 based on the projected trip generation of the two proposed scenarios. The results of this study can be found in Appendix D. Based on the detailed findings of this study, the area’s transportation network is expected to support development within the AUAR study area with mitigation.
The TIA includes intersection capacity analyses for intersections adjacent to the AUAR study area and included the review of intersection operations at proposed access points (see locations identified on Figure 18). Other minor access points were included in the analysis based on the anticipated access locations (see the TIA in Appendix D for more information).
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 74 July 2025
Under the Existing and No-Build conditions, all intersections operate at acceptable Levels of Service (LOS) without the need for any mitigation (beyond the planned roadway
improvements). Under Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 conditions, operations are anticipated to be acceptable in the Opening Year (2030) conditions with minimal mitigation required. Additionally, with operations remaining acceptable in Opening Year (2030) build Scenario 1 & 2, an east-west roadway connection on the south half of the AUAR site is not required from a traffic operations perspective, however, the connection of Robinson Drive (Access E) would help improve connectivity to the neighborhoods.
Under Design Year (2045) Build conditions for both scenarios, substantial operational deficiencies are anticipated, and the roadway network may require significant mitigation measures including upgrading Main Street to a four-lane road, installing a roundabout at Main Street & 4th Avenue, and capacity improvements at Main Street & Lake Drive. With mitigation in place, the study intersections are anticipated to operate acceptably. The infrastructure improvements within the AUAR site should be evaluated as development occurs on the site.
The LOS results from SimTraffic (for stop-controlled and signalized intersections) and Rodel (for roundabouts) are given below in Table 14.
Table 14: Intersection LOS
Location
Traffic
Control
Level of Service by Scenario, with Mitigation
Existing/No-Build Scenario 1 Scenario 2
2025 2030 2045 2030 2045 2030 2045
AM Peak Hour
Main Street & Sunset Avenue Roundabout A A A A A A B
Sunset Avenue & Robinson Drive Side Street Stop36 A A A A A A A
Sunset Avenue & Century Trail Side Street Stop36 A A A A A A A
Sunset Avenue & Lilac Street Side Street Stop / Roundabout36
A A A A C A E
Pine Street & 4th Avenue Side Street Stop A A A A A A A
Main Street & 4th Avenue Side Street Stop B B B B A B A
4th Avenue & Lilac Street Side Street Stop B B B A C A B
Lake Drive & Pine Street Side Street Stop A A A A B A B
Lake Drive & Main Street Signal / Roundabout37 B A A A B A B
36 Ongoing Sunset Avenue improvement project will reconstruct Sunset Avenue & Lilac Street as a single lane roundabout and convert other intersections to right-in/right-out; expected to be completed by 2030. 37 Existing signal at Lake Drive & Main Street is planned to be replaced by a single-lane roundabout by the studied Opening Year (2030).
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 75 July 2025
Location
Traffic Control
Level of Service by Scenario, with Mitigation
Existing/No-Build Scenario 1 Scenario 2
2025 2030 2045 2030 2045 2030 2045
AM Peak Hour
Main Street & Sunset Avenue Roundabout A A A A B B C
Sunset Avenue & Robinson Drive Side Street Stop36 A A A A A A A
Sunset Avenue & Century Trail Side Street Stop36 A A A A A A A
Sunset Avenue & Lilac Street Side Street Stop / Roundabout36
A A A A A A A
Pine Street & 4th Avenue Side Street Stop A A A A A A A
Main Street & 4th Avenue Side Street
Stop
B A B C A C A
4th Avenue & Lilac Street Side Street Stop A A A A B A C
Lake Drive & Pine Street Side Street
Stop
B A A A B A B
Lake Drive & Main Street Signal / Roundabout37 C A C C C C C
c. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate project related transportation effects.
The following provides a summary of the mitigation improvements that were identified as part of the traffic analysis for the Northwest Main development. Note that the following list is in addition to the currently planned roadway improvements along Sunset Avenue and at Main Street & Lake Drive.
Existing (2025) Conditions
• No recommended mitigation
Opening Year (2030) No-Build Conditions
• No recommended mitigation (beyond planned improvements)
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 Conditions
• Install side street stop control at the site access points.
• Install right turn lanes at all access points along Sunset Avenue & Main Street
• Install a roundabout at any full-access point along Main Street (Access C)
• While not required based on the traffic operations results, it is recommended to connect
Robinson Drive to 4th Avenue (Access E) to improve connectivity.
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 Conditions
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 76 July 2025
• Install side street stop control at site access points.
• Install right turn lanes at all access points along Sunset Avenue & Main Street
• Install a roundabout at any full-access point along Main Street (Access C)
• While not required based on the traffic operations results, it is recommended to connect
Robinson Drive to 4th Avenue (Access E) to improve connectivity.
Design Year (2045) No-Build Conditions
• No recommended mitigation (beyond planned improvements)
Design Year (2045) Scenario 1 and 2 Conditions
• All Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 Conditions
• Install side street stop control at all access points along 4th Avenue and Pine Street.
• Install southbound right turn lanes at 4th Avenue & Access E (south of Main Street)
• Install northbound left turn lanes at access points on 4th Avenue north of Main Street (Access
F and Access G).
• Expand Main Street to a four-lane road west of Lake Drive
o Includes expanding roundabouts at Sunset Avenue and Access C to 2x1
roundabouts.
• Install a 2x1 roundabout at Main Street & 4th Avenue
• Expand Main Street & Lake Drive roundabout to accommodate northbound left-turn traffic.
• The roundabout is anticipated to require two northbound entry lanes, two exit lanes on the
west leg, and a bypass lane for the eastbound approach
• Expand Main Street & Lake Drive roundabout to accommodate northbound left-turn traffic.
o The roundabout is anticipated to require two northbound entry lanes, two exit lanes
on the west leg, and a bypass lane for the eastbound approach
Note that it is anticipated that the full development of the AUAR area would take up to 30 years.
However, traffic projections as part of an AUAR are typically 20-year analysis horizon. This results in
a conservative analysis for the Design Year as the full site may not be built out yet. All traffic
mitigation should be updated when the AUAR is updated.
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 77 July 2025
Figure 20: Traffic Study Intersections
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 78 July 2025
21. Cumulative Potential Effects
AUAR Guidance: Because the AUAR process by its nature is intended to deal with cumulative potential effects from all future developments within the AUAR area, it is presumed that the responses to all items on the EAW form automatically encompass the impacts from all anticipated developments within the AUAR area.
However, the total impact on the environment with respect to any of the items on the EAW form may also be influenced by past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects outside of
the AUAR area. The cumulative potential effect descriptions may be provided as part of the
responses to other appropriate EAW items, or in response to this item.
a. Describe the geographic scales and timeframes of the project related environmental effects that could combine with other environmental effects resulting in cumulative potential effects.
Cumulative effects are defined as the “effect on the environment that results from the incremental effects of a project in addition to other projects in the environmentally relevant
area that might reasonably be expected to affect the same environmental resources, including future projects actually planned or for which a basis of expectation has been laid, regardless of what person undertakes the other projects or what jurisdictions have authority over the projects.”38 The geographic areas considered for cumulative effects are those areas adjacent to the AUAR study area, and the timeframe considered includes projects that would be constructed in the reasonably foreseeable future.
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.
There are several reasonably foreseeable future projects that may interact with the environmental effects of the development scenarios:
• Sunset Avenue Reconstruction – Anoka County is planning to reconstruct Sunset Avenue from Apollo Drive to the Main Street 125th Avenue intersection to add shoulders, turn lanes, and provide intersection improvements along the corridor, including roundabouts at 121st Avenue and Lilac Street. Anoka County is working in partnership with the Cities of Blaine and Lino Lakes. The project is planned for
construction in the spring of 2027.
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.
The reasonably foreseeable future project may result in impacts to transportation in the project vicinity. These impacts will be addressed via the regulatory permitting and approval processes and will be individually mitigated to ensure minimal cumulative impacts occur.
22. Other Potential Environmental Effects
If the project may cause any additional environmental effects not addressed by Items 1 to 21, 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.
Additional Environmental Effects
There are no other potential environmental effects that have not been addressed in preceding sections.
38 Minnesota Rules, part 4410.0200, subpart 11a
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 79 July 2025
Mitigation Plan
This Mitigation Plan is submitted as part of the AUAR to provide reviewers and regulators with an understanding of the actions that are advisable, recommended, or necessary to protect the environment and minimize potential impacts by the proposed development scenarios. This Mitigation Plan has been revised and updated based on comments received during the Draft AUAR comment period.
This Mitigation Plan is intended to satisfy the AUAR rules that require the preparation of a mitigation plan that specifies measures or procedures that will be used to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the potential impacts of development within the AUAR study area. Although mitigation strategies are discussed throughout the AUAR document, this plan will be formally adopted by the RGU as their action plan to prevent potentially significant environmental impacts.
The primary mechanism for mitigation of environmental impacts is the effective use of ordinances, rules, and regulations. The plan does not modify the regulatory agencies’ responsibilities for implementing their respective regulatory programs nor create additional regulatory requirements.
The plan specifies the legal and institutional arrangements that will assure that the adopted mitigation measures are implemented.
In addition to the anticipated permits and approvals listed in Table 5, the mitigation measures developed in the AUAR process are outlined in Table 15. The plan is formatted consistent with the sections of the AUAR for ease of reference.
Table 15: Mitigation Plan
Resource Area Mitigation
Land Use
Scenario 1 and 2: Majority of the existing zoning is rural, which serves as a holding district until municipal services are available. Property will be considered for rezoning, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, at the time of a
development proposal.
Scenario 2: Would require a comprehensive plan amendment.
Scenario 1 and 2: The City will coordinate with the Metropolitan Council regarding any modifications needed to the TAZ forecasts for the AUAR study area, if needed.
Scenario 1 and 2: Use the information contained in the AUAR during future considerations of updates or amendments to the adopted Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Any future consideration of amendments or updates to the Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances would follow the city’s set procedures and guidelines for such amendments.
Scenario 1 and 2: Require that tools such as clustering, buffering, and/or screening be incorporated into future development plans to mitigate potential land use conflicts.
Geology, Soils, and Topography
Scenario 1 and 2: Where required, slope stabilization will be provided by means of vegetation establishment, erosion control blankets, or other standard methods
of erosion and sediment control. An erosion control plan will be submitted to the City of Lino Lakes and future proposed development within the AUAR study area will require compliance with the City’s erosion and sediment control standards. Scenario 1 and 2: An NPDES and SWPPP will be obtained prior to any earthwork or grading activities within the AUAR study area. Require project proposers to meet the erosion and sediment control regulations in all applicable regulations,
ordinances and rules of the city and MPCA, and Rice Creek Watershed District.
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 80 July 2025
Resource Area Mitigation
Scenario 1 and 2: Provide construction oversight to ensure designed sediment and erosion control measures are being implemented.
Scenario 1 and 2: Future developers would complete a geotechnical report that would provide recommendations for structural and foundation design based on the soil types in the study area.
Floodplains
Scenario 1 and 2: If any potential impacts are proposed to FEMA 100-Year Floodplains as part of development within the AUAR study area, the applicable City of Lino Lakes and RCWD approvals will be obtained. Note: RCWD approvals are required specifically to RCWD’s 100-year floodplains.
Scenario 1 and 2: Floodplain alterations will require submittal of appropriate Letter of Map Change to FEMA to document changes to floodplain boundaries.
Water Resources
Wetlands
Scenario 1 and 2: Delineate wetlands in accordance with the
Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and classify wetlands according to Wetlands of the United States (Circular 39) and Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Scenario 1 and 2: Follow sequencing process of wetland avoidance, minimization, rectification, and mitigation as outlined
in the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) if wetlands area altered. If any potential impacts are proposed to regulated wetlands as part of development within the AUAR study area, the applicable City of Lino Lakes, WCA, RCWD, and USACE permits will be obtained. Scenario 1 and 2: Required wetland buffers will be
incorporated into site design.
Ditches
Scenario 1 and 2: Realignment of the ACD system 10-22-32 is proposed in both scenarios. A 20-foot buffer will be maintained on each side of the ditch as required by RCWD to allow for regular maintenance. Lino Lakes proposes an average buffer width of 50 feet on either side to provide space for the greenway corridor creation. The buffer zone will be clear of obstructions such as trees and buildings.
Stormwater
Scenario 1 and 2: Stormwater BMPs will be constructed in accordance with City, RCWD, and MIDS requirements as the property is developed.
Scenario 1 and 2: Developers are encouraged to use best practices to reduce chloride use in snow and ice removal.
Scenario 1 and 2: During construction, erosion and sediment control BMPs will be implemented and maintained to prevent impacts to aquatic ecosystems.
Scenario 1 and 2: Require stormwater management systems to be developed in accordance with the current version of the Rice Creek Watershed District Rules and Chapter 1011 of City Code, as amended.
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 81 July 2025
Resource Area Mitigation
Scenario 1 and 2: Stormwater BMPs shall follow the order of implementation of infiltration practices, water reuse, biofiltration,
wet sedimentation, unless site restrictions can be documented to demonstrate that alternate practices can meet City and RCWD stormwater requirements and approval by City and RCWD. Scenario 1 and 2: Any supplementary volume, sediment, and other pollutants associated with stormwater originating offsite
that travels through the study area will be accounted for in the final design of stormwater BMPs. Scenario 1 and 2: The City will mandate an evaluation of the feasibility of stormwater reuse for all residential and commercial developments requiring urban services, such as municipal water. The City will also recommend planting native and
drought-tolerant species to minimize irrigation requirements.
Water Appropriation
Scenario 1 and 2: A DNR temporary water appropriation permit will be obtained for any dewatering that will be needed for construction.
Scenario 1 and 2: If any unknown wells are found within the AUAR study area, the wells will be sealed and the sealings sent
to the Department of Health if the termination of the permit is requested.
Scenario 1 and 2: The City will need to install new wells, Wells No. 8 and 9, to serve the entirety of the study area and satisfy City-wide water demands.
Scenario 1 and 2: Monitor water usage and do not permit new development to proceed if it exceeds the capacity of the water supply and distribution system.
Scenario 1 and 2: Construct the water supply and distribution
system in accordance with Minnesota Department of Health standards and with the goals, policies, and recommendations set forth in the city’s Comprehensive Water System Plan.
Water Resources
Scenario 1 and 2: As necessary, amend the city’s Comprehensive Water System Plan and Capital Improvement Plan to be consistent with any future amendments or updates to
the Comprehensive Plan that would necessitate expansion or alterations to the water system. Scenario 1 and 2: Prepare a Wellhead Protection Plan amendment for new wells and follow the adopted wellhead protection plans for Lino Lakes.
Scenario 1 and 2: Continue to implement the City’s adopted water conservation policies which are intended to attenuate peak water demands throughout the City.
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 82 July 2025
Resource Area Mitigation
Scenario 1 and 2: Mitigation will be regulated through the city’s development approval and permitting process. Proposed
master development plans, planned unit development and subdivision applications, plats, and/or site plans must address relevant water conservation mitigation measures prior to final approval by the city. Implementation of mitigation measures will be assured through developer agreements with the city, which will require a financial security for land and infrastructure improvements and/or revoke the right to acquire building permits and/or certificates of occupancy until all relevant mitigation measures have been addressed.
Wastewater
Scenario 1 and 2: Construct and phase appropriately the major infrastructure improvements needed to expand the capacity of the wastewater system (i.e. lift stations, forcemains, and upgrades to the existing systems) in accordance with the Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan and Capital Improvement Plan.
Scenario 1 and 2: Amend the Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan and Capital Improvement Plan to be consistent with any amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that would necessitate expansions or alterations to the sanitary sewer system and regional capacity needs.
Water Resources
Scenario 1 and 2: Each proposed development will be required
to provide a detailed projection of wastewater generation and
flows. These calculations will be checked by the City’s Engineering Consultant. Scenario 1 and 2: The City will create a year-end report to evaluate wastewater increases by major sewer lines and overall system usage in relation to capacity. Results of this assessment will become the targets for growth for the following year.
Contamination/ Hazardous Waste
Scenario 1 and 2: Demolition-related waste material, such as wood, concrete, and glass, will be either recycled or disposed in the proper facilities in accordance with state regulations and guidelines.
Scenario 1 and 2: Development will generate construction-related waste materials such as wood, packaging, excess materials, and other wastes, which would be either recycled or disposed in the proper facilities in accordance with state regulations and guidelines. Scenario 1 and 2: For solid waste generated from the completed project, a source recycling/separation plan would be implemented, and wastes that cannot be recycled would be managed in accordance with state regulations and guidelines. Scenario 1 and 2: Future developers will need to complete a Phase I/II Environmental Site Assessment prior to construction and coordinate with the
MPCA on safe handling and disposal of any contamination and hazardous materials found on the site prior and during construction. Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources
Scenario 1 and 2: State requirements necessitate the control and spread of state listed noxious weeds and/or invasive weeds if encountered prior to construction. Methods to avoid spreading noxious weeds and/or invasive species will be incorporated into project specifications and/or SWPPP when developed.
Scenario 1 and 2: Disturbed areas would be reestablished using appropriate native pollinator-friendly and stabilization seed mixes.
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 83 July 2025
Resource Area Mitigation
Scenario 1 and 2: Invasive species will be controlled during site construction. Additionally, appropriate measures will be taken to control the spread of invasive
species will be controlled during construction and landscaping:
• Inspecting construction equipment and removing any visible plant, seeds, mud, dirt clods, and animals when arriving and leaving a site.
• Using native seed mixes for revegetation whenever possible to encourage non-invasive plant communities in areas of bare soil post-construction.
• Using mulch, soil, gravel, etc., that is free of invasive species whenever possible.
• Inspecting soil and plant material during planting for signs of invasive species and removing or destroying the invasive species or the plant and associated soil if the invasive species cannot be separated out.
Scenario 1 and 2: Tree clearing activities will be restricted to winter months (November 1 - March 31). If winter tree clearing is not feasible, technical consultation with the USFWS may be required. Tree removal will also adhere to the City's tree preservation requirements. Any tree removal will have to follow tree preservation requirements, as outlined in City Code 1007.049, as amended. 39
Scenario 1 and 2: Reseeding herbaceous areas with native seed mixes will be utilized when possible to avoid impacts to the monarch butterfly and rusty patch bumble bee. Scenario 1 and 2: Many state-listed plant species were identified by the DNR having the potential to be affected by the proposed development scenarios. To
demonstrate avoidance, a qualified surveyor will need to determine if suitable habitat exists within the activity impact area and, if so, conduct a survey prior to any project activities. Survey results will determine next steps of species avoidance, minimization, and permitting process. Scenario 1 and 2: The DNR required specific mitigation measures to avoid impacts to the state-listed threatened Blanding’s turtle. These efforts included
limiting erosion and wetland impacts, checking bare ground, trenches, holes, and depressions during construction activities, information orientations, sighting reporting, and following guidelines for interactions of in-danger turtles. Scenario 1 and 2: Implement the Conservation Design Framework, which includes conservation of Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA’s), buffering these natural resources, and establishing greenway corridors throughout the AUAR area to provide connectivity for ecological and wildlife corridors, regional stormwater
collection and conveyance, and passive recreational opportunities. Scenario 1 and 2: Require public land dedication of priority natural open space areas through the subdivision process.
Scenario 1 and 2: Require that cash in lieu of public land dedication for subdivisions within the AUAR area be spent within the AUAR area to purchase, restore, and/or maintain priority natural open space areas. Scenario 1 and 2: Establish mechanisms for ecological restoration, management, stewardship, and education.
Scenario 1 and 2: Consult with the DNR and/or USFWS to determine appropriate mitigation strategies for activities near the Bald Eagle’s nests within the AUAR area before development occurs within the vicinity of the nests, including reviewing recommended disturbance limit guidelines developed by the DNR.
39 Source: City Code 1007.049
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 84 July 2025
Resource Area Mitigation
Historic Resources
Scenario 1 and 2: If a federal nexus is identified during preparation of project permits (if a U.S. Army Corps of Engineer permit is required due to impacts to
regulated wetlands), a Phase I Archaeological Assessment may be necessary. Scenario 1 and 2: If human remains are recovered at any time during archaeological investigation or development, all activities must stop and consultation initiated with the Office of the State Archaeologist and Minnesota Indian Affairs Council.
Visual Scenario 1 and 2: Guidance from the USFWS to minimize blue light, uplight, and backlight will be adhered to the extent practicable.
Air Scenario 1 and 2: Construction will generate temporary fugitive dust emissions. These emissions will be controlled by sweeping or watering as appropriate or as prevailing weather and soil conditions dictate.
Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
Emissions/Carbon Footprint
Scenario 1 and 2: To limit GHG emissions/carbon footprint, developers should consider the following measures:
• Use energy efficient appliances, equipment, and lighting
• Use energy efficient building shells
• Encourage the use of the use of alternative modes of transportation to and from the project through site design
• Implement waste best management practices and to recycle and compost appropriate material when applicable
• Utilize on-site landscaping will absorb water
• Consider trees and tree trenches, and additional landscaping will be planted to improve local air quality, absorb greenhouse gas emissions, and reduce local urban heat island effect
• Construct buildings with rooftop-ready infrastructure for solar power generation
• Provide electric vehicle ready charging infrastructure
Noise
Scenario 1 and 2: Construction activities may result in temporarily elevated noise levels. The City of Lino Lakes Code of Ordinances regulates both the hours of operation for construction equipment and allowable noise levels. Construction of the proposed project would comply with these requirements.
Transportation
Scenario 1 and 2: Create a monitoring program that closely evaluates traffic impacts from proposed developments within the AUAR area and implement traffic mitigation measures as development occurs within the AUAR area.
Scenario 1 and 2: Prioritize alternative travel modes within the AUAR study area and require project proposers to address alternative travel modes (e.g., bicyclists
and pedestrians) by identifying appropriate accommodations.
Scenario 1 and 2: Require that site plans for each of the developments include measures such as appropriate setback distances, earthen berms, noise walls, and appropriate site design to reduce the impact of traffic noise to residential areas.
Scenario 1 and 2: Achieve effective traffic operations within the city by requiring that site plans make use of access management practices to promote safe, effective traffic flow.
Scenario 1 and 2: Require project proposers to follow the Anoka County Highway Department Development Review Process Manual.
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 85 July 2025
Resource Area Mitigation
Scenario 1 and 2: Continue to coordinate capital improvement programming with applicable transportation authorities.
Scenario 1 and 2: The improvements are intended to represent the minimum level of infrastructure investment that would be needed to meet acceptable level of service standards. Additional roadway and non-motorized improvements, beyond the minimum level, may be identified to accommodate specific development needs that are identified within the AUAR area. Primary improvements, regardless of land use scenario, include: Opening Year (2030) No-Build Conditions
• No recommended mitigation (beyond planned improvements) Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 Conditions
• Install side street stop control at the site access points.
• Install right turn lanes at all access points along Sunset Avenue & Main Street.
• Install a roundabout at any full-access point along Main Street (Access C)
• While not required based on the traffic operations results, it is recommended to connect Robinson Drive to 4th Avenue (Access E) to improve connectivity.
Transportation
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 Conditions
• Install side street stop control at all right-in/right-out site access points.
• Install right turn lanes at all access points along Sunset Avenue & Main Street.
• Install a roundabout at any full-access point along Main Street (Access C)
• While not required based on the traffic operations results, it is recommended to connect Robinson Drive to 4th Avenue (Access E) to improve connectivity. Design Year (2045) No-Build Conditions
• No recommended mitigation (beyond planned improvements) Design Year (2045) Scenario 1 Conditions
• All Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 Conditions
• Install side street stop control at all access points along 4th Avenue and Pine Street.
• Extend Century Trail north to Main Street to accommodate traffic north of Robinson Drive.
• Install southbound right turn lanes at 4th Avenue & Access E (south of
Main Street)
• Install northbound left turn lanes at access points on 4th Avenue north of Main Street (Access F and Access G).
• Expand Main Street to a four-lane road west of Lake Drive
o Includes expanding roundabouts at Sunset Avenue and Access C to 2x1 roundabouts.
• Install a 2x1 roundabout at Main Street & 4th Avenue
• Expand Main Street & Lake Drive roundabout to accommodate northbound left-turn traffic. o The roundabout is anticipated to require two northbound entry lanes, two exit lanes on the west leg, and a bypass lane for the eastbound approach.
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR 86 July 2025
Resource Area Mitigation
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 Conditions
• All Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 Conditions
• Install side street stop control at all access points along 4th Avenue and Pine Street.
• Install southbound right turn lanes at access points along 4th Avenue south of Main Street (i.e., Access E).
• Extend Century Trail north to Main Street to accommodate traffic north of Robinson Drive.
• Install northbound left turn lanes at access points on 4th Avenue north of
Main Street (Access F and Access G).
• Expand Main Street to a four-lane road west of Lake Drive
o Includes expanding roundabouts at Sunset Avenue and Access C
to 2x1 roundabouts.
• Install a 2x1 roundabout at Main Street & 4th Avenue
• Expand Main Street & Lake Drive roundabout to accommodate northbound left-turn traffic.
o The roundabout is anticipated to require two northbound entry lanes, two exit lanes on the west leg, and a bypass lane for the eastbound approach
Additionally, the Sunset Avenue & Lilac Street roundabout should be monitored for potential future improvements, particularly under Scenario 2 conditions. Scenario 1 and 2: Require a traffic impact analysis for all development projects within the AUAR area. The traffic impact analysis will assist the City and other road authorities in determining the appropriate mitigation measures that are required to mitigate impacts of a specific development proposal.
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR July 2025
Appendix A: List of
Tax Parcels
Parcel IDs within Study Area
Parcel ID
063122220008
063122220004
073122320059
063122230001
073122320050
073122320064
073122240003
073122230007
073122240062
073122320001
063122320002
073122320056
073122310038
073122310039
073122320066
073122320055
073122320054
073122230006
073122230001
073122220003
073122230002
073122320053
073122240004
073122320057
073122320074
073122320068
063122210001
063122120003
063122210002
073122140003
073122110007
073122110003
073122110005
073122110002
063122110008
063122130001
063122440002
063122440008
063122440006
063122440012
063122240001
063122410003
063122440009
063122440004
073122240083
073122240066
073122240069
073122240068
073122240030
073122240037
073122240074
073122240012
073122240070
073122240065
073122240063
073122240081
073122240006
073122240077
073122240078
073122240013
073122240072
073122240080
073122240107
073122240039
073122240038
073122240106
073122240085
073122240105
073122240110
073122240112
073122240117
073122240059
073122240052
073122240049
073122240130
073122240109
073122240090
073122240033
073122240040
073122240060
073122240051
073122240084
073122240042
073122240036
073122240056
073122240032
Parcel IDs within Study Area
073122240055
073122240031
073122240047
063122220005
073122230040
073122240135
073122240115
073122240114
073122240113
063122220003
073122230005
073122240131
073122240099
073122240127
073122240123
073122240094
073122240122
073122240125
073122320061
073122240010
073122240019
073122320058
073122310037
073122320052
073122240011
073122320062
073122240159
073122240176
073122240154
073122320063
073122240091
073122240101
073122240102
073122240128
073122240103
073122240126
073122320067
073122240134
073122240120
073122320065
073122240020
073122240021
073122240174
073122240173
073122240172
073122240177
073122240152
073122240187
073122240151
073122240188
073122240168
073122240196
073122240161
073122240175
073122240178
073122240166
073122240156
073122240155
073122240165
073122240164
073122240163
073122240200
073122240201
073122240022
073122310042
073122240025
073122240014
073122230010
073122310041
073122240026
063122340002
063122310001
073122240028
073122130001
073122140001
073122140007
063122210003
073122140002
073122120001
073122110001
073122110008
073122110006
073122110004
063122110007
063122140001
063122440003
063122440001
063122440007
063122410002
063122430001
Parcel IDs within Study Area
063122440011
073122240082
073122240067
073122240064
073122240053
073122240048
073122240071
073122240073
073122240075
073122240076
073122240086
073122240089
073122240029
073122240129
073122240108
073122240136
073122240045
073122240034
073122220004
073122240138
073122240057
073122240118
073122240050
073122240058
073122240046
073122240098
073122240054
073122240044
073122240097
073122240104
073122240111
073122240119
073122240167
073122240195
073122240100
073122240093
073122240160
073122240179
073122240181
073122240185
073122240009
073122230020
073122140006
063122340001
073122240024
073122240007
073122240157
073122240132
073122240096
073122240095
073122240124
073122240092
073122240133
073122320060
073122240002
073122320051
073122240171
073122240158
073122240170
073122240180
073122240153
073122240199
073122240182
073122240183
073122240184
073122240061
073122240008
073122240023
073122240189
073122240027
063122440005
063122420001
063122440010
073122240043
073122240079
073122240116
073122240041
073122240035
073122240139
073122240121
073122240169
073122240162
073122240186
073122240198
073122310040
063122210007
063122210008
063122220006
063122110009
063122110004
Parcel IDs within Study Area
063122110003
063122110006
063122110005
063122120001
063122120002
073122240197
073122240005
073122210001
073122230014
073122410025
073122420019
073122230039
073122240209
073122230016
073122230031
073122230025
073122230024
073122230023
073122230022
073122230018
073122230028
073122230029
073122230027
073122230026
073122230021
073122230019
073122230017
073122230030
073122230015
073122240202
073122240203
073122240204
073122240206
073122240205
073122240207
073122230037
073122230036
073122230035
073122230034
073122230033
073122230032
073122230038
073122240213
073122240211
073122240212
073122240210
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR July 2025
Appendix B: Agency
Correspondence
Lino Lakes Main Street AUAR
MCE #: 2025-00312
Page 1 of 4
Formal Natural Heritage Review - Cover Page
See next page for results of review. A draft watermark means the project details
have not been finalized and the results are not official.
Project Name: Lino Lakes Main Street AUAR
Project Proposer: City of Lino Lakes
Project Type: Development, Mixed Use
Project Type Activities: Wetland impacts (e.g., dewatering, tiling, drainage, discharge, excavation, fill,
runoff, sedimentation, changes in hydrology);Waterbody or watercourse impacts (e.g., dewatering,
discharge, excavation, fill, runoff, sedimentation, changes in hydrology));Tree Removal;Grading
TRS: T31 R22 S6, T31 R22 S7, T31 R23 S1, T31 R23 S12, T32 R22 S31, T32 R23 S36
County(s): Anoka
DNR Admin Region(s): Central
Reason Requested: Other
Project Description: The site is proposed to be developed into high, medium, and low density residential
housing. A commercial area is proposed along the central western portion of the site as well.
Existing Land Uses: The site is largely agricultural sod farms. Some low density residential residential
areas are present in the northern portion of the study area. Some ...
Landcover / Habitat Impacted: A large portion of the site is agricultural sod farms. Northern and eastern
portions of the site include mixed forest.
Waterbodies Affected: Wetlands and agricultural ditches are present throughout the site. Impacts to
wetlands and ditches will minimized or avoided to the extent practicable. ...
Groundwater Resources Affected: No change in groundwater resources has been proposed.
Previous Natural Heritage Review: No
Previous Habitat Assessments / Surveys: No
SUMMARY OF AUTOMATED RESULTS
Category Results Response By Category
Project Details Comments Tree Removal - Recommendations
Ecologically Significant Area No Comments No Further Review Required
State-Listed Endangered or
Threatened Species
Needs Further
Review
State-protected Species - Needs Further
Review
State-Listed Species of Special
Concern
Comments Recommendations
Federally Listed Species Comments RPBB High Potential Zone
3/26/2025 09:07 AM
Lino Lakes Main Street AUAR
MCE #: 2025-00312
Page 2 of 4
March 26, 2025
Project Name: Lino Lakes Main Street AUAR
Project Proposer: City of Lino Lakes
Project Type: Development, Mixed Use
Project ID: MCE #2025-00312
AUTOMATED RESULTS: FURTHER REVIEW IS NEEDED
As requested, the above project has undergone an automated review for potential impacts to rare features.
Based on this review, one or more rare features may be impacted by the proposed project and further
review by the Natural Heritage Review Team is needed. You will receive a separate notification email when
the review process is complete and the Natural Heritage Review letter has been posted.
Please refer to the table on the cover page of this report for a summary of potential impacts to rare features.
For additional information or planning purposes, use the Explore Page in Minnesota Conservation Explorer
to view the potentially impacted rare features or to create a Conservation Planning Report for the proposed
project.
If you have additional information to help resolve the potential impacts listed in the summary results, please
attach related project documentation in the Edit Details tab of the Project page. Relevant information
includes, but is not limited to, additional project details, completed habitat assessments, or survey results.
This additional information will be considered during the project review.
3/26/2025 09:07 AM
Lino Lakes Main Street AUAR
MCE #: 2025-00312
Page 3 of 4
3/26/2025 09:07 AM
Lino Lakes Main Street AUAR
MCE #: 2025-00312
Page 4 of 4
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
3/26/2025 09:07 AM
Lino Lakes - Mapping Northwest Main - 161280000.3
MCE-2025-00120
Page 1 of 4
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Division of Ecological & Water Resources
500 Lafayette Road, Box 25
St. Paul, MN 55155-4025
June 3, 2025
Twin Cities - Environmental (Kimley-Horn)
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
RE: Natural Heritage Review of the proposed Lino Lakes - Mapping Northwest Main - 161280000.3,
T31N R22W Sec. 6-7, T31N R23W Sec. 1 and 12, T32N R22W Sec. 31, T32N R23W Sec. 36; Anoka County
Dear Twin Cities - Environmental (Kimley-Horn),
For all correspondence regarding the Natural Heritage Review of this project please include the project ID MCE-
2025-00120 in the email subject line.
As requested, the Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System has been reviewed to determine if the
proposed project has the potential to impact any rare species or other significant natural features. Based on the
project details provided with the request, the following rare features may be impacted by the proposed project:
State-listed Species
• Many state-listed plant species, including endangered and threatened species, have been documented
in the project vicinity. State-listed endangered plant species include slimspike three-awn (Aristida
longespica var. geniculata), pale sedge (Carex pallescens), cross-leaved milkwort (Polygala cruciata),
Rubus stipulatus (a bristle-berry), and twisted yellow-eyed grass (Xyris torta). State-listed threatened
plant species include black huckleberry (Gaylussacia baccata), tubercled rein orchid (Platanthera flava
var. herbiola), toothcup (Rotala ramosior), Fuller's bristle-berry (Rubus fulleri), swamp blackberry (Rubus
semisetosus), blunt-lobed grapefern (Sceptridium oneidense) Clinton's bulrush (Trichophorum clintonii)
and lance-leaf violet (Viola lanceolata). State-listed plant species of special concern include autumn
fimbry (Fimbristylis autumnalis) and St. Lawrence grapefern (Sceptridium rugulosum). 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 endangered or threatened plants or
animals, including their parts or seeds, without a permit. To demonstrate avoidance, a qualified
surveyor will need to determine if suitable habitat exists within the activity impact area and, if so,
conduct a survey prior to any project activities.
Surveys must be conducted by a qualified surveyor and follow the standards contained in the Rare
Species Survey Process and Rare Plant Guidance. Visit the Natural Heritage Review page for a list of
certified surveyors and more information on this process. Survey proposals should be submitted to
Reports.NHIS@state.mn.us prior to initiating survey work. Project planning should take into account
Lino Lakes - Mapping Northwest Main - 161280000.3
MCE-2025-00120
Page 2 of 4
that any botanical survey needs to be conducted during the appropriate time of the year, which may be
limited. Please consult Review.NHIS@state.mn.us if you have any questions regarding this process.
• Blanding’s turtles (Emydoidea blandingii), a state-listed threatened species, have been documented in
the vicinity of the proposed project. Blanding’s turtles use upland areas up to and over a mile distant
from wetlands, waterbodies, and watercourses. Uplands are used for nesting, basking, periods of
dormancy, and traveling between wetlands. Factors believed to contribute to the decline of this species
include collisions with vehicles, wetland drainage and degradation, and the development of upland
habitat. Any added mortality can be detrimental to populations of Blanding’s turtles, as these turtles
have a low reproduction rate that depends upon a high survival rate to maintain population levels.
This project has the potential to impact this rare turtle through direct fatalities and habitat
disturbance/destruction due to activities associated with the proposed project. 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. As such, the following avoidance measures are required:
o Avoid wetland and aquatic impacts during hibernation season, between September 15 and April
15, if the area is suitable for hibernation.
o Limit erosion and sediment control to wildlife friendly erosion control.
o Check bare ground within construction areas for turtles before the use of heavy equipment or
any ground disturbance.
o Inspect trenches, holes, or depressions prior to starting work each day and immediately prior to
filling. Upon completion, holes and trenches must be filled.
o The Blanding’s turtle flyer must be given to all contractors working in the area.
o Report any sightings using the DNR Plant and Animal Observation Form.
o If turtles are in imminent danger, move them by hand out of harm’s way; otherwise, they are to
be left undisturbed. Directions on how to move turtles safely can be found at Helping Turtles
Across the Road.
Additional Blanding’s turtle avoidance measures may include, but are not limited to, the following
recommendations:
o Recommendations from List 1 of the Blanding’s turtle fact sheet. If greater protection for turtles
is desired, implement recommendations from List 2.
o Nesting occurs in open (grassy or brushy) sandy uplands. Blanding’s turtles have been known to
nest in residential areas, farm fields, and areas of exposed soil/sand/sediment (including soil
stockpiles and gravel pads). To minimize impacts:
Avoid impacts to potential nesting habitat from June 1 through September 15, or
Exclude Blanding’s turtles from potential nesting habitat from May 15 through July 15.
To exclude turtles from potential nesting habitat: Install a barrier, buried 10 inches,
around suitable nesting habitat.
See the Blanding’s turtle fact sheet for more information regarding nesting.
o Minimize impacts to small, vegetated temporary wetlands (Types 2 & 3) as much as possible.
o Avoid hydro-mulch products that contain any materials with synthetic (plastic) fiber additives, as
the fibers can re-suspend and flow into waterbodies.
Lino Lakes - Mapping Northwest Main - 161280000.3
MCE-2025-00120
Page 3 of 4
o Disturbed ground should be restored to pre-construction contours and re-vegetated with native
species suitable to the local habitat.
o Culverts should be 36 inches or greater in diameter, at least twice as wide as the normal width
of open water, and have an elliptical bottom, flat bottom, or be embedded.
o Roads should be ditched, not curbed or below grade. If curbs must be used, install wildlife
friendly curbs to allow turtles to leave the road. Gutters and stormwater inlets should be
designed to prevent turtles from entering the storm sewer. For an example, reference “Curb
Design and Small Animals” (Chapter 1, Page 24) in Best Practices for Meeting DNR General
Public Waters Work Permit GP 2004-0001 (state.mn.us).
Please contact Review.NHIS@state.mn.us to confirm that the above required avoidance measures will
be implemented or to inform us that they are not feasible. If the measures are not feasible, a project-
specific avoidance plan will likely be needed.
• The Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) tracks bat roost trees and hibernacula plus some
acoustic data, but this information is not exhaustive. Even if there are no bat records listed nearby, all of
Minnesota’s bats, including the federally endangered northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis),
can be found throughout Minnesota. During the active season (approximately April-November) bats
roost underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices of both live and dead trees. Tree removal can negatively
impact bats by destroying roosting habitat, especially during the pup rearing season when females are
forming maternity roosting colonies and the pups cannot yet fly. To minimize these impacts, the DNR
recommends that tree removal be avoided from June 1 through August 15.
• Please visit the DNR Rare Species Guide for more information on the habitat use of these species and
recommended measures to avoid or minimize impacts.
• Please report incidental sightings of state-listed species via the DNR Plant and Animal Observation Form.
Federally Protected Species
• The area of interest overlaps with a U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Rusty Patched Bumble
Bee High Potential Zone. The rusty patched bumble bee (Bombus affinis) is federally listed as
endangered and is likely to be present in suitable habitat within High Potential Zones. From April
through October this species uses underground nests in upland grasslands, shrublands, and forest
edges, and forages where nectar and pollen are available. From October through April the species
overwinters under tree litter in upland forests and woodlands. The rusty patched bumble bee may be
impacted by a variety of land management activities including, but not limited to, prescribed fire, tree-
removal, haying, grazing, herbicide use, pesticide use, land-clearing, soil disturbance or compaction, or
use of non-native bees. If applicable, the DNR recommends reseeding disturbed soils with native
species of grasses and forbs using BWSR Seed Mixes or MnDOT Seed Mixes.
To ensure compliance with federal law, please conduct a federal regulatory review using the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service's online Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) tool. Please note that all
projects, regardless of whether there is a federal nexus, are subject to federal take prohibitions. The
IPaC review will determine if prohibited take is likely to occur and, if not, will generate an automated
Lino Lakes - Mapping Northwest Main - 161280000.3
MCE-2025-00120
Page 4 of 4
letter. The USFWS RPBB guidance provides guidance on avoiding impacts to rusty patched bumble bee
and a key for determining if actions are likely to affect the species; the determination key can be found
in the appendix.
Environmental Review and Permitting
• Please include a copy of this letter and the MCE-generated Final Project Report in any state or local
license or permit application. Please note that measures to avoid or minimize disturbance to the above
rare features may be included as restrictions or conditions in any required permits or licenses.
• Given the potential presence of state protected species, we encourage submission of Natural Heritage
Review requests to ensure avoidance of take for these species and to determine survey needs as
individual projects are planned.
The Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS), a collection of databases that contains information about
Minnesota’s rare natural features, is maintained by the Division of Ecological and Water Resources, Department
of Natural Resources. The NHIS is continually updated as new information becomes available and is the most
complete source of data on Minnesota's native plant communities, rare species, and other rare features.
However, the NHIS is not an exhaustive inventory and does not contain the locations of all rare features in the
state. Therefore, ecologically significant features for which we have no records may exist within the project area.
If additional information becomes available regarding rare features in the vicinity of the project, further review
may be necessary.
For environmental review purposes, the results of this Natural Heritage Review are valid for one year; the results
are only valid for the project location and project description provided with the request. If project details
change or the project has not occurred within one year, please resubmit the project for review within one
year of initiating project activities. Resubmit by selecting Clone Project as Draft on the project page in MCE.
The Natural Heritage Review does not constitute project approval by the Department of Natural Resources.
Instead, it identifies issues regarding known occurrences of rare features and potential impacts to these rare
features. Visit Natural Heritage Review for additional information regarding this process, survey guidance, and
other related information. For information on the environmental review process or other natural resource
concerns, please contact your DNR Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist.
Thank you for consulting us on this matter and for your interest in preserving Minnesota's rare natural
resources.
Sincerely,
Molly Barrett
Natural Heritage Review Specialist
molly.barrett@state.mn.us
Cc: Melissa Collins, Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist, Central (Region 3)
03/31/2025 15:11:51 UTC
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office
3815 American Blvd East
Bloomington, MN 55425-1659
Phone: (952) 858-0793
In Reply Refer To:
Project Code: 2025-0076181
Project Name: Lino Lakes AUAR
Subject:List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
This response has been generated by the Information, Planning, and Conservation (IPaC) system to provide
information on natural resources that could be affected by your project. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) provides this response under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(16 U.S.C. 703-712), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
Threatened and Endangered Species
The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as
proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and
may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirement for obtaining a Technical
Assistance Letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act
(Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed
habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations
implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. The
Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the IPaC website at regular intervals during
project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be
requested through the IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
Consultation Technical Assistance
Please refer to refer to our Section 7 website for guidance and technical assistance, including step-by-step
instructions for making effects determinations for each species that might be present and for specific guidance
on the following types of projects: projects in developed areas, HUD, CDBG, EDA, USDA Rural
Development projects, pipelines, buried utilities, telecommunications, and requests for a Conditional Letter of
Map Revision (CLOMR) from FEMA.
Project code: 2025-0076181 03/31/2025 15:11:51 UTC
2 of 17
1.
2.
We recommend running the project (if it qualifies) through our Minnesota-Wisconsin Federal Endangered
Species Determination Key (Minnesota-Wisconsin ("D-key")). A demonstration video showing how-to
access and use the determination key is available. Please note that the Minnesota-Wisconsin D-key is the third
option of 3 available d-keys. D-keys are tools to help Federal agencies and other project proponents determine
if their proposed action has the potential to adversely affect federally listed species and designated critical
habitat. The Minnesota-Wisconsin D-key includes a structured set of questions that assists a project proponent
in determining whether a proposed project qualifies for a certain predetermined consultation outcome for all
federally listed species found in Minnesota and Wisconsin (except for the northern long-eared bat- see below),
which includes determinations of “no effect” or “may affect, not likely to adversely affect." In each case, the
Service has compiled and analyzed the best available information on the species’ biology and the impacts of
certain activities to support these determinations.
If your completed d-key output letter shows a "No Effect" (NE) determination for all listed species, print your
IPaC output letter for your files to document your compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
For Federal projects with a “Not Likely to Adversely Affect” (NLAA) determination, our concurrence becomes
valid if you do not hear otherwise from us after a 30-day review period, as indicated in your letter.
If your d-key output letter indicates additional coordination with the Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services
Field Office is necessary (i.e., you get a “May Affect” determination), you will be provided additional
guidance on contacting the Service to continue ESA coordination outside of the key; ESA compliance cannot
be concluded using the key for “May Affect” determinations unless otherwise indicated in your output letter.
Note: Once you obtain your official species list, you are not required to continue in IPaC with d-keys,
although in most cases these tools should expedite your review. If you choose to make an effects
determination on your own, you may do so. If the project is a Federal Action, you may want to review our
section 7 step-by-step instructions before making your determinations.
Using the IPaC Official Species List to Make No Effect and May Affect Determinations for Listed
Species
If IPaC returns a result of “There are no listed species found within the vicinity of the project,” then
project proponents can conclude the proposed activities will have no effect on any federally listed
species under Service jurisdiction. Concurrence from the Service is not required for no
effect determinations. No further consultation or coordination is required. Attach this letter to the dated
IPaC species list report for your records.
If IPaC returns one or more federally listed, proposed, or candidate species as potentially present in the
action area of the proposed project – other than bats (see below) – then project proponents must
determine if proposed activities will have no effect on or may affect those species. For assistance in
determining if suitable habitat for listed, candidate, or proposed species occurs within your project area
or if species may be affected by project activities, you can obtain Life History Information for Listed
and Candidate Species on our office website. If no impacts will occur to a species on the IPaC species
list (e.g., there is no habitat present in the project area), the appropriate determination is no effect. No
further consultation or coordination is required. Attach this letter to the dated IPaC species list report for
your records.
Project code: 2025-0076181 03/31/2025 15:11:51 UTC
3 of 17
3.
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Should you determine that project activities may affect any federally listed, please contact our office
for further coordination. Letters with requests for consultation or correspondence about your project
should include the Consultation Tracking Number in the header. Electronic submission is preferred.
Northern Long-Eared Bats
Northern long-eared bats occur throughout Minnesota and Wisconsin and the information below may help in
determining if your project may affect these species.
Suitable summer habitat for northern long-eared bats consists of a wide variety of forested/wooded habitats
where they roost, forage, and travel and may also include some adjacent and interspersed non-forested habitats
such as emergent wetlands and adjacent edges of agricultural fields, old fields and pastures. This includes
forests and woodlots containing potential roosts (i.e., live trees and/or snags ≥3 inches dbh for northern long-
eared bat that have exfoliating bark, cracks, crevices, and/or hollows), as well as linear features such as
fencerows, riparian forests, and other wooded corridors. These wooded areas may be dense or loose aggregates
of trees with variable amounts of canopy closure. Individual trees may be considered suitable habitat when
they exhibit the characteristics of a potential roost tree and are located within 1,000 feet (305 meters) of
forested/wooded habitat. Northern long-eared bats have also been observed roosting in human-made structures,
such as buildings, barns, bridges, and bat houses; therefore, these structures should also be considered potential
summer habitat and evaluated for use by bats. If your project will impact caves or mines or will involve
clearing forest or woodland habitat containing suitable roosting habitat, northern long-eared bats could be
affected. For bat activity dates, please review Appendix L in the Range-wide Indiana Bat and Northern Long-
Eared Bat Survey Guidelines.
Examples of unsuitable habitat include:
Individual trees that are greater than 1,000 feet from forested or wooded areas,
Trees found in highly developed urban areas (e.g., street trees, downtown areas),
A pure stand of less than 3-inch dbh trees that are not mixed with larger trees, and
A monoculture stand of shrubby vegetation with no potential roost trees.
If IPaC returns a result that northern long-eared bats are potentially present in the action area of the proposed
project, project proponents can conclude the proposed activities may affect this species IF one or more of the
following activities are proposed:
Clearing or disturbing suitable roosting habitat, as defined above, at any time of year,
Any activity in or near the entrance to a cave or mine,
Mining, deep excavation, or underground work within 0.25 miles of a cave or mine,
Construction of one or more wind turbines, or
Demolition or reconstruction of human-made structures that are known to be used by bats based on
observations of roosting bats, bats emerging at dusk, or guano deposits or stains.
If none of the above activities are proposed, project proponents can conclude the proposed activities will
have no effect on the northern long-eared bat. Concurrence from the Service is not required for No
Effect determinations. No further consultation or coordination is required. Attach this letter to the dated IPaC
Project code: 2025-0076181 03/31/2025 15:11:51 UTC
4 of 17
species list report for your records.
If any of the above activities are proposed, and the northern long-eared bat appears on the user’s species list,
the federal project user will be directed to either the northern long-eared bat and tricolored bat range-wide D-
key or the Federal Highways Administration, Federal Railways Administration, and Federal Transit
Administration Indiana bat/Northern long-eared bat D-key, depending on the type of project and federal
agency involvement. Similar to the Minnesota-Wisconsin D-key, these d-keys helps to determine if prohibited
take might occur and, if not, will generate an automated verification letter. Additional information about
available tools can be found on the Service’s northern long-eared bat website.
Whooping Crane
Whooping crane is designated as a non-essential experimental population in Wisconsin and consultation under
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act is only required if project activities will occur within a National
Wildlife Refuge or National Park. If project activities are proposed on lands outside of a National Wildlife
Refuge or National Park, then you are not required to consult. For additional information on this designation
and consultation requirements, please review “Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of
Whooping Cranes in the Eastern United States.”
Other Trust Resources and Activities
Bald and Golden Eagles - Although the bald eagle has been removed from the endangered species list, this
species and the golden eagle are protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to survey the area for any migratory bird nests. If there is
an eagle nest on-site while work is on-going, eagles may be disturbed. We recommend avoiding and
minimizing disturbance to eagles whenever practicable. If you cannot avoid eagle disturbance, you may seek a
permit. A nest take permit is always required for removal, relocation, or obstruction of an eagle nest. For
communication and wind energy projects, please refer to additional guidelines below.
Migratory Birds - The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the taking, killing, possession,
transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests, except when specifically
authorized by the Service. The Service has the responsibility under the MBTA to proactively prevent the
mortality of migratory birds whenever possible and we encourage implementation of recommendations that
minimize potential impacts to migratory birds. Such measures include clearing forested habitat outside the
nesting season (generally March 1 to August 31) or conducting nest surveys prior to clearing to avoid injury to
eggs or nestlings.
Communication Towers - Construction of new communications towers (including radio, television, cellular,
and microwave) creates a potentially significant impact on migratory birds, especially some 350 species of
night-migrating birds. However, the Service has developed voluntary guidelines for minimizing impacts.
Transmission Lines - Migratory birds, especially large species with long wingspans, heavy bodies, and poor
maneuverability can also collide with power lines. In addition, mortality can occur when birds, particularly
hawks, eagles, kites, falcons, and owls, attempt to perch on uninsulated or unguarded power poles. To
minimize these risks, please refer to guidelines developed by the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee and
the Service. Implementation of these measures is especially important along sections of lines adjacent to
wetlands or other areas that support large numbers of raptors and migratory birds.
Project code: 2025-0076181 03/31/2025 15:11:51 UTC
5 of 17
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Wind Energy - To minimize impacts to migratory birds and bats, wind energy projects should follow the
Service’s Wind Energy Guidelines. In addition, please refer to the Service's Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance,
which provides guidance for conserving bald and golden eagles in the course of siting, constructing, and
operating wind energy facilities.
State Department of Natural Resources Coordination
While it is not required for your Federal section 7 consultation, please note that additional state endangered or
threatened species may also have the potential to be impacted. Please contact the Minnesota or Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources for information on state listed species that may be present in your
proposed project area.
Minnesota
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources - Endangered Resources Review Homepage
Email: Review.NHIS@state.mn.us
Wisconsin
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources - Endangered Resources Review Homepage
Email: DNRERReview@wi.gov
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. Please feel free to contact our office with
questions or for additional information.
Attachment(s):
Official Species List
USFWS National Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries
Bald & Golden Eagles
Migratory Birds
Wetlands
OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether
any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed
action".
This species list is provided by:
Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office
3815 American Blvd East
Bloomington, MN 55425-1659
(952) 858-0793
Project code: 2025-0076181 03/31/2025 15:11:51 UTC
6 of 17
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code:2025-0076181
Project Name:Lino Lakes AUAR
Project Type:Mixed-Use Construction
Project Description:The study area is proposed to be developed.
Project Location:
The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://
www.google.com/maps/@45.1992409,-93.13242033378383,14z
Counties:Anoka County, Minnesota
Project code: 2025-0076181 03/31/2025 15:11:51 UTC
7 of 17
1.
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES
There is a total of 5 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include
species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species
list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA
Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the
Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially
within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office
if you have questions.
NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an
office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.
1
Project code: 2025-0076181 03/31/2025 15:11:51 UTC
8 of 17
BIRDS
NAME STATUS
Whooping Crane Grus americana
Population: U.S.A. (AL, AR, CO, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NC,
NM, OH, SC, TN, UT, VA, WI, WV, western half of WY)
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/758
Experimental
Population,
Non-
Essential
CLAMS
NAME STATUS
Salamander Mussel Simpsonaias ambigua
There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical
habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6208
Proposed
Endangered
INSECTS
NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical
habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Proposed
Threatened
Rusty Patched Bumble Bee Bombus affinis
There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical
habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9383
General project design guidelines:
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/ZZVRWPDATZCB3PYQQZCMK3UHPM/
documents/generated/5967.pdf
Endangered
Western Regal Fritillary Argynnis idalia occidentalis
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/12017
Proposed
Threatened
CRITICAL HABITATS
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.
YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S) MAY HAVE EFFECTS ON ALL
ABOVE LISTED SPECIES.
Project code: 2025-0076181 03/31/2025 15:11:51 UTC
9 of 17
1.
2.
3.
USFWS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE LANDS
AND FISH HATCHERIES
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a
'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to
discuss any questions or concerns.
THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS OR FISH HATCHERIES WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA.
BALD & GOLDEN EAGLES
Bald and Golden Eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) . Any person or organization who plans or conducts
activities that may result in impacts to Bald or Golden Eagles, or their habitats, should follow
appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate avoidance and minimization
measures, as described in the various links on this page.
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)
There are Bald Eagles and/or Golden Eagles in your project area.
Measures for Proactively Minimizing Eagle Impacts
For information on how to best avoid and minimize disturbance to nesting bald eagles, please
review the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. You may employ the timing and
activity-specific distance recommendations in this document when designing your project/
activity to avoid and minimize eagle impacts. For bald eagle information specific to Alaska,
please refer to Bald Eagle Nesting and Sensitivity to Human Activity.
The FWS does not currently have guidelines for avoiding and minimizing disturbance to nesting
Golden Eagles. For site-specific recommendations regarding nesting Golden Eagles, please
consult with the appropriate Regional Migratory Bird Office or Ecological Services Field Office.
If disturbance or take of eagles cannot be avoided, an incidental take permit may be available to
authorize any take that results from, but is not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful activity. For
assistance making this determination for Bald Eagles, visit the Do I Need A Permit Tool. For
assistance making this determination for golden eagles, please consult with the appropriate
Regional Migratory Bird Office or Ecological Services Field Office.
Ensure Your Eagle List is Accurate and Complete
If your project area is in a poorly surveyed area in IPaC, your list may not be complete and you
may need to rely on other resources to determine what species may be present (e.g. your local
FWS field office, state surveys, your own surveys). Please review the Supplemental Information
2
1
Project code: 2025-0076181 03/31/2025 15:11:51 UTC
10 of 17
no data survey effort breeding season probability of presence
on Migratory Birds and Eagles, to help you properly interpret the report for your specified
location, including determining if there is sufficient data to ensure your list is accurate.
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures
to reduce impacts to bald or golden eagles on your list, see the "Probability of Presence
Summary" below to see when these bald or golden eagles are most likely to be present and
breeding in your project area.
NAME BREEDING SEASON
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention
because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain
types of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626
Breeds Dec 1 to
Aug 31
PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be
present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project
activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental
Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper
Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret
this report.
Probability of Presence ()
Green bars; the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project
overlaps during that week of the year.
Breeding Season ()
Yellow bars; liberal estimate of the timeframe inside which the bird breeds across its entire
range.
Survey Effort ()
Vertical black lines; the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s)
your project area overlaps.
No Data ()
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Bald Eagle
Project code: 2025-0076181 03/31/2025 15:11:51 UTC
11 of 17
▪
▪
▪
▪
1.
2.
3.
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Additional information can be found using the following links:
Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management
Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/
collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory-birds
Nationwide avoidance and minimization measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/
default/files/documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf
Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/
media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and-golden-eagles-may-occur-
project-action
MIGRATORY BIRDS
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the take (including killing, capturing, selling,
trading, and transport) of protected migratory bird species without prior authorization by the
Department of Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). The incidental take of migratory
birds is the injury or death of birds that results from, but is not the purpose, of an activity. The
Service interprets the MBTA to prohibit incidental take.
The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures
to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the "Probability of Presence Summary"
below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area.
NAME
BREEDING
SEASON
American Golden-plover Pluvialis dominica
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10561
Breeds
elsewhere
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention
because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types
of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626
Breeds Dec 1 to
Aug 31
1
Project code: 2025-0076181 03/31/2025 15:11:51 UTC
12 of 17
NAME
BREEDING
SEASON
Black Tern Chlidonias niger surinamenisis
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3093
Breeds May 15
to Aug 20
Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9399
Breeds May 15
to Oct 10
Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9454
Breeds May 20
to Jul 31
Canada Warbler Cardellina canadensis
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9643
Breeds May 20
to Aug 10
Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9406
Breeds Mar 15
to Aug 25
Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8745
Breeds May 1
to Jul 20
Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum perpallidus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions
(BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8329
Breeds Jun 1 to
Aug 20
Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9679
Breeds
elsewhere
Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9481
Breeds May 1
to Jul 31
Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9561
Breeds
elsewhere
Project code: 2025-0076181 03/31/2025 15:11:51 UTC
13 of 17
NAME
BREEDING
SEASON
Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres morinella
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions
(BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10633
Breeds
elsewhere
Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions
(BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9478
Breeds
elsewhere
Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions
(BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9603
Breeds
elsewhere
Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9480
Breeds
elsewhere
Western Grebe aechmophorus occidentalis
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6743
Breeds Jun 1 to
Aug 31
Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9431
Breeds May 10
to Aug 31
PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be
present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project
activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental
Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper
Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret
this report.
Probability of Presence ()
Green bars; the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project
overlaps during that week of the year.
Breeding Season ()
Yellow bars; liberal estimate of the timeframe inside which the bird breeds across its entire
range.
Survey Effort ()
Project code: 2025-0076181 03/31/2025 15:11:51 UTC
14 of 17
no data survey effort breeding season probability of presence
Vertical black lines; the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s)
your project area overlaps.
No Data ()
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
American Golden-
plover
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Bald Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Black Tern
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Black-billed
Cuckoo
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Bobolink
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Canada Warbler
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Chimney Swift
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Golden-winged
Warbler
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Grasshopper
Sparrow
BCC - BCR
Lesser Yellowlegs
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Marbled Godwit
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Project code: 2025-0076181 03/31/2025 15:11:51 UTC
15 of 17
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Pectoral Sandpiper
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Ruddy Turnstone
BCC - BCR
Rusty Blackbird
BCC - BCR
Semipalmated
Sandpiper
BCC - BCR
Short-billed
Dowitcher
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Western Grebe
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Wood Thrush
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Additional information can be found using the following links:
Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management
Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/
collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory-birds
Nationwide avoidance and minimization measures for birds
Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/
media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and-golden-eagles-may-occur-
project-action
WETLANDS
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.
For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers District.
Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to
update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine
the actual extent of wetlands on site.
FRESHWATER FORESTED/SHRUB WETLAND
PSS1Ad
Project code: 2025-0076181 03/31/2025 15:11:51 UTC
16 of 17
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
PFO1A
PFO1Ad
PSS1A
FRESHWATER EMERGENT WETLAND
PEM1A
PEM1Ad
PEM1Cx
PEM1Af
PEM1Cd
PEM1F
PEM1C
FRESHWATER POND
PUBHx
PABHx
PUBFx
PUBH
PABH
PUBF
RIVERINE
R5UBFx
R2UBFx
Project code: 2025-0076181 03/31/2025 15:11:51 UTC
17 of 17
IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION
Agency:Lino Lakes city
Name:Theo Robinson
Address:767 N Eustis St #100
City:St. Paul
State:MN
Zip:55114
Email theo.robinson@kimley-horn.com
Phone:6516454197
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR July 2025
Appendix C:
Greenhouse Gas
Analysis
Emissions Summary
Guidance
(B) The "Go To Sheet" buttons can be used to navigate to the data entry sheets.
Organizational Information:
Organization Name:
Organization Address:
Inventory Reporting Period:
Start: MM/DD/YY End:
Name of Preparer:
Phone Number of Preparer:
Date Prepared:
Summary of Organization's Emissions:
Scope 1 Emissions
Stationary Combustion 534 CO2-e (metric tons)
Mobile Sources 0 CO2-e (metric tons)
Refrigeration / AC Equipment Use 0 CO2-e (metric tons)
Fire Suppression 0 CO2-e (metric tons)
Purchased Gases 0 CO2-e (metric tons)
Location-Based Scope 2 Emissions
Purchased and Consumed Electricity 862 CO2-e (metric tons)
Purchased and Consumed Steam 0 CO2-e (metric tons)
Market-Based Scope 2 Emissions
Purchased and Consumed Electricity 862 CO2-e (metric tons)
Purchased and Consumed Steam 0 CO2-e (metric tons)
Total organization Emissions
Total Scope 1 & Location-Based Scope 2 1,396 CO2-e (metric tons)
Total Scope 1 & Market-Based Scope 2 1,396 CO2-e (metric tons)
Reductions
Offsets 0 CO2-e (metric tons)
Net Scope 1 and 2 Location-Based Emissions 1,396 CO2-e (metric tons)
Net Scope 1 and 2 Market-Based Emissions 1,396 CO2-e (metric tons)
The total GHG emissions from each source category are provided below. You may also use this summary sheet to fill
out the Annual GHG Inventory Summary and Goal Tracking Form as this calculator only quantifies one year of
emissions at a time.
(A) Enter organization information into the orange cells. Other cells on this sheet will be automatically calculated
from the data entered in the sheets in this workbook. Blue cells indicate required emission sources if applicable.
Green cells indicate scope 3 emission sources and offsets, which organizations may optionally include in their
inventory.
Existing Conditions
2025
MM/DD/YY
By entering the data below into the appropriate cell of the Annual GHG Inventory Summary and Goal Tracking Form,
you will be able to compare multiple years of data.
If you have multiple Calculator files covering sub-sets of your inventory for a particular reporting period, sum each of
the emission categories (e.g. Stationary Combustion) to an organizational total, which then can be entered into the
Annual GHG Inventory Summary and Goal Tracking Form .
https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/center-corporate-climate-leadership-annual-ghg-inventory-summary-and-goal-tracking
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To SheetGo To Sheet
Back to Intro
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Summary)2 of 21
Scope 3 Emissions
Employee Business Travel 0 CO2-e (metric tons)
Employee Commuting 0 CO2-e (metric tons)
Product Transport 0 CO2-e (metric tons)
Waste 261 CO2-e (metric tons)
Required Supplemental Information
Biomass CO2 Emissions from Stationary Sources 0 CO2-e (metric tons)
Biomass CO2 Emissions from Mobile Sources 0 CO2-e (metric tons)
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Summary)3 of 21
Scope 1 Emissions from Stationary Combustion Sources
Guidance
- Select "Fuel Combusted" from drop down box.
(C) Biomass CO2 emissions are not reported in the total emissions, but are reported separately at the bottom of the sheet.
Table 1. Stationary Source Fuel Combustion
Source Source Source Fuel Quantity
ID Description Area (sq ft)Combusted Combusted
BLR-012 East Power Plant 12,517 Natural Gas 10,000 MMBtu
Residential Natural Gas Use 784,080 Natural Gas 10,058 MMBtu
GHG Emissions
Total Organization-Wide Stationary Source Combustion by Fuel Type
Quantity
Combusted
Anthracite Coal 0 short tons
Bituminous Coal 0 short tons
Units
(B) If fuel is consumed in a facility but stationary fuel consumption data are not available, an estimate should be made
for completeness. See the "Items to Note" section of the Help sheet for suggested estimation approaches.
- Enter "Quantity Combusted" and choose the appropriate units from the drop down box in the unit column. If it's
necessary to convert units, common heat contents can be found on the "Heat Content" sheet and unit conversions on
the "Unit Conversion" sheet.
(A) Enter annual data for each combustion unit, facility, or site (by fuel type) in ORANGE cells on Table 1. Example
entry is shown in first row (GREEN Italics ).
Fuel Type Units
Back to Intro Back to Summary HelpHeat Content
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 1.0)6 of 21
Scope 2 Emissions from Purchase of Electricity
Guidance
(C) Select "eGRID subregion" from drop box and enter "Electricity Purchased."
https://www.epa.gov/egrid/power-profiler#/
Tips: Enter electricity usage by location and then look up the eGRID subregion for each location.
Table 1. Total Amount of Electricity Purchased by eGRID Subregion
Source Source Source eGRID Subregion Electricity CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O
ID Description Area (sq ft)where electricity is consumed Purchased Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions
(kWh)(lb/MWh)(lb/MWh)(lb/MWh)(lb)(lb)(lb)(lb)(lb)(lb)
Bldg-012 East Power Plant 12,517 HIMS (HICC Miscellaneous)200,000 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 237,120.0 28.6 4.4
Residential Electricity Use 784,080 MROW (MRO West)1,717,201 <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>1,886,173.6 204.3 29.2 1,886,173.6 204.3 29.2
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
Total Emissions for All Sources 1,717,201 1,886,173.6 204.3 29.2 1,886,173.6 204.3 29.2
GHG Emissions
CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons)
Location-Based Electricity Emissions 861.8
Market-Based Electricity Emissions 861.8
Notes:
1. CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions are estimated using methodology provided in EPA's Center for Corporate Climate Leadership Greenhouse Gas Inventory Guidance
- Indirect Emissions from Purchased Electricity (January 2016).
Figure 1. EPA eGRID2019, February 2021.
If you purchase renewable energy that is less than 100% of your site's electricity, see the
example in the market-based method Help sheet. Location-Based
Emission Factors Emissions Emissions
Market-Based
Use these cells to enter applicable market-based emission factors
(D) See the market-based emission factor hierarchy on the market-based method Help sheet. If any of the first four types of
emission factors are applicable, enter the factors in the yellow cells marked as "<enter factor>". If not, leave the
yellow cells as is, and eGRID subregion factors will be used for market-based emissions.
Example entry is shown in first row (GREEN Italics) for a facility that purchases RECs for 100% of its consumption, and
therefore has a market-based emission factor of 0.
The Indirect Emissions from Purchased Electricity Guidance document provides guidance for quantifying two scope 2 emissions totals, using
a location-based method and a market-based method. The organization should quantify and report both totals in its GHG inventory. The
location-based method considers average emission factors for the electricity grids that provide electricity. The market-based method
considers contractual arrangements under which the organization procures electricity from specific sources, such as renewable energy.
- Use map (Figure 1) at bottom of sheet to determine appropriate eGRID subregion. If subregion cannot be determined from
the map, find the correct subregion by entering the location's zip code into EPA’s Power Profiler:
(A) Enter total annual electricity purchased in kWh and each eGRID subregion for each facility or site in ORANGE cells of Table 1.
(B) If electricity consumption data are not available for a facility, an estimate should be made for completeness.
See the "Items to Note" section of the Help sheet for suggested estimation approaches.
Back to Intro Back to Summary Help
Help - Market-Based Method
Help - Market-Based Method
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Indirect 1.0)1 of 2
Scope 3 Emissions from Waste
Guidance
Table 1. Waste Disposal Weight by Waste Material and Disposal Method (CO2, CH4 and N2O)
Source ID Source Description Waste Material Disposal
Method Weight Unit CO2e Emissions
(kg)
Bldg-012 East Power Plant Finished Goods Steel Cans Landfilled 1,000 metric ton 22,040
Residential Residential Waste Mixed MSW municipal solid waste Landfilled 437 metric ton 250,418
Residential Residential Waste Mixed Recyclables Recycled 109 metric ton 10,811
GHG Emissions
Total Emissions by Disposal Method
Waste Material CO2e (kg)
Recycled 10,811
Landfilled 250,418
(B) Choose the appropriate material and disposal method from the drop down options. For the average-data method, use one of the mixed material types, such as mixed
MSW. If the exact waste material is not available, consider an appropriate proxy. For example, dimensional lumber can be used as a proxy for wood furniture.
(C) Choose an appropriate disposal method. Note that not all disposal methods are available for all materials. If there is a #NA or # Value error in the emissions column, you must pick a
new material type or appropriate disposal method.
(A) Enter annual waste data in ORANGE cells. Example entry is shown in first row (GREEN Italics ).
Back to Intro Back to Summary Help
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Optional 3.0)1 of 2
Combusted -
Composted -
Anaerobically Digested (Dry Digestate with Curing)-
Anaerobically Digested (Wet Digestate with Curing)-
Total CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Waste 261.2
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Optional 3.0)2 of 2
Emissions Summary
Guidance
(B) The "Go To Sheet" buttons can be used to navigate to the data entry sheets.
Organizational Information:
Organization Name:
Organization Address:
Inventory Reporting Period:
Start: MM/DD/YY End:
Name of Preparer:
Phone Number of Preparer:
Date Prepared:
Summary of Organization's Emissions:
Scope 1 Emissions
Stationary Combustion 7,154 CO2-e (metric tons)
Mobile Sources 278,006 CO2-e (metric tons)
Refrigeration / AC Equipment Use 0 CO2-e (metric tons)
Fire Suppression 0 CO2-e (metric tons)
Purchased Gases 0 CO2-e (metric tons)
Location-Based Scope 2 Emissions
Purchased and Consumed Electricity 12,066 CO2-e (metric tons)
Purchased and Consumed Steam 0 CO2-e (metric tons)
Market-Based Scope 2 Emissions
Purchased and Consumed Electricity 12,066 CO2-e (metric tons)
Purchased and Consumed Steam 0 CO2-e (metric tons)
Total organization Emissions
The total GHG emissions from each source category are provided below. You may also use this summary sheet to fill
out the Annual GHG Inventory Summary and Goal Tracking Form as this calculator only quantifies one year of
emissions at a time.
(A) Enter organization information into the orange cells. Other cells on this sheet will be automatically calculated
from the data entered in the sheets in this workbook. Blue cells indicate required emission sources if applicable. Green
cells indicate scope 3 emission sources and offsets, which organizations may optionally include in their inventory.
Scenario 1
2025
MM/DD/YY
By entering the data below into the appropriate cell of the Annual GHG Inventory Summary and Goal Tracking Form,
you will be able to compare multiple years of data.
If you have multiple Calculator files covering sub-sets of your inventory for a particular reporting period, sum each of
the emission categories (e.g. Stationary Combustion) to an organizational total, which then can be entered into the
Annual GHG Inventory Summary and Goal Tracking Form .
https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/center-corporate-climate-leadership-annual-ghg-inventory-summary-and-goal-tracking
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Back to Intro
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Summary)1 of 2
Total Scope 1 & Location-Based Scope 2 297,227 CO2-e (metric tons)
Total Scope 1 & Market-Based Scope 2 297,227 CO2-e (metric tons)
Reductions
Offsets 0 CO2-e (metric tons)
Net Scope 1 and 2 Location-Based Emissions 297,227 CO2-e (metric tons)
Net Scope 1 and 2 Market-Based Emissions 297,227 CO2-e (metric tons)
Scope 3 Emissions
Employee Business Travel 0 CO2-e (metric tons)
Employee Commuting 0 CO2-e (metric tons)
Product Transport 0 CO2-e (metric tons)
Waste 3,537 CO2-e (metric tons)
Required Supplemental Information
Biomass CO2 Emissions from Stationary Sources 0 CO2-e (metric tons)
Biomass CO2 Emissions from Mobile Sources 0 CO2-e (metric tons)
Go To Sheet
Go To SheetGo To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Summary)2 of 2
Scope 1 Emissions from Stationary Combustion Sources
Guidance
- Select "Fuel Combusted" from drop down box.
(C) Biomass CO2 emissions are not reported in the total emissions, but are reported separately at the bottom of the sheet.
Table 1. Stationary Source Fuel Combustion
Source Source Source Fuel QuantityIDDescriptionArea (sq ft)Combusted Combusted
BLR-012 East Power Plant 12,517 Natural Gas 10,000 MMBtu
Residential Natural Gas Use 3,000,000 Natural Gas 133,408 MMBtu
Commercia Natural Gas Use 60,000 Natural Gas 1,290 MMBtu
GHG Emissions
Total Organization-Wide Stationary Source Combustion by Fuel Type
Quantity
Combusted
Anthracite Coal 0 short tons
Bituminous Coal 0 short tons
Sub-bituminous Coal 0 short tons
Units
(B) If fuel is consumed in a facility but stationary fuel consumption data are not available, an estimate should be made
for completeness. See the "Items to Note" section of the Help sheet for suggested estimation approaches.
- Enter "Quantity Combusted" and choose the appropriate units from the drop down box in the unit column. If it's
necessary to convert units, common heat contents can be found on the "Heat Content" sheet and unit conversions on
the "Unit Conversion" sheet.
(A) Enter annual data for each combustion unit, facility, or site (by fuel type) in ORANGE cells on Table 1. Example
entry is shown in first row (GREEN Italics ).
Fuel Type Units
Back to Intro Back to Summary HelpHeat Content
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 1.0)1 of 2
Lignite Coal 0 short tons
Natural Gas 131,284,600 scfDistillate Fuel Oil No. 2 0 gallons
Residual Fuel Oil No. 6 0 gallons
Kerosene 0 gallons
Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPG)0 gallons
Wood and Wood Residuals 0 short tons
Landfill Gas 0 scf
Total Organization-Wide CO2, CH4 and N2O Emissions from Stationary Source Fuel Combustion
CO2 (kg)CH4 (g)N2O (g)
Anthracite Coal 0.0 0.0 0.0
Bituminous Coal 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sub-bituminous Coal 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lignite Coal 0.0 0.0 0.0
Natural Gas 7,147,133.6 135,223.1 13,128.5
Distillate Fuel Oil No. 2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Residual Fuel Oil No. 6 0.0 0.0 0.0
Kerosene 0.0 0.0 0.0
Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPG)0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Fossil Fuel Emissions 7,147,133.6 135,223.1 13,128.5
Wood and Wood Residuals 0.0 0.0 0.0Landfill Gas 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Non-Fossil Fuel Emissions 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Emissions for all Fuels 7,147,133.6 135,223.1 13,128.5
Total CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Stationary Combustion 7,154.4
Total Biomass CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Stationary Combustion 0.0
Fuel Type
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 1.0)2 of 2
Scope 1 Emissions from Mobile Sources
Guidance
- If mileage or fuel usage is unknown, estimate using approximate fuel economy values (see Reference Table below).
- Vehicle year and Miles traveled are not necessary for non-road equiment.
Biodiesel Percent:20 %
Ethanol Percent:80 %
Table 1. Mobile Source Fuel Combustion and Miles Traveled
Source Source Vehicle Vehicle Fuel Units Miles
ID Description Type Year Usage Traveled
Fleet-012 HQ Fleet NonRoad Ships and Boats - Diesel 1990 500 gal 3,670
Construction Equipment (non-road gaConstruction Equipment NonRoad Construction/Mining Equipment - Gasoline (2 stroke)2007 6,010,282 gal 0
Passenger Cars Construction Equipment OnRoad Passenger Cars - Gasoline 2007 20,439 gal 4,368
Construction Equipment (non-road di Construction Equipment NonRoad Construction/Mining Equipment - Diesel 2007 21,465,291 gal 0
Medium- and Heavy- Duty Trucks Construction Equipment OnRoad Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles - Diesel 2007 42,931 gal 1,560
Light Trucks Construction Equipment OnRoad Light-Duty Trucks - Gasoline 2007 40,069 gal 1,560
Reference Table: Average Fuel Economy by Vehicle Type
Passenger Cars 24.1
Motorcycles 44.0
Diesel Buses (Diesel Heavy-Duty Vehicles)7.3
Other 2-axle, 4-Tire Vehicles 17.6
Single unit 2-Axle 6-Tire or More Trucks 7.5
Combination Trucks 6.1
GHG Emissions
Total Organization-Wide Mobile Source Fuel Usage and CO2 Emissions (On-Road and Off-Road Vehicles)
CO2(kg)
Motor Gasoline 6,070,789 gallons 53,301,531.6
Diesel Fuel 21,508,222 gallons ###########
Residual Fuel Oil 0 gallons 0.0
Aviation Gasoline 0 gallons 0.0
Kerosene-Type Jet Fuel 0 gallons 0.0
Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG)0 gallons 0.0
Ethanol 0 gallons 0.0 Note: emissions here are only for the ga
Biodiesel 0 gallons 0.0 Note: emissions here are only for the di
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)0 gallons 0.0
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)0 scf 0.0
Total Organization-Wide On-Road Gasoline Mobile Source Mileage and CH4/N2O Emissions
Vehicle Year Mileage (miles)CH4 (g)N2O (g)
Passenger Cars - Gasoline 1984-93 0 0.0 0.0
1994 0 0.0 0.0
1995 0 0.0 0.0
1996 0 0.0 0.0
1997 0 0.0 0.0
1998 0 0.0 0.0
1999 0 0.0 0.0
2000 0 0.0 0.0
2001 0 0.0 0.0
2002 0 0.0 0.0
2003 0 0.0 0.0
2004 0 0.0 0.0
2005 0 0.0 0.0
2006 0 0.0 0.0
2007 4,368 31.4 22.7
2008 0 0.0 0.0
2009 0 0.0 0.0
2010 0 0.0 0.0
2011 0 0.0 0.0
2012 0 0.0 0.0
2013 0 0.0 0.0
2014 0 0.0 0.0
2015 0 0.0 0.0
2016 0 0.0 0.0
2017 0 0.0 0.0
2018 0 0.0 0.0
Light-Duty Trucks - Gasoline 1987-93 0 0.0 0.0
(Vans, Pickup Trucks, SUVs)1994 0 0.0 0.0
1995 0 0.0 0.0
1996 0 0.0 0.0
1997 0 0.0 0.0
1998 0 0.0 0.0
1999 0 0.0 0.0
2000 0 0.0 0.0
2001 0 0.0 0.0
2002 0 0.0 0.0
2003 0 0.0 0.0
2004 0 0.0 0.0
2005 0 0.0 0.0
On-Road or
Non-Road?
Average Fuel Economy (mpg)
Vehicle Type
Fuel Type
Vehicle Type
Fuel Usage Units
- Enter "Fuel Usage" in appropriate units (units appear when vehicle type is selected).
(C) Biomass CO2 emissions from biodiesel and ethanol are not reported in the total emissions, but are reported separately at the bottom of the sheet.
(B) When using biofuels, typically the biofuel (biodiesel or ethanol) is mixed with a petroleum fuel (diesel or gasoline) for use in
vehicles. Enter the biodiesel and ethanol percentages of the fuel if known, or leave default values.
(A) Enter annual data for each vehicle or group of vehicles (grouped by vehicle type, vehicle year, and fuel type) in ORANGE cells in
Table 1. Example entry is shown in first row (GREEN Italics ). Only enter vehicles owned or leased by your organization on
this sheet. All other vehicle use such as employee commuting or business travel is considered a scope 3 emissions source
and should be reported in the corresponding scope 3 sheets.
- Select "Vehicle Type" from drop down box (closest type available).
- Select "On-Road" or "Non-Road" from drop down box to determine the Vehicle Types available.
Back to Intro Back to Summary Help
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 2.0)1 of 2
2006 0 0.0 0.0
2007 1,560 16.1 9.5
2008 0 0.0 0.0
2009 0 0.0 0.0
2010 0 0.0 0.0
2011 0 0.0 0.0
2012 0 0.0 0.0
2013 0 0.0 0.0
2014 0 0.0 0.0
2015 0 0.0 0.0
2016 0 0.0 0.0
2017 0 0.0 0.0
2018 0 0.0 0.0
Heavy-Duty Vehicles - Gasoline 1985-86 0 0.0 0.0
1987 0 0.0 0.0
1988-1989 0 0.0 0.0
1990-1995 0 0.0 0.0
1996 0 0.0 0.0
1997 0 0.0 0.0
1998 0 0.0 0.0
1999 0 0.0 0.0
2000 0 0.0 0.0
2001 0 0.0 0.0
2002 0 0.0 0.0
2003 0 0.0 0.0
2004 0 0.0 0.0
2005 0 0.0 0.0
2006 0 0.0 0.0
2007 0 0.0 0.0
2008 0 0.0 0.0
2009 0 0.0 0.0
2010 0 0.0 0.0
2011 0 0.0 0.0
2012 0 0.0 0.0
2013 0 0.0 0.0
2014 0 0.0 0.0
2015 0 0.0 0.0
2016 0 0.0 0.0
2017 0 0.0 0.0
2018 0 0.0 0.0
Motorcycles - Gasoline 1960-1995 0 0.0 0.0
1996-present 0 0.0 0.0
Total Organization-Wide On-Road Non-Gasoline Mobile Source Mileage and CH4/N2O Emissions
Vehicle Type Fuel Type Vehicle Year Mileage (miles)CH4 (g)N2O (g)
1960-1982 0 0.0 0.0
1983-1995 0 0.0 0.0
1996-2006 0 0.0 0.0
2007-2018 0 0.0 0.0
1960-1982 0 0.0 0.0
1983-1995 0 0.0 0.0
1996-2006 0 0.0 0.0
2007-2018 0 0.0 0.0
1960-2006 0 0.0 0.0
2007-2018 1,560 14.8 67.2
Methanol 0 0.0 0.0
Ethanol 0 0.0 0.0
CNG 0 0.0 0.0
LPG 0 0.0 0.0
Biodiesel 0 0.0 0.0
Ethanol 0 0.0 0.0
CNG 0 0.0 0.0
LPG 0 0.0 0.0
LNG 0 0.0 0.0
Biodiesel 0 0.0 0.0
CNG 0 0.0 0.0
LPG 0 0.0 0.0
LNG 0 0.0 0.0
Biodiesel 0 0.0 0.0
Methanol 0 0.0 0.0
Ethanol 0 0.0 0.0
CNG 0 0.0 0.0
LPG 0 0.0 0.0
LNG 0 0.0 0.0
Biodiesel 0 0.0 0.0
Methanol 0 0.0 0.0
Ethanol 0 0.0 0.0
CNG 0 0.0 0.0
LPG 0 0.0 0.0
LNG 0 0.0 0.0
Biodiesel 0 0.0 0.0
Total Organization-Wide Non-Road Mobile Source Fuel Usage and CH4/N2O Emissions
Vehicle Type Fuel Type Fuel Usage
(gallons)CH4 (g) N2O (g)
Residual Fuel Oil - - -
Gasoline (2 stroke)- - -
Gasoline (4 stroke)- - -
Diesel - - -
Locomotives Diesel - - -
Jet Fuel - - -
Aviation Gasoline - - -
Gasoline (2 stroke)- - -
Gasoline (4 stroke)- - -
Diesel - - -
LPG - - -
Gasoline - - -
Diesel - - -
Gasoline (2 stroke)6,010,282 74,647,697 420,720
Gasoline (4 stroke)- - -
Diesel 21,465,291 4,293,058 10,088,687 LPG - - -
Gasoline - - -
Diesel - - -
Gasoline (2 stroke)- - -
Gasoline (4 stroke)- - -
Diesel - - -
LPG - - -
Gasoline - - -
Diesel - - -
LPG - - -
Gasoline (2 stroke)- - -
Gasoline (4 stroke)- - -
Diesel - - -
LPG - - -
Gasoline (2 stroke)- - -
Gasoline (4 stroke)- - -
Diesel - - -
Gasoline - - -
Diesel - - -
LPG - - -
Gasoline (2 stroke)- - -
Gasoline (4 stroke)- - -
Diesel - - -
LPG - - -
Total CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Mobile Sources 278,005.8
Total Biomass CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Mobile Sources 0.0
Ships and Boats
Aircraft
Agricultural Equipment
Heavy-Duty Trucks
Buses
Light-Duty Cars
Light-Duty Trucks
Medium-Duty Trucks
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles - DDiesel
Passenger Cars - Diesel Diesel
Light-Duty Trucks - Diesel Diesel
Industrial/Commercial Equipment
Logging Equipment
Railroad Equipment
Recreational Equipment
Agricultural Offroad Trucks
Construction/Mining Equipment
Construction/Mining Offroad Trucks
Lawn and Garden Equipment
Airport Equipment
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 2.0)2 of 2
Scope 2 Emissions from Purchase of Electricity
Guidance
(C) Select "eGRID subregion" from drop box and enter "Electricity Purchased."
https://www.epa.gov/egrid/power-profiler#/
Tips: Enter electricity usage by location and then look up the eGRID subregion for each location.
Table 1. Total Amount of Electricity Purchased by eGRID Subregion
Source Source Source eGRID Subregion Electricity CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O
ID Description Area (sq ft)where electricity is consumed Purchased Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions
(kWh)(lb/MWh)(lb/MWh)(lb/MWh)(lb)(lb)(lb)(lb)(lb)(lb)
Bldg-012 East Power Plant 12,517 HIMS (HICC Miscellaneous)200,000 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 237,120.0 28.6 4.4
Residential Electricity Use 1,600 MROW (MRO West)23,196,200 <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>25,478,706.1 2,760.3 394.3 25,478,706.1 2,760.3 394.3
Commercia Electricity Use 60,000 MROW (MRO West)846,000 <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>929,246.4 100.7 14.4 929,246.4 100.7 14.4
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
Total Emissions for All Sources 24,042,200 26,407,952.5 2,861.0 408.7 26,407,952.5 2,861.0 408.7
GHG Emissions
CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons)
Location-Based Electricity Emissions 12,066.3
Market-Based Electricity Emissions 12,066.3
Notes:
1. CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions are estimated using methodology provided in EPA's Center for Corporate Climate Leadership Greenhouse Gas Inventory Guidance
- Indirect Emissions from Purchased Electricity (January 2016).
Figure 1. EPA eGRID2019, February 2021.
(D) See the market-based emission factor hierarchy on the market-based method Help sheet. If any of the first four types of
emission factors are applicable, enter the factors in the yellow cells marked as "<enter factor>". If not, leave the
yellow cells as is, and eGRID subregion factors will be used for market-based emissions.
Example entry is shown in first row (GREEN Italics) for a facility that purchases RECs for 100% of its consumption, and
therefore has a market-based emission factor of 0.
The Indirect Emissions from Purchased Electricity Guidance document provides guidance for quantifying two scope 2 emissions totals, using
a location-based method and a market-based method. The organization should quantify and report both totals in its GHG inventory. The
location-based method considers average emission factors for the electricity grids that provide electricity. The market-based method
considers contractual arrangements under which the organization procures electricity from specific sources, such as renewable energy.
- Use map (Figure 1) at bottom of sheet to determine appropriate eGRID subregion. If subregion cannot be determined from
the map, find the correct subregion by entering the location's zip code into EPA’s Power Profiler:
(A) Enter total annual electricity purchased in kWh and each eGRID subregion for each facility or site in ORANGE cells of Table 1.
(B) If electricity consumption data are not available for a facility, an estimate should be made for completeness.
See the "Items to Note" section of the Help sheet for suggested estimation approaches.
If you purchase renewable energy that is less than 100% of your site's electricity, see the
example in the market-based method Help sheet. Location-Based
Emission Factors Emissions Emissions
Market-Based
Use these cells to enter applicable market-based emission factors
Back to Intro Back to Summary Help
Help - Market-Based Method
Help - Market-Based Method
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Indirect 1.0)1 of 2
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Indirect 1.0)2 of 2
Scope 3 Emissions from Waste
Guidance
Table 1. Waste Disposal Weight by Waste Material and Disposal Method (CO2, CH4 and N2O)
Source ID Source Description Waste Material Disposal
Method Weight Unit CO2e Emissions
(kg)
Bldg-012 East Power Plant Finished Goods Steel Cans Landfilled 1,000 metric ton 22,040
Nonresidential Buildings Nonresidential Waste Mixed MSW municipal solid waste Combusted 720 metric ton 341,179
Residential Residential Waste Mixed MSW municipal solid waste Combusted 6,373 metric ton 3,019,807
Nonresidential Buildings Nonresidential Recycling Mixed Recyclables Recycled 180 metric ton 17,852
Residential Residential Recycling Mixed Recyclables Recycled 1,593 metric ton 158,013
GHG Emissions
Total Emissions by Disposal Method
Waste Material CO2e (kg)
Recycled 175,866
Landfilled -
(B) Choose the appropriate material and disposal method from the drop down options. For the average-data method, use one of the mixed material types, such as mixed
MSW. If the exact waste material is not available, consider an appropriate proxy. For example, dimensional lumber can be used as a proxy for wood furniture.
(C) Choose an appropriate disposal method. Note that not all disposal methods are available for all materials. If there is a #NA or # Value error in the emissions column, you must pick a
new material type or appropriate disposal method.
(A) Enter annual waste data in ORANGE cells. Example entry is shown in first row (GREEN Italics ).
Back to Intro Back to Summary Help
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Optional 3.0)1 of 2
Combusted 3,360,986
Composted -
Anaerobically Digested (Dry Digestate with Curing)-
Anaerobically Digested (Wet Digestate with Curing)-
Total CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Waste 3,536.9
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Optional 3.0)2 of 2
Emissions Summary
Guidance
(B) The "Go To Sheet" buttons can be used to navigate to the data entry sheets.
Organizational Information:
Organization Name:
Organization Address:
Inventory Reporting Period:
Start: MM/DD/YY End:
Name of Preparer:
Phone Number of Preparer:
Date Prepared:
Summary of Organization's Emissions:
Scope 1 Emissions
Stationary Combustion 7,291 CO2-e (metric tons)
Mobile Sources 336,743 CO2-e (metric tons)
Refrigeration / AC Equipment Use 0 CO2-e (metric tons)
Fire Suppression 0 CO2-e (metric tons)
Purchased Gases 0 CO2-e (metric tons)
Location-Based Scope 2 Emissions
Purchased and Consumed Electricity 12,324 CO2-e (metric tons)
Purchased and Consumed Steam 0 CO2-e (metric tons)
Market-Based Scope 2 Emissions
Purchased and Consumed Electricity 12,324 CO2-e (metric tons)
Purchased and Consumed Steam 0 CO2-e (metric tons)
Total organization Emissions
The total GHG emissions from each source category are provided below. You may also use this summary sheet to fill
out the Annual GHG Inventory Summary and Goal Tracking Form as this calculator only quantifies one year of
emissions at a time.
(A) Enter organization information into the orange cells. Other cells on this sheet will be automatically calculated
from the data entered in the sheets in this workbook. Blue cells indicate required emission sources if applicable. Green
cells indicate scope 3 emission sources and offsets, which organizations may optionally include in their inventory.
Scenario 2
2025
MM/DD/YY
By entering the data below into the appropriate cell of the Annual GHG Inventory Summary and Goal Tracking Form,
you will be able to compare multiple years of data.
If you have multiple Calculator files covering sub-sets of your inventory for a particular reporting period, sum each of
the emission categories (e.g. Stationary Combustion) to an organizational total, which then can be entered into the
Annual GHG Inventory Summary and Goal Tracking Form .
https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/center-corporate-climate-leadership-annual-ghg-inventory-summary-and-goal-tracking
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Back to Intro
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Summary)1 of 2
Total Scope 1 & Location-Based Scope 2 356,358 CO2-e (metric tons)
Total Scope 1 & Market-Based Scope 2 356,358 CO2-e (metric tons)
Reductions
Offsets 0 CO2-e (metric tons)
Net Scope 1 and 2 Location-Based Emissions 356,358 CO2-e (metric tons)
Net Scope 1 and 2 Market-Based Emissions 356,358 CO2-e (metric tons)
Scope 3 Emissions
Employee Business Travel 0 CO2-e (metric tons)
Employee Commuting 0 CO2-e (metric tons)
Product Transport 0 CO2-e (metric tons)
Waste 3,642 CO2-e (metric tons)
Required Supplemental Information
Biomass CO2 Emissions from Stationary Sources 0 CO2-e (metric tons)
Biomass CO2 Emissions from Mobile Sources 0 CO2-e (metric tons)
Go To Sheet
Go To SheetGo To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Summary)2 of 2
Scope 1 Emissions from Stationary Combustion Sources
Guidance
- Select "Fuel Combusted" from drop down box.
(C) Biomass CO2 emissions are not reported in the total emissions, but are reported separately at the bottom of the sheet.
Table 1. Stationary Source Fuel Combustion
Source Source Source Fuel QuantityIDDescriptionArea (sq ft)Combusted Combusted
BLR-012 East Power Plant 12,517 Natural Gas 10,000 MMBtu
Residential Natural Gas Use 30,500,000 Natural Gas 135,938 MMBtu
Commercia Natural Gas Use 62,000 Natural Gas 1,333 MMBtu
GHG Emissions
Total Organization-Wide Stationary Source Combustion by Fuel Type
Quantity
Combusted
Anthracite Coal 0 short tons
Bituminous Coal 0 short tons
Sub-bituminous Coal 0 short tons
Units
(B) If fuel is consumed in a facility but stationary fuel consumption data are not available, an estimate should be made
for completeness. See the "Items to Note" section of the Help sheet for suggested estimation approaches.
- Enter "Quantity Combusted" and choose the appropriate units from the drop down box in the unit column. If it's
necessary to convert units, common heat contents can be found on the "Heat Content" sheet and unit conversions on
the "Unit Conversion" sheet.
(A) Enter annual data for each combustion unit, facility, or site (by fuel type) in ORANGE cells on Table 1. Example
entry is shown in first row (GREEN Italics ).
Fuel Type Units
Back to Intro Back to Summary HelpHeat Content
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 1.0)1 of 2
Lignite Coal 0 short tons
Natural Gas 133,792,398 scfDistillate Fuel Oil No. 2 0 gallons
Residual Fuel Oil No. 6 0 gallons
Kerosene 0 gallons
Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPG)0 gallons
Wood and Wood Residuals 0 short tons
Landfill Gas 0 scf
Total Organization-Wide CO2, CH4 and N2O Emissions from Stationary Source Fuel Combustion
CO2 (kg)CH4 (g)N2O (g)
Anthracite Coal 0.0 0.0 0.0
Bituminous Coal 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sub-bituminous Coal 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lignite Coal 0.0 0.0 0.0
Natural Gas 7,283,658.1 137,806.2 13,379.2
Distillate Fuel Oil No. 2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Residual Fuel Oil No. 6 0.0 0.0 0.0
Kerosene 0.0 0.0 0.0
Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPG)0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Fossil Fuel Emissions 7,283,658.1 137,806.2 13,379.2
Wood and Wood Residuals 0.0 0.0 0.0Landfill Gas 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Non-Fossil Fuel Emissions 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Emissions for all Fuels 7,283,658.1 137,806.2 13,379.2
Total CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Stationary Combustion 7,291.1
Total Biomass CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Stationary Combustion 0.0
Fuel Type
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 1.0)2 of 2
Scope 1 Emissions from Mobile Sources
Guidance
- If mileage or fuel usage is unknown, estimate using approximate fuel economy values (see Reference Table below).
- Vehicle year and Miles traveled are not necessary for non-road equiment.
Biodiesel Percent:20 %
Ethanol Percent:80 %
Table 1. Mobile Source Fuel Combustion and Miles Traveled
Source Source Vehicle Vehicle Fuel Units Miles
ID Description Type Year Usage Traveled
Fleet-012 HQ Fleet NonRoad Ships and Boats - Diesel 1990 500 gal 3,670
Construction Equipment (non-road gaConstruction Equipment NonRoad Construction/Mining Equipment - Gasoline (2 stroke)2007 7,280,145 gal 0
Passenger Cars Construction Equipment OnRoad Passenger Cars - Gasoline 2007 24,758 gal 4,368
Construction Equipment (non-road di Construction Equipment NonRoad Construction/Mining Equipment - Diesel 2007 26,000,519 gal 0
Medium- and Heavy- Duty Trucks Construction Equipment OnRoad Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles - Diesel 2007 52,001 gal 1,560
Light Trucks Construction Equipment OnRoad Light-Duty Trucks - Gasoline 2007 48,534 gal 1,560
Reference Table: Average Fuel Economy by Vehicle Type
Passenger Cars 24.1
Motorcycles 44.0
Diesel Buses (Diesel Heavy-Duty Vehicles)7.3
Other 2-axle, 4-Tire Vehicles 17.6
Single unit 2-Axle 6-Tire or More Trucks 7.5
Combination Trucks 6.1
GHG Emissions
Total Organization-Wide Mobile Source Fuel Usage and CO2 Emissions (On-Road and Off-Road Vehicles)
CO2(kg)
Motor Gasoline 7,353,437 gallons 64,563,176.9
Diesel Fuel 26,052,520 gallons ###########
Residual Fuel Oil 0 gallons 0.0
Aviation Gasoline 0 gallons 0.0
Kerosene-Type Jet Fuel 0 gallons 0.0
Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG)0 gallons 0.0
Ethanol 0 gallons 0.0 Note: emissions here are only for the ga
Biodiesel 0 gallons 0.0 Note: emissions here are only for the di
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)0 gallons 0.0
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)0 scf 0.0
Total Organization-Wide On-Road Gasoline Mobile Source Mileage and CH4/N2O Emissions
Vehicle Year Mileage (miles)CH4 (g)N2O (g)
Passenger Cars - Gasoline 1984-93 0 0.0 0.0
1994 0 0.0 0.0
1995 0 0.0 0.0
1996 0 0.0 0.0
1997 0 0.0 0.0
1998 0 0.0 0.0
1999 0 0.0 0.0
2000 0 0.0 0.0
2001 0 0.0 0.0
2002 0 0.0 0.0
2003 0 0.0 0.0
2004 0 0.0 0.0
2005 0 0.0 0.0
2006 0 0.0 0.0
2007 4,368 31.4 22.7
2008 0 0.0 0.0
2009 0 0.0 0.0
2010 0 0.0 0.0
2011 0 0.0 0.0
2012 0 0.0 0.0
2013 0 0.0 0.0
2014 0 0.0 0.0
2015 0 0.0 0.0
2016 0 0.0 0.0
2017 0 0.0 0.0
2018 0 0.0 0.0
Light-Duty Trucks - Gasoline 1987-93 0 0.0 0.0
(Vans, Pickup Trucks, SUVs)1994 0 0.0 0.0
1995 0 0.0 0.0
1996 0 0.0 0.0
1997 0 0.0 0.0
1998 0 0.0 0.0
1999 0 0.0 0.0
2000 0 0.0 0.0
2001 0 0.0 0.0
2002 0 0.0 0.0
2003 0 0.0 0.0
2004 0 0.0 0.0
2005 0 0.0 0.0
- Enter "Fuel Usage" in appropriate units (units appear when vehicle type is selected).
(C) Biomass CO2 emissions from biodiesel and ethanol are not reported in the total emissions, but are reported separately at the bottom of the sheet.
(B) When using biofuels, typically the biofuel (biodiesel or ethanol) is mixed with a petroleum fuel (diesel or gasoline) for use in
vehicles. Enter the biodiesel and ethanol percentages of the fuel if known, or leave default values.
(A) Enter annual data for each vehicle or group of vehicles (grouped by vehicle type, vehicle year, and fuel type) in ORANGE cells in
Table 1. Example entry is shown in first row (GREEN Italics ). Only enter vehicles owned or leased by your organization on
this sheet. All other vehicle use such as employee commuting or business travel is considered a scope 3 emissions source
and should be reported in the corresponding scope 3 sheets.
- Select "Vehicle Type" from drop down box (closest type available).
- Select "On-Road" or "Non-Road" from drop down box to determine the Vehicle Types available.
Average Fuel Economy (mpg)
Vehicle Type
Fuel Type
Vehicle Type
Fuel Usage Units
On-Road or
Non-Road?
Back to Intro Back to Summary Help
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 2.0)1 of 2
2006 0 0.0 0.0
2007 1,560 16.1 9.5
2008 0 0.0 0.0
2009 0 0.0 0.0
2010 0 0.0 0.0
2011 0 0.0 0.0
2012 0 0.0 0.0
2013 0 0.0 0.0
2014 0 0.0 0.0
2015 0 0.0 0.0
2016 0 0.0 0.0
2017 0 0.0 0.0
2018 0 0.0 0.0
Heavy-Duty Vehicles - Gasoline 1985-86 0 0.0 0.0
1987 0 0.0 0.0
1988-1989 0 0.0 0.0
1990-1995 0 0.0 0.0
1996 0 0.0 0.0
1997 0 0.0 0.0
1998 0 0.0 0.0
1999 0 0.0 0.0
2000 0 0.0 0.0
2001 0 0.0 0.0
2002 0 0.0 0.0
2003 0 0.0 0.0
2004 0 0.0 0.0
2005 0 0.0 0.0
2006 0 0.0 0.0
2007 0 0.0 0.0
2008 0 0.0 0.0
2009 0 0.0 0.0
2010 0 0.0 0.0
2011 0 0.0 0.0
2012 0 0.0 0.0
2013 0 0.0 0.0
2014 0 0.0 0.0
2015 0 0.0 0.0
2016 0 0.0 0.0
2017 0 0.0 0.0
2018 0 0.0 0.0
Motorcycles - Gasoline 1960-1995 0 0.0 0.0
1996-present 0 0.0 0.0
Total Organization-Wide On-Road Non-Gasoline Mobile Source Mileage and CH4/N2O Emissions
Vehicle Type Fuel Type Vehicle Year Mileage (miles)CH4 (g)N2O (g)
1960-1982 0 0.0 0.0
1983-1995 0 0.0 0.0
1996-2006 0 0.0 0.0
2007-2018 0 0.0 0.0
1960-1982 0 0.0 0.0
1983-1995 0 0.0 0.0
1996-2006 0 0.0 0.0
2007-2018 0 0.0 0.0
1960-2006 0 0.0 0.0
2007-2018 1,560 14.8 67.2
Methanol 0 0.0 0.0
Ethanol 0 0.0 0.0
CNG 0 0.0 0.0
LPG 0 0.0 0.0
Biodiesel 0 0.0 0.0
Ethanol 0 0.0 0.0
CNG 0 0.0 0.0
LPG 0 0.0 0.0
LNG 0 0.0 0.0
Biodiesel 0 0.0 0.0
CNG 0 0.0 0.0
LPG 0 0.0 0.0
LNG 0 0.0 0.0
Biodiesel 0 0.0 0.0
Methanol 0 0.0 0.0
Ethanol 0 0.0 0.0
CNG 0 0.0 0.0
LPG 0 0.0 0.0
LNG 0 0.0 0.0
Biodiesel 0 0.0 0.0
Methanol 0 0.0 0.0
Ethanol 0 0.0 0.0
CNG 0 0.0 0.0
LPG 0 0.0 0.0
LNG 0 0.0 0.0
Biodiesel 0 0.0 0.0
Total Organization-Wide Non-Road Mobile Source Fuel Usage and CH4/N2O Emissions
Vehicle Type Fuel Type Fuel Usage
(gallons)CH4 (g) N2O (g)
Residual Fuel Oil - - -
Gasoline (2 stroke)- - -
Gasoline (4 stroke)- - -
Diesel - - -
Locomotives Diesel - - -
Jet Fuel - - -
Aviation Gasoline - - -
Gasoline (2 stroke)- - -
Gasoline (4 stroke)- - -
Diesel - - -
LPG - - -
Gasoline - - -
Diesel - - -
Gasoline (2 stroke)7,280,145 90,419,401 509,610
Gasoline (4 stroke)- - -
Diesel 26,000,519 5,200,104 12,220,244 LPG - - -
Gasoline - - -
Diesel - - -
Gasoline (2 stroke)- - -
Gasoline (4 stroke)- - -
Diesel - - -
LPG - - -
Gasoline - - -
Diesel - - -
LPG - - -
Gasoline (2 stroke)- - -
Gasoline (4 stroke)- - -
Diesel - - -
LPG - - -
Gasoline (2 stroke)- - -
Gasoline (4 stroke)- - -
Diesel - - -
Gasoline - - -
Diesel - - -
LPG - - -
Gasoline (2 stroke)- - -
Gasoline (4 stroke)- - -
Diesel - - -
LPG - - -
Total CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Mobile Sources 336,743.4
Total Biomass CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Mobile Sources 0.0
Industrial/Commercial Equipment
Logging Equipment
Railroad Equipment
Recreational Equipment
Agricultural Offroad Trucks
Construction/Mining Equipment
Construction/Mining Offroad Trucks
Lawn and Garden Equipment
Airport Equipment
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles - DDiesel
Passenger Cars - Diesel Diesel
Light-Duty Trucks - Diesel Diesel
Ships and Boats
Aircraft
Agricultural Equipment
Heavy-Duty Trucks
Buses
Light-Duty Cars
Light-Duty Trucks
Medium-Duty Trucks
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 2.0)2 of 2
Scope 2 Emissions from Purchase of Electricity
Guidance
(C) Select "eGRID subregion" from drop box and enter "Electricity Purchased."
https://www.epa.gov/egrid/power-profiler#/
Tips: Enter electricity usage by location and then look up the eGRID subregion for each location.
Table 1. Total Amount of Electricity Purchased by eGRID Subregion
Source Source Source eGRID Subregion Electricity CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O
ID Description Area (sq ft)where electricity is consumed Purchased Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions
(kWh)(lb/MWh)(lb/MWh)(lb/MWh)(lb)(lb)(lb)(lb)(lb)(lb)
Bldg-012 East Power Plant 12,517 HIMS (HICC Miscellaneous)200,000 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 237,120.0 28.6 4.4
Residential Electricity Use 30,500,000 MROW (MRO West)23,681,300 <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>26,011,539.9 2,818.1 402.6 26,011,539.9 2,818.1 402.6
Commercia Electricity Use 62,000 MROW (MRO West)874,200 <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>960,221.3 104.0 14.9 960,221.3 104.0 14.9
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
Total Emissions for All Sources 24,555,500 26,971,761.2 2,922.1 417.4 26,971,761.2 2,922.1 417.4
GHG Emissions
CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons)
Location-Based Electricity Emissions 12,324.0
Market-Based Electricity Emissions 12,324.0
Notes:
1. CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions are estimated using methodology provided in EPA's Center for Corporate Climate Leadership Greenhouse Gas Inventory Guidance
- Indirect Emissions from Purchased Electricity (January 2016).
Figure 1. EPA eGRID2019, February 2021.
(D) See the market-based emission factor hierarchy on the market-based method Help sheet. If any of the first four types of
emission factors are applicable, enter the factors in the yellow cells marked as "<enter factor>". If not, leave the
yellow cells as is, and eGRID subregion factors will be used for market-based emissions.
Example entry is shown in first row (GREEN Italics) for a facility that purchases RECs for 100% of its consumption, and
therefore has a market-based emission factor of 0.
The Indirect Emissions from Purchased Electricity Guidance document provides guidance for quantifying two scope 2 emissions totals, using
a location-based method and a market-based method. The organization should quantify and report both totals in its GHG inventory. The
location-based method considers average emission factors for the electricity grids that provide electricity. The market-based method
considers contractual arrangements under which the organization procures electricity from specific sources, such as renewable energy.
- Use map (Figure 1) at bottom of sheet to determine appropriate eGRID subregion. If subregion cannot be determined from
the map, find the correct subregion by entering the location's zip code into EPA’s Power Profiler:
(A) Enter total annual electricity purchased in kWh and each eGRID subregion for each facility or site in ORANGE cells of Table 1.
(B) If electricity consumption data are not available for a facility, an estimate should be made for completeness.
See the "Items to Note" section of the Help sheet for suggested estimation approaches.
If you purchase renewable energy that is less than 100% of your site's electricity, see the
example in the market-based method Help sheet. Location-Based
Emission Factors Emissions Emissions
Market-Based
Use these cells to enter applicable market-based emission factors
Back to Intro Back to Summary Help
Help - Market-Based Method
Help - Market-Based Method
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Indirect 1.0)1 of 2
Scope 3 Emissions from Waste
Guidance
Table 1. Waste Disposal Weight by Waste Material and Disposal Method (CO2, CH4 and N2O)
Source ID Source Description Waste Material Disposal
Method Weight Unit CO2e Emissions
(kg)
Bldg-012 East Power Plant Finished Goods Steel Cans Landfilled 1,000 metric ton 22,040
Nonresidential Buildings Nonresidential Waste Mixed MSW municipal solid waste Combusted 744 metric ton 352,552
Residential Residential Waste Mixed MSW municipal solid waste Combusted 6,560 metric ton 3,108,522
Nonresidential Buildings Nonresidential Recycling Mixed Recyclables Recycled 186 metric ton 18,447
Residential Residential Recycling Mixed Recyclables Recycled 1,640 metric ton 162,655
GHG Emissions
Total Emissions by Disposal Method
Waste Material CO2e (kg)
Recycled 181,103
Landfilled -
(B) Choose the appropriate material and disposal method from the drop down options. For the average-data method, use one of the mixed material types, such as mixed
MSW. If the exact waste material is not available, consider an appropriate proxy. For example, dimensional lumber can be used as a proxy for wood furniture.
(C) Choose an appropriate disposal method. Note that not all disposal methods are available for all materials. If there is a #NA or # Value error in the emissions column, you must pick a
new material type or appropriate disposal method.
(A) Enter annual waste data in ORANGE cells. Example entry is shown in first row (GREEN Italics ).
Back to Intro Back to Summary Help
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Optional 3.0)1 of 2
Combusted 3,461,073
Composted -
Anaerobically Digested (Dry Digestate with Curing)-
Anaerobically Digested (Wet Digestate with Curing)-
Total CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Waste 3,642.2
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Optional 3.0)2 of 2
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR July 2025
Appendix D: Traffic
Study
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
NORTHWEST MAIN
LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA
REPORT CERTIFICATION
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.
____________________ 6/30/2025
Jacob Rojer, P.E., PTOE Date
License No. 56767
1 Northwest Main – Lino Lakes, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ June 2025
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 2
2. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................................................................ 4
3. ANALYSIS OF FUTURE BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ................................................ 8
4. ANALYSIS OF SCENARIO 1 CONDITIONS ................................................................. 12
5. ANALYSIS OF SCENARIO 2 CONDITIONS ................................................................. 22
6. TURN LANE WARRANT ANALYSIS ............................................................................. 32
7. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................ 33
8. APPENDIX .................................................................................................................... 37
APPENDIX
A. TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
B. SIMTRAFFIC ANALYSIS RESULTS
C. TURN LANE WARRANT SHEETS
Northwest Main – Lino Lakes, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ June 2025 2
1. INTRODUCTION
Kimley-Horn was retained to prepare a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the Northwest Main Street
development in Lino Lakes, Minnesota, as the site undergoes the Alternative Urban Areawide Review
(AUAR) process. The site is located along Main Street (on both sides of the street) between the city limits
and 4th Avenue. An aerial view of the study location and surrounding roadway network is presented in
Exhibit 1.
As part of this study, the existing roadway network was analyzed to determine the current operations at the
study intersections. In order to assess the potential impact of the development scenarios on the area
roadway network, site-generated trips were established and added to the background traffic volumes.
Background traffic volumes included the other major development projects in the vicinity. Future traffic
conditions were evaluated for the approximate Opening Year of the proposed development (2030) and a
long-term “Design Year” (2045). Background conditions were analyzed for each study year, along with the
“build” conditions of the two development scenarios. Additionally, an Existing (2025) conditions traffic
analysis was conducted.
This report presents and documents data collection, summarizes the evaluation of existing and projected
future traffic conditions on the surrounding roadways, and identifies recommendations to address the
potential impact of site-generated traffic on the adjacent roadway network.
1.1. REPORT PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this study is to address traffic and transportation impacts of the proposed development on
surrounding streets and intersections. This traffic impact study was prepared based on criteria set forth by
the AUAR guidelines. The following specific information, per AUAR recommended content, should be
provided:
• A description and map of the existing and proposed roadway system, including state, regional, and
local roads to be affected by the development of the AUAR area. This information should include
existing and proposed roadway capacities and existing and projected background (i.e. without the
AUAR development) traffic volumes;
• Trip generation data – trip generation rates and trip totals – for each major development scenario
broken down by land use zones and/or other relevant subdivisions of the area. The projected
distributions onto the roadway system must be included;
• Analysis of impacts of the traffic generated by the AUAR area on the roadway system, including:
comparison of peak period total flows to capacities and analysis of Level of Service and delay times
at critical points (if any);
• A discussion of structural and non-structural improvements and traffic management measures that
are proposed to mitigate problems.
Note: in the above analyses the geographical scope must extend outward as far as the traffic to be
generated would have a significant effect on the roadway system and traffic measurements and projections
should include peak days and peak hours, or other appropriate measures related to identifying congestion
problems, as well as ADTs (average daily traffic).
3 Northwest Main – Lino Lakes, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ June 2025
1.2. ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES
Synchro/SimTraffic 12th edition capacity analysis software was used to evaluate the operating conditions at
stop-controlled and signalized intersections. Specialized roundabout analysis software Rodel was utilized
for the capacity analysis of roundabouts. The capacity of an intersection quantifies its ability to
accommodate traffic volumes and is expressed in terms of level of service (LOS), measured in average
delay per vehicle. LOS grades range from A to F, with LOS A as the highest (best traffic flow and least
delay), LOS E as saturated or at-capacity conditions, and LOS F as the lowest (oversaturated conditions).
A 50-percent confidence interval was utilized for the Rodel analysis (the default value, representing the
median results expected for an intersection).
The LOS grades shown below, which are provided in the Transportation Research Board’s Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM), quantify and categorize the driver’s discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and
travel times experienced as a result of intersection control and the resulting traffic queuing. A detailed
description of each LOS rating can be found in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1: Level of Service Grading Descriptions
Level of Service Description1
A Minimal control delay; traffic operates at primarily free-flow conditions; unimpeded movement within traffic stream.
B Minor control delay at signalized intersections; traffic operates at a fairly unimpeded level with slightly restricted movement within traffic stream.
C Moderate control delay; movement within traffic stream more restricted than at LOS B; formation of queues contributes to lower average travel speeds.
D Considerable control delay that may be substantially increased by small increases in flow; average travel speeds continue to decrease.
E High control delay; average travel speed no more than 33 percent of free flow speed.
F Extremely high control delay; extensive queuing and high volumes create exceedingly restricted traffic flow.
1Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition.
The range of control delay for each rating (as detailed in the HCM) is shown in Table 1-2.
Table 1-2: Level of Service Grading Criteria
Level of Service1 Average Control Delay (s/veh) at:
Unsignalized Intersections Signalized Intersections
A 0 – 10 0 – 10
B > 10 – 15 > 10 – 20
C > 15 – 25 > 20 – 35
D > 25 – 35 > 35 – 55
E > 35 – 50 > 55 – 80
F2 > 50 > 80
1Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition
2All movements with a Volume to Capacity (v/c) ratio greater than 1 receive a rating of LOS F.
At side-street stop-controlled intersections, overall delay is not reported, and the worst side street delay is
reported in its place. The overall delay at side-street stop-controlled intersections can misrepresent the
operating conditions at the intersection since most vehicles on the main road experience zero delay.
Northwest Main – Lino Lakes, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ June 2025 4
2. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
Kimley-Horn conducted a review of the study area including existing land uses in the surrounding area, the
adjacent street system, current traffic volumes and operating conditions, lane configurations and traffic
controls at nearby intersections, and other key roadway characteristics. This section of the report details
information on the existing conditions.
2.1. AREA LAND USES
The majority of the site is currently agricultural land, though there are sparse residences on the site. The
surrounding parcels are largely occupied by residential developments, with the area to the north being
largely undeveloped.
2.2. EXISTING ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
The following provides a description of the roadways near the study area:
CSAH 14 (Main Street) is a County State Aid Highway (CSAH) that runs east-west through the AUAR area.
Main Street is a currently two-lane undivided roadway throughout the study area. According to the Lino
Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan, Main Street is classified as a Principal Arterial. Based on MnDOT data,
the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) is approximately 11,900 vehicles per day east of Lexington
Avenue and 9,800 vehicles per day west of Lake Drive, as of 2023. The posted speed limit ranges from 55
miles per hour (mph) near Sunset Avenue to 40 mph east of Lake Drive.
4th Avenue is a north-south roadway that forms the eastern boundary of the AUAR area. It is a two-lane
undivided roadway and is classified as a major collector according to the Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive
Plan. Based on MnDOT data, the AADT of 4th Avenue is 1,100 vehicles per day south of Main Street, and
500 vehicles per day north of Main Street, as of 2021 and 2023, respectively. The posted speed limit on 4th
Avenue is 50 mph south of Main Street and 45 mph north of Main Street.
County Road 53 (Sunset Avenue) is a north-south roadway along the western boundary of the AUAR
area. Sunset Avenue is a two-lane undivided roadway, and it currently does not continue north of Main
Street. According to the Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan, Sunset Avenue is classified as a major
collector. Based on MnDOT data, the AADT along Sunset Avenue is 5,300 vehicles per day south of Lilac
Street and 3,200 vehicles per day south of Main Street, as of 2022. The posted speed limit is 55 mph north
of Lilac Street and 45 mph south of Lilac Street.
Lilac Street is an east-west roadway located south of the AUAR area. It is a two-lane undivided roadway
and is classified as a Minor Collector according to the Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Based on
MnDOT data, the AADT along Lilac Street is 3,300 west of 4th Avenue, as of 2024. The posted speed limit
is 50 mph.
CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) is a generally north-south roadway located east of the AUAR area. It is a two-lane
undivided roadway and is classified as an A-Minor Reliever north of Main Street and a Principal Arterial
south of Main Street according to the Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Based on MnDOT data, Lake
Drive has an AADT of 9,500 north of Main Street and 11,100 south of Main Street, as of 2022. The posted
speed limit is 55 mph north of Main Street and 50 mph south of Main Street.
Pine Street is an east-west roadway that runs along the northern boundary of the AUAR area. Pine Street
is a two-lane undivided roadway and is currently an unpaved road west of 4th Avenue. According to the Lino
5 Northwest Main – Lino Lakes, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ June 2025
Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan, Pine Street is classified as a Major Collector. Based on MnDOT data,
Pine Street has an AADT of 400 west of Lake Street, as of 2021. The posted speed limit is 45 mph.
Robinson Drive is an east-west local road located within the AUAR area. It is a two-lane undivided roadway
with an AADT of 122, based on MnDOT data from 2021. The posted speed limit is 30 mph.
Carl Street is an east-west local road located within the AUAR area. It is a two-lane undivided roadway
with that does not have a posted AADT, based on MnDOT data. There is no posted speed limit; for modeling
purposes, a speed limit of 30 mph is assumed.
Century Trail is an east-west local road located at the southern edge of the AUAR area. It is a two-lane
undivided roadway with an AADT of 687, based on MnDOT data from 2021. There is no posted speed limit;
for modeling purposes, a speed limit of 30 mph is assumed.
The existing geometry and intersection control for the intersections in the study area that will be included
in this analysis are shown in Exhibit 2.
2.3. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE
Based on review of the Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan, Main Street is a planned regional trail
corridor and trails along the road will connect to the Rice Creek/Chain of Lakes Park Reserve trails.
Additional trails are proposed within the AUAR area to connect the residential developments to the existing
trail system.
2.4. TRAFFIC COUNT DATA
Turning Movement Counts (TMCs) were collected at the following nine (9) study intersections on Thursday,
April 3, 2025. Nearby schools were in session at the time of data collection. Peak period (7:00 AM – 9:00
AM and 4:00 PM – 6:00 PM) TMCs were conducted at the study intersections except where otherwise
indicated. The counted study intersections include the following:
• Main Street & Sunset Avenue (24-hour TMC)
• Sunset Avenue & Robinson Drive
• Sunset Avenue & Century Trail
• Sunset Avenue & Lilac Street
• 4th Avenue & Pine Street
• Main Street & 4th Avenue (24-hour TMC)
• 4th Avenue & Lilac Street
• Pine Street & Lake Drive
• Main Street & Lake Drive
The TMC data indicates that peak hour traffic volumes occur within the study area from 7:00 to 8:00 AM
and 4:30 to 5:30 PM on a typical weekday. Full turning movement count data is included in Appendix A.
The Existing (2025) traffic volumes are shown in Exhibit 3.
2.5. EXISTING (2025) CONDITIONS CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Existing (2025) conditions capacity analysis was conducted to develop an understanding of the baseline
operating conditions currently present at the study intersections. Existing geometry and intersection control
are shown in Exhibit 2, while the Existing (2025) traffic volumes are shown in Exhibit 3.
Northwest Main – Lino Lakes, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ June 2025 6
Capacity analysis was conducted in Synchro 12/SimTraffic for stop-controlled and signalized intersections,
while analysis of roundabouts (i.e., Main Street & Sunset Avenue) was conducted in roundabout analysis
software Rodel with a 50% confidence level. The results of Existing (2025) conditions capacity analysis are
summarized below in Table 2-1.
Based on the analysis results, all movements at the study intersections currently operate at LOS C or
better and all study intersections operate at an overall LOS A or B during the AM and PM peak hours.
The 95th percentile queueing results were reviewed, and all queues are maintained within their provided
storage bays with no significant queueing issues anticipated. The SimTraffic and Rodel analysis reports
can be found in Appendix B.
7 Northwest Main – Lino Lakes, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ June 2025
Table 2-1: Existing Year (2025) Level of Service
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Left Through Right Overall* Left Through Right Overall*
Main Street & Sunset Avenue
Round-about
EB A (5.6)
A (4.9)
A (5.2)
A (5.1) WB A (3.8) A (5.3)
NB A (3.9) A (4.3)
SB - -
Sunset Avenue & Robinson Drive
Side Street Stop
EB - - -
A (5.7)
- - -
A (5.3) WB A (5.7) - A (2.8) A (5.3) - A (2.5)
NB - A (0.5) A (0.4) - A (0.7) A (0.3)
SB A (0.7) A (0.6) - A (0.9) A (0.6) -
Sunset Avenue & Century Trail
Side Street Stop
EB - - -
A (7.6)
- - -
A (6.1) WB A (7.6) - A (3.3) A (6.1) - A (2.7)
NB - A (0.6) A (0.2) - A (1.0) A (0.7)
SB A (0.8) A (1.2) - A (1.0) A (0.8) -
Sunset Avenue & Lilac Street
Side Street Stop
EB - - -
A (6.7)
- - -
A (6.4) WB A (6.7) A (1.5) A (2.4) A (6.4) A (0.8) A (3.7)
NB - A (0.4) A (0.1) - A (0.9) A (0.4)
SB A (1.7) A (2.1) - A (1.8) A (1.6) -
Pine Street & 4th Avenue
Side Street Stop
EB - A (0.0) A (0.0)
A (7.4)
- A (0.0) A (0.4)
A (4.6) WB A (0.8) A (0.3) - A (0.6) A (0.2) A (0.5)
NB A (6.3) A (5.3) A (3.4) A (4.6) A (4.5) A (3.4)
SB A (2.2) A (7.4) - - - A (0.8)
Main Street & 4th Avenue
Side Street Stop
EB A (1.5) A (2.8) A (2.3)
B (10.5)
A (5.1) A (3.6) A (3.5)
B (10.7) WB A (7.6) A (6.0) A (5.8) A (8.5) A (7.4) A (7.7)
NB A (6.9) B (10.4) A (3.3) B (10.7) A (7.1) A (4.2)
SB A (5.1) B (10.5) A (3.4) A (8.6) A (7.4) A (3.2)
4th Avenue & Lilac Street
Side Street Stop
EB A (1.2) A (1.1) A (0.2)
B (10.5)
A (1.3) A (1.3) A (0.1)
A (9.3) WB A (1.4) A (1.0) A (0.2) A (1.1) A (0.7) A (0.2)
NB A (3.1) A (8.4) A (1.7) A (4.7) A (9.3) A (1.9)
SB A (5.4) B (10.5) A (4.3) A (3.4) A (7.6) A (2.8)
Lake Drive & Pine Street
Side Street Stop
EB A (4.0) - A (1.9)
A (4.0)
B (10.0) A (0.3) A (1.8)
B (10.0) WB - - - - - -
NB A (1.3) A (1.0) - A (1.8) A (1.7) -
SB - A (1.0) A (0.1) - A (0.9) A (0.6)
Lake Drive & Main Street Signal
EB B (18.9) C (30.2) B (11.2)
B (19.9)
C (25.8) C (34.0) B (10.4)
C (21.4) WB C (23.2) C (24.2) A (5.1) C (23.0) C (30.7) A (8.5)
NB B (19.0) B (17.7) A (4.4) C (21.4) C (23.7) A (7.6)
SB C (21.7) C (21.0) A (4.4) B (19.6) C (23.7) A (6.4)
*Delay of worst movement is reported in place of overall delay at side-street stop-controlled intersections.
Northwest Main – Lino Lakes, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ June 2025 8
3. ANALYSIS OF FUTURE BACKGROUND CONDITIONS
Analysis of the future background conditions was carried out to determine the baseline operating conditions
for the Opening Year (2030) and Design Year (2045) of the proposed development. A review of future traffic
growth and planned geometric changes for the study roadways was conducted for the analysis.
3.1. PLANNED ROADWAY MODIFICATIONS
Sunset Avenue is undergoing a reconstruction project which is expected to include the conversion of Sunset
Avenue & Lilac Street and Sunset Avenue & 121st Avenue intersections to roundabouts. A median will be
installed along Sunset Avenue and other intersections along the roadway will be converted to right-in/right-
out (including Century Trail, Robinson Drive, and any proposed future access points along Sunset Avenue).
As this project is ongoing, it is expected to be completed by the studied Opening Year (2030).
Anoka County is also planning the installation of a single-lane roundabout at Main Street & Lake Drive. The
estimated completion date of this roundabout is 2028.
As the AUAR area develops, multiple new roadways will be constructed to provide local access to new
developments. Sunset Avenue will be extended north of Main Street to provide access to developments
north of Main Street though it has not been determined if it will extend directly to Pine Street. For the access
assumptions assumed with the site buildout, see §4.1 (Scenario 1) and §5.1 (Scenario 2).
For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that there was not an east-west connection in the Opening
year scenario on the south half of the AUAR site, in order to be conservative with the analysis and determine
if the connection is necessary from a traffic operations standpoint, and if access only from Main Street and
Sunset Avenue would be sufficient. However, when the development on the AUAR site south of Main Street
happens, it is anticipated that Robinson Drive would be extended to connect to 4th Avenue to provide an
additional connection.
3.2. FUTURE BACKGROUND GROWTH
An annual background growth rate was calculated by comparing the projected 2040 AADTs included in the
City of Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan to the existing AADTs which were used to develop the
projections (2016). A comparison of the major roadways existing and projected AADTs are shown below in
Table 3-1.
Table 3-1: Roadway AADT Projections and Growth Rates
Roadway Segment Existing Traffic Projected Traffic
2016 AADT 2040 AADT Growth Rate
Lake Drive North of Main Street 8,700 10,000 0.6%
South of Main Street 11,000 13,200 0.8%
4th Avenue South of Main Street 1,300 2,500 2.8%
Main Street East of Lexington Avenue 8,400 13,700 2.1%
Sunset Avenue South of Main Street 2,400 2,900 0.8%
Lilac Street West of 4th Avenue 1,850 1,900 0.1%
Based on a review of historical AADT trends in the area, Lake Drive and Sunset Avenue are expected to
exhibit growth rates of about 0.6% to 0.8% while Main Street and 4th Avenue are expected to exhibit higher
9 Northwest Main – Lino Lakes, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ June 2025
growth rates of around 2%. Overall, the study roadways are expected to exhibit growth averaging about
1.2% annually.
MnDOT’s ESAL worksheet was employed as an additional means of estimating growth rates.
Demographically adjusted growth rates along Main Street, Sunset Avenue, and Lake Drive ranged from
0.5% to 1.7% and averaged 1.2%. The MnDOT ESAL worksheets are included in the Appendix. Based on
both methods of estimation, growth rates in the area are expected to average about 1.2% annually.
Therefore, a 1.2% annual growth rate was selected for all study intersections to account for traffic increases
due to background growth and development.
The Opening Year (2030) No-Build traffic volumes were calculated by growing the Existing (2025) traffic
volumes (Exhibit 3) by a 1.2% annual growth rate for 5 years. The resultant Opening Year (2030) No-Build
traffic volumes are shown in Exhibit 4.
3.3. FUTURE BACKGROUND DEVELOPMENT
No major background developments are known in the area. All background growth of traffic is accounted
for with the selected 1.2% annual growth rate.
3.4. OPENING YEAR (2030) NO-BUILD CAPACITY ANALYSIS
An Opening Year (2030) No-Build Condition analysis was completed to develop an understanding of the
baseline operating conditions for the study area in the opening year. All planned roadway modifications
discussed in §3.1 were included in the capacity analysis. The Opening Year (2030) No-Build traffic volumes
are shown in Exhibit 4. Results of the Opening Year (2030) No-Build conditions capacity analysis are
provided in Table 3-2.
The reconstruction of Sunset Avenue is anticipated to slightly reduce the delays in the short term and the
installation of a roundabout at Main Street & Lake Drive is expected to result in a substantial reduction in
delays, with the intersection improving from LOS B and C in the AM and PM peak hours respectively to
LOS A in both. Other intersections are generally expected to see negligible changes in delays as a result
of short-term background growth. All movements and study intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS
B or better during the AM and PM peak hours.
The 95th percentile queueing results were reviewed, and all queues are expected to remain within their
provided storage bays with no significant queueing issues anticipated. The SimTraffic and Rodel analysis
reports are provided in Appendix B.
Northwest Main – Lino Lakes, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ June 2025 10
Table 3-2: Opening Year (2030) No-Build Level of Service
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Left Through Right Overall* Left Through Right Overall*
Main Street & Sunset Avenue
Round- about
EB A (6.3)
A (5.4)
A (5.2)
A (5.4) WB A (4.0) A (4.5)
NB A (4.2) A (5.7)
SB - -
Sunset Avenue & Robinson Drive
Side Street Stop
EB - - -
A (2.7)
- - -
A (2.7) WB - - A (2.7) - - A (2.7)
NB - A (0.6) A (0.4) - A (0.8) A (0.4)
SB - A (0.6) - - A (0.4) -
Sunset Avenue & Century Trail
Side Street Stop
EB - - -
A (2.9)
- - -
A (3.0) WB - - A (2.9) - - A (3.0)
NB - A (0.8) A (0.3) - A (0.9) A (0.4)
SB - A (0.8) - - A (0.5) -
Sunset Avenue & Lilac Street
Round- about
EB -
A (5.2)
-
A (4.4) WB A (3.4) A (3.9)
NB A (4.6) A (4.9)
SB A (5.7) A (3.9)
Pine Street & 4th Avenue
Side Street Stop
EB - A (0.0) A (0.0)
A (7.6)
- A (0.0) A (0.1)
A (4.9) WB A (1.5) A (0.2) - A (1.3) A (0.2) A (0.3)
NB A (3.9) A (5.9) A (1.7) A (4.7) A (4.9) A (3.6)
SB A (2.1) A (7.6) - - - A (0.9)
Main Street & 4th Avenue
Side Street Stop
EB A (3.8) A (2.8) A (2.2)
B (10.4)
A (4.9) A (3.8) A (2.4)
A (9.9) WB A (4.6) A (3.4) A (2.9) A (7.5) A (5.6) A (4.7)
NB A (6.6) A (7.9) A (3.9) A (9.9) A (7.7) A (5.6)
SB A (6.8) B (10.4) A (3.6) A (5.8) A (9.7) A (3.2)
4th Avenue & Lilac Street
Side Street Stop
EB A (1.0) A (1.2) A (0.6)
B (10.4)
A (2.7) A (1.3) A (0.3)
A (9.8) WB A (1.2) A (0.7) A (0.5) A (0.9) A (0.8) A (0.4)
NB A (3.0) A (8.9) A (3.0) A (3.4) A (8.9) A (1.8)
SB A (6.9) B (10.4) A (3.4) A (4.2) A (9.8) A (2.6)
Lake Drive & Pine Street
Side Street Stop
EB A (4.3) - A (2.1)
A (4.3)
A (5.6) A (0.6) A (2.1)
A (5.6) WB - - - - - -
NB A (1.5) A (0.7) - A (1.7) A (1.2) -
SB - A (1.1) A (0.4) - A (0.9) A (0.3)
Lake Drive & Main Street
Round-about
EB A (6.8)
A (6.0)
A (6.6)
A (9.2) WB A (5.7) A (9.6)
NB A (4.8) B (12.0)
SB A (6.2) A (6.5)
*Delay of worst movement is reported in place of overall delay at side-street stop-controlled intersections.
11 Northwest Main – Lino Lakes, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ June 2025
3.5. DESIGN YEAR (2045) NO-BUILD CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The Design Year (2045) No-Build Condition analysis was completed to develop an understanding of the
baseline operating conditions for the study area in the long-term without the addition of proposed
development traffic. The background changes to intersection control and geometry discussed in §3.1 were
included in the analysis. The Design Year (2045) No-Build Traffic Volumes are shown in Exhibit 6. Results
of the Design Year (2045) No-Build capacity analysis is included below in Table 3-3.
All movements at the study intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and
PM peak hours. Delays are generally expected to see minor increase due to long-term background growth,
particularly at the Main Street & Lake Drive intersection which is anticipated to operate at LOS C during the
PM peak hour.
The 95th percentile queueing results were reviewed and all 95th percentile queues are expected to be
maintained within their provided storage bays. The Main Street & Lake Drive roundabout is anticipated to
see queues of about 450’ at the eastbound approach during the PM peak hour, but no movement or
roundabout approach is generally expected to see significant queueing issues. The SimTraffic and Rodel
analysis reports are included in Appendix B.
Northwest Main – Lino Lakes, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ June 2025 12
Table 3-3: Design Year (2045) No-Build Level of Service – AM Peak Hour
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Left Through Right Overall* Left Through Right Overall*
Main Street & Sunset Avenue
Round-about
EB A (8.4)
A (7.6)
A (6.7)
A (6.5) WB A (7.6) A (7.0)
NB A (4.6) A (5.1)
SB - -
Sunset Avenue & Robinson Drive
Side Street Stop
EB - - -
A (2.6)
- - -
A (2.5) WB - - A (2.6) - - A (2.5)
NB - A (0.8) A (0.6) - A (0.8) A (0.7)
SB - A (0.5) - - A (0.5) -
Sunset Avenue & Century Trail
Side Street Stop
EB - - -
A (3.5)
- - -
A (3.3) WB - - A (3.5) - - A (3.3)
NB - A (1.0) A (0.2) - A (1.1) A (0.6)
SB - A (0.8) - - A (0.5) -
Sunset Avenue & Lilac Street
Round-about
EB -
A (5.1)
-
A (4.9) WB A (3.9) A (4.1)
NB A (5.8) A (5.6)
SB A (4.4) A (4.2)
Pine Street & 4th Avenue
Side Street Stop
EB - A (0.2) A (0.1)
A (4.6)
- A (0.0) A (0.2)
A (4.6) WB A (0.7) A (0.1) - A (1.8) A (0.4) A (0.7)
NB A (4.6) A (5.7) A (3.0) A (4.6) A (4.4) A (2.9)
SB A (2.5) A (7.8) - - - A (1.2)
Main Street & 4th Avenue
Side Street Stop
EB A (3.9) A (3.1) A (2.6)
B (10.6)
A (5.1) A (4.4) A (2.8)
B (11.9) WB A (5.4) A (4.4) A (3.9) A (7.0) A (6.3) A (5.4)
NB A (9.0) A (8.9) A (5.2) B (11.9) A (7.7) A (5.7)
SB A (6.1) B (10.6) A (4.5) B (10.1) B (10.5) A (3.1)
4th Avenue & Lilac Street
Side Street Stop
EB A (0.8) A (1.3) A (0.7)
B (10.7)
A (1.7) A (1.6) A (0.1)
A (9.5) WB A (1.5) A (1.2) A (0.3) A (1.1) A (0.9) A (0.4)
NB A (6.8) B (10.3) A (4.0) A (4.1) A (9.5) A (2.4)
SB A (6.4) B (10.7) A (4.0) A (4.1) A (9.1) A (3.0)
Lake Drive & Pine Street
Side Street Stop
EB A (5.9) - A (2.5)
A (5.9)
A (6.6) A (0.5) A (2.9)
A (6.6) WB - - - - - -
NB A (1.4) A (0.9) - A (2.3) A (1.4) -
SB - A (1.2) A (0.5) - A (1.1) A (0.7)
Lake Drive & Main Street
Round-about
EB A (9.0)
A (7.4)
A (8.6)
C (17.1) WB A (6.8) C (16.4)
NB A (5.3) D (27.1)
SB A (7.6) A (8.5)
*Delay of worst movement is reported in place of overall delay at side-street stop-controlled intersections.
13 Northwest Main – Lino Lakes, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ June 2025
4. ANALYSIS OF SCENARIO 1 CONDITIONS
This section of the report outlines the proposed development Scenario 1, summarizes site-specific traffic
characteristics, and develops future traffic projections for the Scenario 1 Build condition of the AUAR site.
Scenario 1 represents the density and land uses presently allowed under the City of Lino Lakes’ 2040
Comprehensive Plan.
4.1. DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS AND SITE ACCESS
The proposed Scenario 1 consists of 1,600 low-density residential units, 600 medium-density residential
units, 1,200 high-density residential units, and 60,000 square feet of commercial space. The following major
access points are included in the traffic modeling for Scenario 1:
• Via “Access A”, a right-in/right-out access located along Sunset Avenue south of Main Street.
• Via Robinson Drive along Sunset Avenue.
• Via Century Trail along Sunset Avenue.
• Via “Access B”, a right-in/right-out access located along Main Street east of Sunset Avenue.
• Via “Access C”, a proposed roundabout along Main Street located midway between Sunset Avenue
and 4th avenue (and east of Access B).
• Via “Access D”, a proposed right-in/right-out along Main Street located west of 4th Avenue (and
east of Access C).
• Via “Access E” (Robinson Drive extension), a proposed full-access intersection along 4th Avenue
south of Main Street.
• Via “Access F” and “Access G”, both of which are proposed full-access intersections along 4th
Avenue north of Main Street, with Access G being the farther north of the two.
• Via “Access H”, a full-access intersection along Pine Street west of 4th Avenue.
• Via the future north leg of the Main Street & Sunset Avenue roundabout.
Only portions of the development are anticipated to be short term developments included in the Opening
Year (2030) analysis. Based on the anticipated future development patterns, Accesses E, F, G, H, and
Access D north of Main Street are not included in the Opening Year (2030) conditions as these portions of
the site are not anticipated to see development by this time. However, as previously noted, when the
development on the AUAR site south of Main Street happens, it is anticipated that Robinson Drive (Access
E) would be extended to connect to 4th Avenue to provide an additional connection, but this is not included
in the analysis because the conservative analysis was used to determine if this Robinson Drive connection
would be necessary from a traffic operations standpoint.
Note that the layout of the site is preliminary and subject to changes; future development plans may modify
the assumed access points and affect how traffic is distributed throughout the site. The access assumptions
outlined above are meant to provide a conservative means of estimating traffic levels at site access points
and other minor access points are likely to be constructed along minor roadways such as 4th Avenue and
Pine Street. It should also be noted that this access plan would only comply with access spacing standards
if the speed limit along Main Street is reduced to 45 mph and each access point would need to be located
¼ mile apart. Site specific Traffic Impact Analyses should be conducted to determine the geometric,
spacing, and control needs of the site access points.
It is anticipated that the full development of the AUAR area would take up to 30 years. However, traffic
projections as part of an AUAR are typically 20-year analysis horizon. This results in a conservative analysis
for the Design Year as the full site may not be built out yet.
Northwest Main – Lino Lakes, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ June 2025 14
4.2. TRIP GENERATION
Proposed development traffic was determined based on data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’
Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. The manual provides peak hour trips rates/equations, inbound-
outbound percentages that can be attributed to the proposed site.
The site is anticipated to see partial buildout by the studied Opening Year (2030). It is estimated that
approximately 650 single family detached residential units, 350 attached residential units, 90 multifamily
(low-rise residential units) and 30kSF of retail space would be completed by the studied Opening Year.
The anticipated trip generation for the Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 conditions is shown below in Table
4-1. The development is expected to generate 12,047 daily trips, including 788 trips during the AM peak
hour (216 entering and 572 exiting) and 1,142 during the PM peak hour (697 entering and 444 exiting).
Table 4-1: Proposed Opening Year (2030) Trip Generation
Land Use Description Intensity / Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
LUC 210 – Single-Family Detached Housing 650 Units 6,130 114 341 455 385 226 611
LUC 215 – Single-Family Attached Housing 350 Units 3,301 61 184 245 207 122 329
LUC 220 – Multifamily Low Rise Residential 90 Units 607 9 27 36 29 17 46
LUC 821 – Shopping Plaza 30 kSF 2,010 32 20 52 76 79 156
Total Site Trips (Opening Year) 12,047 216 572 788 697 444 1,142
The same ITE Land Use Codes were utilized to estimate the trip generation potential of the site at full
buildout. Internal capture rates from ITE were reviewed, but with the majority of the site’s trips expected to
be traveling to/from residential land uses, few multi-use trips are anticipated. Therefore, no multi-use
reduction was applied.
A summary of trip generation for the proposed Scenario 1 development at buildout is provided in Table 4-1.
Based on the trip generation calculation, the proposed Scenario 1 development is anticipated to generate
31,516 daily trips, including 1,992 total trips during the AM Peak Hour (532 entering and 1,460 exiting), and
2,769 total trips during the PM Peak Hour (1,687 entering, 1,082 exiting).
15 Northwest Main – Lino Lakes, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ June 2025
Table 4-2: Scenario 1 Full Buildout Trip Generation
Land Use Description Intensity / Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
LUC 210 – Single-Family Detached Housing 1,600 15,088 280 840 1,120 948 556 1,504
LUC 215 – Single-Family Attached Housing 600 4,320 72 216 288 202 140 342
LUC 220 – Multifamily Low Rise Residential 1,200 8,088 115 365 480 386 226 612
LUC 821 – Shopping Plaza 60 4,020 64 39 104 153 159 311
Total Site Trips 31,516 532 1,460 1,992 1,687 1,082 2,769
4.3. DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION
The estimated distribution of site-generated traffic on the surrounding roadway network was developed
based on a review of origin-destination data from Replica, a publicly available dataset which utilizes Census
data, land use regulations, aggregate mobile data, transaction data, and real estate transaction data to
model transportation patterns. Based on the origin-destination data and consideration of the existing traffic
patterns and roadway characteristics, the following global distribution was developed:
• 35% to/from west on Main Street
• 25% to/from south on Sunset Avenue
• 20% to/from south on Lake Drive
• 10% to/from east on Lilac Street
• 5% to/from north on Lake Drive
• 5% to/from east on Main Street
The anticipated site trip distribution for Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 conditions is shown in Exhibit 7.
The site traffic assignment, representing traffic volumes associated with the proposed development at the
study intersections, is a function of the estimated trip generation (Table 4-1 and Table 4-2) as well as the
directional distribution listed above. The site trip assignment for Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 conditions
is shown in Exhibit 8.
The Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 traffic volumes were calculated by adding the total development site
trips (Exhibit 8) to the Opening Year (2030) No-Build traffic volumes (Exhibit 5). The Opening Year (2030)
Scenario 1 traffic volumes are shown in Exhibit 9.
The anticipated traffic distribution for the Design Year (2045) Scenario 1 conditions is shown in Exhibit 10.
The site trip assignment for Scenario 1 in the Design Year (2045) is shown in Exhibit 11. The Design Year
(2045) Build traffic volumes were calculated by adding the total Development Site Trips (Exhibit 11) to the
Design Year (2045) No-Build traffic volumes (Exhibit 6). The Design Year (2045) Build traffic volumes are
shown in Exhibit 12.
4.4. OPENING YEAR (2030) SCENARIO 1 CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 analysis was conducted to determine the impacts of the proposed
Scenario 1 development on the short-term operations of the adjacent roadway network. The future year
Northwest Main – Lino Lakes, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ June 2025 16
(2030) geometry and intersection control changes discussed in §3.1 as well as the access assumptions
discussed in §4.1 were included in the analysis. Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 traffic volumes are shown
in Exhibit 9. The results of the Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 analysis are shown below in Table 4-3.
Based on the results of the Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 conditions analysis, all intersections are
anticipated to operate at LOS C or better and all individual movements are anticipated to operate at LOS D
or better during the AM and PM peak hours. Comparing the delay and LOS results to the Opening Year
(2030) No-Build scenario indicates that the proposed development Scenario 1 is anticipated to cause some
increases in delay, with the Main Street & Lake Drive and Main Street & 4th Avenue intersections seeing
the most substantial increases. All delays remain within an acceptable range and the overall traffic
operations of the network remain acceptable with the anticipated Opening Year (2030) geometric changes
in place. With operations remaining acceptable in Opening Year (2030) build Scenario 1, an east-west
roadway connection on the south half of the AUAR site is not required from a traffic operations perspective,
however, the connection of Robinson Drive (Access E) would help improve connectivity to the
neighborhoods. The connection of Carl Street is not necessary from a traffic operations perspective. The
95th percentile queueing results were reviewed and all 95th percentile queues are expected to remain within
their provided storage bays. SimTraffic reports are included in Appendix B.
Table 4-3: Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 Level of Service
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Left Through Right Overall* Left Through Right Overall*
Main Street & Sunset Avenue
Round-about
EB A (9.3)
A (7.3)
B (11.1)
A (9.7) WB A (6.3) A (9.8)
NB A (5.1) A (7.1)
SB A (4.7) A (5.3)
Sunset Avenue & Robinson Drive
Side Street Stop
EB - - -
A (3.3)
- - -
A (3.2) WB - - A (3.3) - - A (3.2)
NB - A (1.2) A (0.7) - A (1.5) A (1.0)
SB - A (0.4) - - A (0.3) -
Sunset Avenue & Century Trail
Side Street Stop
EB - - -
A (3.6)
- - -
A (5.0) WB - - A (3.6) - - A (5.0)
NB - A (1.4) A (0.6) - A (1.8) A (0.9)
SB - A (1.1) - - A (0.6) -
Sunset Avenue & Lilac Street
Round-about
EB -
A (7.3)
-
A (6.0) WB A (3.6) A (4.6)
NB A (5.8) A (7.4)
SB A (8.2) A (4.7)
Pine Street & 4th Avenue
Side Street Stop
EB - A (2.2) A (0.1)
A (7.9)
- A (0.2) A (0.0)
A (3.3) WB A (1.2) A (0.2) - A (1.1) A (1.1) A (0.2)
NB A (2.1) A (6.4) A (1.4) A (2.8) A (3.3) A (1.4)
SB A (2.3) A (7.9) - - - A (1.2)
Main Street & 4th Avenue
Side Street Stop
EB A (2.8) A (1.5) A (0.8)
B (10.9)
A (4.1) A (2.3) A (0.9)
C (20.3) WB A (5.7) A (4.8) A (3.1) A (5.3) A (3.0) A (1.4)
NB A (6.3) B (10.8) A (3.1) C (19.2) C (20.3) A (8.4)
17 Northwest Main – Lino Lakes, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ June 2025
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Left Through Right Overall* Left Through Right Overall*
SB A (7.7) B (10.9) A (2.9) C (17.0) C (15.0) A (6.1)
4th Avenue & Lilac Street
Side Street Stop
EB A (1.8) A (1.4) A (0.6)
A (9.8)
A (1.7) A (1.2) A (0.6)
A (9.7) WB A (1.6) A (1.2) A (0.5) A (1.0) A (1.3) A (0.5)
NB A (4.8) A (8.2) A (1.8) A (3.3) A (9.7) A (2.4)
SB A (5.3) A (9.8) A (2.9) A (4.2) A (8.4) A (2.3)
Lake Drive & Pine Street
Side Street Stop
EB A (5.6) - A (3.6)
A (5.6)
A (5.5) - A (3.0)
A (5.5) WB - - - - - -
NB A (2.1) A (0.9) - A (1.8) A (1.4) -
SB - A (1.7) A (0.2) - A (1.1) A (0.3)
Lake Drive & Main Street
Round-about
EB A (10.1)
A (7.5)
A (8.7)
C (15.6) WB A (6.1) B (14.0)
NB A (5.3) D (25.3)
SB A (6.6) A (8.5)
Sunset Avenue & Access A
Side Street Stop
EB - - -
A (3.5)
- - -
A (3.9) WB - - A (3.5) - - A (3.9)
NB - A (1.1) A (0.5) - A (1.6) A (0.3)
SB - A (1.1) - - A (1.0) -
Main Street & Access B
Side Street Stop
EB - A (1.9) A (1.3)
A (4.5)
- A (3.1) A (1.7)
A (5.8) WB - A (1.4) A (0.7) - A (2.4) A (1.5)
NB - - A (4.5) - - A (5.8)
SB - - A (4.1) - - A (5.2)
Main Street & Access C Round-about
EB A (5.6)
A (5.1)
A (8.3)
A (9.0) WB A (4.7) A (10.7)
NB A (4.9) A (5.1)
SB A (4.4) A (5.5)
Main Street & Access D
Side Street Stop
EB - A (1.1) A (0.6)
A (4.3)
- A (1.9) A (1.0)
A (5.3) WB - A (1.7) - - A (2.9) -
NB - - A (4.3) - - A (5.3)
SB - - - - - -
*Delay of worst movement is reported in place of overall delay at side-street stop-controlled intersections.
4.5. DESIGN YEAR (2045) SCENARIO 1 CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Capacity analysis was conducted for the Design Year (2045) Scenario 1 conditions to determine the long-
term effects of the proposed development. The background changes to intersection control discussed in
§3.1 were included along with the addition of the proposed development access points. The Design Year
(2045) build Scenario 1 volumes are shown in Exhibit 12. Capacity analysis results for the Design Year
(2045) Scenario 1 conditions are provided in Table 4-4.
Results of the Design Year (2045) Scenario 1 conditions analysis shows that with the addition of the
proposed development site traffic and long-term background growth, multiple operational issues are
Northwest Main – Lino Lakes, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ June 2025 18
anticipated at the study area. With the full buildout of Scenario 1, Main Street is generally expected to be
over the capacity of a two-lane road and would likely need to be expanded to four lanes. Furthermore, the
intersection of Main Street & 4th Avenue does not operate acceptably with side street stop control under
Design Year (2045) Scenario 1 conditions. A roundabout is likely the best option at this intersection in the
long term. SimTraffic and Rodel queueing results were reviewed, and the intersection of Main Street & 4th
Avenue sees excessive side street queueing which causes operational issues at the site access points
along 4th Avenue. Furthermore, severe queues are anticipated at all roundabouts along Main Street.
Additionally, Sunset Avenue is anticipated to experience heavy traffic during the AM peak hour due to the
school traffic at this time. The southbound approach at the Sunset Avenue & Lilac Street roundabout is
anticipated to operate at LOS D with long 95th percentile queues (54 vehicles). However, the roundabout
operates at an overall LOS C and operations along the corridor are not expected to present an issue.
Table 4-4: Design Year (2045) Scenario 1 Level of Service
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Left Through Right Overall* Left Through Right Overall*
Main Street & Sunset Avenue
Round-about
EB F (54.2)
F (57.0)
F (100+)
F (100+) WB F (84.5) F (100+)
NB A (7.4) A (9.9)
SB A (7.4) A (7.5)
Sunset Avenue & Robinson Drive
Side Street Stop
EB - - -
A (3.8)
- - -
A (4.6) WB - - A (3.8) - - A (4.6)
NB - A (1.5) A (1.0) - A (2.1) A (1.3)
SB - A (0.5) - - A (0.7) -
Sunset Avenue & Century Trail
Side Street Stop
EB - - -
A (4.1)
- - -
A (6.4) WB - - A (4.1) - - A (6.4)
NB - A (1.7) A (0.6) - A (2.5) A (1.4)
SB - A (1.5) - - A (1.0) -
Sunset Avenue & Lilac Street
Round-about
EB -
C (21.9)
-
A (8.9) WB A (4.1) A (6.1)
NB A (4.3) B (11.4)
SB D (30.1) A (6.4)
Pine Street & 4th Avenue
Side Street Stop
EB - A (2.1) A (1)
A (8.2)
- C (17.5) E (44.6)
F (57.2) WB A (1.6) A (1) - E (45.9) E (41.9) F (57.2)
NB A (3.8) A (5.1) A (2.1) A (4.7) A (4.0) A (3.0)
SB A (2) A (8.2) - - - A (1.0)
Main Street & 4th Avenue
Side Street Stop
EB A (4.6) A (4.2) A (1.9)
F (100+)
F (100+) F (100+) F (100+)
F (100+) WB B (10.8) A (8.7) A (6.2) D (32.2) C (23.4) C (17.9)
NB F (81) F (68.5) F (70.3) F (100+) F (100+) F (100+)
SB F (100+) F (100+) F (100+) F (100+) F (100+) F (100+)
4th Avenue & Lilac Street
Side Street Stop
EB A (2.3) A (2.8) A (1)
B (14.2)
F (100+) F (100+) F (100+)
F (100+) WB A (2.1) A (2) A (0.6) F (64.6) F (100+) F (100+)
NB A (3.7) B (12.3) A (2) F (100+) F (100+) F (100+)
SB A (9.2) B (14.2) A (6) F (51.7) A (9.8) E (47.2)
19 Northwest Main – Lino Lakes, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ June 2025
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Left Through Right Overall* Left Through Right Overall*
Lake Drive & Pine Street
Side Street Stop
EB A (8.1) - A (5.1)
A (8.1)
B (11.4) - A (4.3)
B (11.4) WB - - - - - -
NB A (2.7) A (1.2) - A (2.8) A (3.0) -
SB - A (2.1) A (0.7) - A (1.4) A (0.7)
Lake Drive & Main Street
Round-about
EB F (98.6)
E (43.2)
D (26.0)
F (100+) WB A (8.4) F (57.7)
NB A (6.9) F (100+)
SB B (10.2) C (17.3)
Sunset Avenue & Access A
Side Street Stop
EB - - -
A (4.3)
- - -
A (4.9) WB - - A (4.3) - - A (4.9)
NB - A (1.5) A (0.5) - A (2.0) A (0.5)
SB - A (2.2) - - A (1.5) -
Main Street & Access B
Side Street Stop
EB - A (3.3) A (2.3)
F (95.7)
- D (33.3) D (31.2)
F (100+) WB - C (22.8) D (27.8) - A (3.6) A (2.2)
NB - - A (6.2) - - F (100+)
SB - - F (95.7) - - A (9.2)
Main Street & Access C Round-about
EB A (9.8)
B (10.0)
F (100+)
F (100+) WB B (11.9) F (100+)
NB A (7.8) A (8.6)
SB A (7.3) A (8.0)
Main Street & Access D
Side Street Stop
EB - A (2.4) A (1.5)
C (16.1)
- F (72.0) F (76.8)
F (100+) WB - A (3.4) A (1.7) - A (6.7) A (5.2)
NB - - A (5.6) - - F (100+)
SB - - C (16.1) - - A (8.8)
4th Avenue & Access E
Side Street Stop
EB A (6.5) - A (4.2)
A (6.5)
F (100+) - F (100+)
F (100+) WB - - - - - -
NB A (2.4) A (1.9) - F (100+) F (100+) -
SB - A (3) A (2.3) - A (1.1) A (0.5)
4th Avenue & Access F
Side Street Stop
EB F (100+) - F (100+)
F (100+)
F (100+) - F (100+)
F (100+) WB - - - - - -
NB A (3) A (2.2) - A (1.5) A (1.7) -
SB - F (100+) F (100+) - F (100+) F (100+)
4th Avenue & Access G
Side Street Stop
EB A (6.2) - A (4.3)
A (6.2)
F (100+) - F (100+)
F (100+) WB - - - - - -
NB A (1.6) A (0.9) - A (1.8) A (1.7) -
SB - A (1.3) A (0.4) - F (100+) F (100+)
Pine Street & Access H
Side Street Stop
EB - A (0.5) -
A (3.4)
- A (0.6) -
A (3.1) WB A (1.2) A (1.5) - A (1.9) - -
NB - - A (3.4) - - A (3.1)
Northwest Main – Lino Lakes, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ June 2025 20
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Left Through Right Overall* Left Through Right Overall*
SB - - - - - -
*Delay of worst movement is reported in place of overall delay at side-street stop-controlled intersections.
4.6. DESIGN YEAR (2045) SCENARIO 1 MITIGATED CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Based on the operational deficiencies of the network in the unmitigated scenario, the following mitigation
measures are recommended for the Design Year (2045) Scenario 1 conditions:
• Install a roundabout at Main Street & 4th Avenue
• Expand Main Street to 4 lanes west of Lake Drive
o This includes converting all roundabouts along Main Street (at Sunset Avenue, Access C,
and 4th Avenue) to 2x1 roundabouts.
• Expand Main Street & Lake Drive roundabout to accommodate northbound left-turn traffic.
o The roundabout is anticipated to require two northbound entry lanes, two exit lanes on the
west leg, and a bypass lane for the eastbound approach.
A Design Year (2045) Scenario 1 Mitigated capacity analysis was conducted in order to test the impacts of
the proposed mitigations on operations at the study intersections. The Design Year (2045) Scenario 1 traffic
volumes are shown in Exhibit 12.
Results of the Design Year (2045) Scenario 1 Mitigated capacity analysis are included below in Table 4-5.
With the proposed mitigations in place, all intersections and individual movements are expected to operate
at LOS D or better in the AM and PM peak hours. The SimTraffic and Rodel 95th percentile queueing results
were reviewed and all 95th percentile queues are expected to remain within their provided storage bays with
no significant queueing issues anticipated. Based on the results of this analysis, acceptable traffic
operations are expected to be maintained with the proposed mitigations in place. SimTraffic and Rodel
analysis reports are included in Appendix B.
Table 4-5: Design Year (2045) Scenario 1 Mitigated Level of Service
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Left Through Right Overall* Left Through Right Overall*
Main Street & Sunset Avenue
Round-about (2x1)
EB B (12.0)
A (9.6)
B (13.8)
B (13.0) WB A (9.2) B (10.4)
NB A (6.4) C (16.7)
SB A (5.5) A (5.7)
Sunset Avenue & Robinson Drive
Side Street Stop
EB - - -
A (3.9)
- - -
- (-) WB - - A (3.9) - - A (4.9)
NB - A (1.4) A (1.1) - A (2.2) A (1.4)
SB - A (0.9) - - A (0.8) -
Sunset Avenue & Century Trail
Side Street Stop
EB - - -
A (4.5)
- - -
- (-) WB - - A (4.5) - - A (6.7)
NB - A (1.5) A (0.3) - A (2.1) A (0.6)
SB - A (2.0) - - A (1.0) -
21 Northwest Main – Lino Lakes, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ June 2025
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Left Through Right Overall* Left Through Right Overall*
Sunset Avenue & Lilac Street
Round-about
EB -
C (21.9)
-
A (8.9) WB A (4.1) A (6.1)
NB A (4.3) B (11.4)
SB D (30.1) A (6.4)
Pine Street & 4th Avenue
Side Street Stop
EB - A (2.5) A (1.2)
A (8.4)
- A (1.5) A (0.9)
A (6.9) WB A (2.5) A (1.3) - A (2.8) A (2.4) A (0.4)
NB A (4.2) A (4.8) A (2.3) A (6.9) A (4.9) A (4.6)
SB A (3.3) A (8.4) - - - A (1.1)
Main Street & 4th Avenue
Round-about (2x1)
EB A (3.1)
A (3.8)
A (3.8)
A (4.7) WB A (2.2) A (4.4)
NB A (5.2) A (6.5)
SB A (6.2) A (7.1)
4th Avenue & Lilac Street
Side Street Stop
EB A (1.7) A (2.0) A (0.7)
C (15.5)
A (3.7) A (3.1) A (0.8)
B (14.3) WB A (2.2) A (2.3) A (0.8) A (2.3) A (3.0) A (1.1)
NB A (5.8) B (11.0) A (2.7) A (7.9) B (14.2) A (7.9)
SB B (11.9) C (15.5) A (7.4) B (11.3) B (14.3) A (6.2)
Lake Drive & Pine Street
Side Street Stop
EB B (10.5) - A (6.9)
B (10.5)
B (12.5) - A (6.1)
B (12.5) WB - - - - - -
NB A (2.5) A (1.5) - A (3.3) A (3.3) -
SB - A (2.0) A (0.8) - A (1.6) A (0.7)
Lake Drive & Main Street
Round-about (Multi-Lane)
EB B (14.3)
B (10.4)
A (7.8)
C (19.5) WB A (7.8) D (27.7)
NB A (6.1) C (24.8)
SB A (9.5) B (11.7)
Sunset Avenue & Access A
Side Street Stop
EB - - -
A (4.0)
- - -
A (5.1) WB - - A (4.0) - - A (5.1)
NB - A (1.4) A (0.5) - A (2.0) A (0.6)
SB - A (1.6) - - A (1.5) -
Main Street & Access B
Side Street Stop
EB - A (0.4) A (0.2)
A (4.5)
- A (0.9) A (0.6)
A (5.1) WB - A (0.4) A (0.2) - A (0.6) A (0.2)
NB - - A (3.9) - - A (4.7)
SB - - A (4.5) - - A (5.1)
Main Street & Access C
Round-about (2x1)
EB A (2.5)
A (3.4)
A (4.2)
A (4.4) WB A (2.6) A (4.0)
NB A (6.1) A (6.9)
SB A (5.6) A (6.1)
Main Street & Access D
Side Street Stop
EB - A (0.4) A (0.1)
A (3.6)
- A (0.7) A (0.4)
A (4.7) WB - A (0.4) A (0.1) - A (1.0) A (0.5)
NB - - A (3.6) - - A (3.9)
Northwest Main – Lino Lakes, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ June 2025 22
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Left Through Right Overall* Left Through Right Overall*
SB - - A (3.4) - - A (4.7)
4th Avenue & Access E
Side Street Stop
EB - A (0.4) A (0.1)
A (3.6)
A (7.0) - A (3.6)
A (7.0) WB - A (0.4) A (0.1) - - -
NB - - A (3.6) A (3.1) A (3.0) -
SB - - A (3.4) - A (1.7) A (0.5)
4th Avenue & Access F
Side Street Stop
EB A (7.1) - A (4.7)
A (7.1)
B (12.8) - A (4.9)
B (12.8) WB - - - - - -
NB A (1.8) A (1.7) - A (3.2) A (3.2) -
SB - A (1.0) A (0.3) - A (1.7) A (0.7)
4th Avenue & Access G
Side Street Stop
EB A (7.7) - A (5.1)
A (7.7)
A (8.9) - A (3.8)
A (8.9) WB - - - - - -
NB A (2.0) A (1.1) - A (3.5) A (3.8) -
SB - A (1.8) A (1.0) - A (1.3) A (0.4)
Pine Street & Access H
Side Street Stop
EB A (6.7) - A (4.3)
A (6.7)
- A (0.5) -
A (3.2) WB - - - A (2.6) - -
NB A (1.9) A (1.3) - - - A (3.2)
SB - A (1.5) A (0.5) - - -
*Delay of worst movement is reported in place of overall delay at side-street stop-controlled intersections.
5. ANALYSIS OF SCENARIO 2 CONDITIONS
This section of the report outlines the proposed development Scenario 2, summarizes site-specific traffic
characteristics, and develops future traffic projections for the Scenario 2 build condition of the AUAR site.
Scenario 2 represents an alternative development plan to the City of Lino Lakes’ 2040 Comprehensive Plan
and as such would require an amendment to the plan.
5.1. DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS AND SITE ACCESS
The proposed Scenario 2 consists of 1,500 low-density residential units, 900 medium-density residential
units, 1,100 high-density residential units, and 62,000 square feet of commercial space. The following major
access points are included in the traffic modeling for Scenario 2:
• Via “Access A”, a right-in/right-out access located along Sunset Avenue south of Main Street.
• Via Robinson Drive along Sunset Avenue.
• Via Century Trail along Sunset Avenue.
• Via “Access B”, a right-in/right-out access located along Main Street east of Sunset Avenue.
• Via “Access C”, a proposed roundabout along Main Street located midway between Sunset Avenue
and 4th avenue (and east of Access B).
• Via “Access E” (Robinson Drive extension), a proposed full-access intersection along 4th Avenue
south of Main Street.
• Via “Access F” and “Access G”, both of which are proposed full-access intersections along 4th
Avenue north of Main Street, with Access G being the farther north of the two.
• Via “Access H”, a full-access intersection along Pine Street west of 4th Avenue.
23 Northwest Main – Lino Lakes, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ June 2025
• Via the future north leg of the Main Street & Sunset Avenue roundabout.
Most access points are the same as in Scenario 1, with Access B being located significantly closer to Sunset
Avenue and the development being concentrated largely in the areas at the northeast and southeast corner
of the Main Street & Sunset Avenue roundabout. Note that in order to comply with the Anoka County Access
Spacing standards, the speed limit along Main Street would need to be reduced to 45 mph and Access B
would need to be located midway between Sunset Avenue and Access C (1/4 mile). Site specific traffic
analysis should be conducted to determine the final geometric, spacing, and control needs of the access
points.
Similar to Scenario 1, only portions of the development are anticipated to be short term developments
included in the Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 analysis. Based on the anticipated future development
patterns, Accesses E, F, G, H, and Access D north of Main Street are not included in the Opening Year
(2030) conditions as these portions of the site are not anticipated to see development by this time. However,
as previously noted, when the development on the AUAR site south of Main Street happens, it is anticipated
that Robinson Drive (Access E) would be extended to connect to 4th Avenue to provide an additional
connection, but this is not included in the analysis because the conservative analysis was used to determine
if this Robinson Drive connection would be necessary from a traffic operations standpoint.
Note that the layout of the site is preliminary and subject to significant changes; future development plans
may modify the assumed access points and affect how traffic is distributed throughout the site. The access
assumptions outlined above are meant to provide a conservative means of estimating traffic levels at site
access points and other minor access points are likely to be constructed along minor roadways such as 4th
Avenue and Pine Street. Minor access points are generally not expected to affect the results and findings
of the study and thus are excluded from the analysis.
It is anticipated that the full development of the AUAR area would take up to 30 years. However, traffic
projections as part of an AUAR are typically 20-year analysis horizon. This results in a conservative analysis
for the Design Year as the full site may not be built out yet.
5.2. TRIP GENERATION
Proposed development traffic was determined based on data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’
Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. The manual provides peak hour trips rates/equations, inbound-
outbound percentages that can be attributed to the proposed site.
The site is anticipated to see partial buildout by the studied Opening Year (2030). It is estimated that
approximately 650 single family detached residential units, 350 attached residential units, 90 multifamily
(low-rise residential units) and 30kSF of retail space would be completed by the studied Opening Year.
The anticipated trip generation for the Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 conditions are shown below in
Table 5-1. Note that the trip generation for the Opening Year (2030) is anticipated to be the same for both
development Scenarios, but the scenarios differ in access and traffic distribution. The development is
expected to generate 12,047 daily trips, including 788 trips during the AM peak hour (216 entering and 572
exiting) and 1,142 during the PM peak hour (697 entering and 444 exiting).
Northwest Main – Lino Lakes, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ June 2025 24
Table 5-1: Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 Traffic
Land Use Description Intensity / Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
LUC 210 – Single-Family Detached Housing 650 Units 6,130 114 341 455 385 226 611
LUC 215 – Single-Family Attached Housing 350 Units 3,301 61 184 245 207 122 329
LUC 220 – Multifamily Low Rise Residential 90 Units 607 9 27 36 29 17 46
LUC 821 – Shopping Plaza 30 kSF 2,010 32 20 52 76 79 156
Total Site Trips (Opening Year) 12,047 216 572 788 697 444 1,142
Table 5-2 provides a summary of trip generation for Scenario 2. Based on the trip generation calculation,
the proposed development is anticipated to generate 32,193 daily trips, including 2,029 total trips during
the AM Peak Hour (543 entering and 1,487 exiting), and 2,806 total trips during the PM Peak Hour (1,702
entering, 1,104 exiting).
Table 5-2: Scenario 2 Development Trip Generation
Land Use Description Intensity / Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
LUC 210 - Single Family Detached Housing 1,500 Units 14,145 263 788 1,050 888 522 1,410
LUC 215 - Single Family Attached Housing 900 Units 6,480 108 324 432 303 210 513
LUC 220 - Low Rise Residential 1,100 Units 7,414 106 334 440 353 208 561
LUC 821 - Shopping Plaza 62 kSF 4,154 67 41 107 158 164 322
Total Site Trips 32,193 543 1,487 2,029 1,702 1,104 2,806
5.3. DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION
The estimated distribution of site-generated traffic on the surrounding roadway network was developed
based on a review of the roadway network, area development pattern, and access to the proposed
development. The anticipated global distribution of passenger vehicle site traffic to the Scenario 2
development is anticipated to be the same as Scenario 1. The expected global traffic patterns are as follows:
• 35% to/from west on Main Street
• 25% to/from south on Sunset Avenue
• 20% to/from south on Lake Drive
• 10% to/from east on Lilac Street
• 5% to/from north on Lake Drive
• 5% to/from east on Main Street
25 Northwest Main – Lino Lakes, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ June 2025
The full site trip distribution for Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 is shown in Exhibit 13. The site traffic
assignment, representing traffic volumes associated with the proposed development at the study
intersections, is a function of the estimated trip generation (Table 5-1 and Table 5-2) and the directional
distribution listed above. The site trip assignment for Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 is shown in Exhibit
14.
The Opening Year (2030) Build traffic volumes were calculated by adding the total Development Site Trips
(Exhibit 14) to the Opening Year (2030) No-Build traffic volumes (Exhibit 5). The Opening Year (2030)
Build traffic volumes are shown in Exhibit 15.
The Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 site traffic distribution is shown in Exhibit 16. The site trip assignment
for Scenario 2 in the Design Year (2045) is shown in Exhibit 17. The Design Year (2045) Build traffic
volumes were calculated by adding the total Development Site Trips (Exhibit 17) to the Design Year (2045)
No-Build traffic volumes (Exhibit 6). The Design Year (2045) Build traffic volumes are shown in Exhibit 18.
5.4. OPENING YEAR (2030) SCENARIO 2 CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 conditions analysis was conducted to determine the impacts of the
proposed development on the short-term operations of the adjacent roadway network. The future year
(2030) geometry and intersection control changes discussed in §3.1. All site access points were assumed
to be side street stop controlled for the analysis. The Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 traffic volumes are
shown in Exhibit 14. The results of the Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 conditions analysis is shown in
Table 5-2.
Based on the results of the Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 conditions analysis, all intersections are
anticipated to operate at LOS C or better and all individual movements are anticipated to operate at LOS D
or better during the AM and PM peak hours. Comparing the delay and LOS results to the Opening Year
(2030) No-Build scenario indicates that the proposed development Scenario 2 is anticipated to cause some
increases in delay, with the Main Street & Lake Drive and Main Street & 4th Avenue intersections seeing
the most substantial increases. All delays remain within an acceptable range and the overall traffic
operations of the network remain acceptable with the anticipated Opening Year (2030) geometric changes
in place. With operations remaining acceptable in Opening Year (2030) build Scenario 2, an east-west
roadway connection on the south half of the AUAR site is not required from a traffic operations perspective,
however, the connection of Robinson Drive (Access E) would help improve connectivity to the
neighborhoods. The connection of Carl Street is not necessary from a traffic operations perspective. The
95th percentile queueing results were reviewed and all 95th percentile queues are expected to remain within
their provided storage bays. SimTraffic reports are included in Appendix B.
Table 5-3: Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 Level of Service
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Left Through Right Overall* Left Through Right Overall*
Main Street & Sunset Avenue
Round-about
EB A (10.0)
A (7.4)
B (11.9)
B (10.4) WB A (5.7) B (11.3)
NB A (5.3) A (7.4)
SB A (5.3) A (5.9)
Sunset Avenue & Robinson Drive
Side Street Stop
EB - - -
A (3.5)
- - -
A (3.4) WB - - A (3.5) - - A (3.4)
NB - A (1.1) A (0.7) - A (1.4) A (0.9)
Northwest Main – Lino Lakes, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ June 2025 26
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Left Through Right Overall* Left Through Right Overall*
SB - A (0.4) - - A (0.3) -
Sunset Avenue & Century Trail
Side Street Stop
EB - - -
A (3.8)
- - -
A (3.9) WB - - A (3.8) - - A (3.9)
NB - A (1.4) A (0.6) - A (1.6) A (0.8)
SB - - - - - -
Sunset Avenue & Lilac Street
Round-about
EB -
A (7.3)
-
A (6.0) WB A (3.6) A (4.6)
NB A (5.8) A (7.4)
SB A (8.2) A (4.7)
Pine Street & 4th Avenue
Side Street Stop
EB - A (0.3) A (0.0)
A (7.1)
- A (0.0) A (0.1)
A (3.0) WB A (0.6) A (0.2) - A (1.3) A (0.3) A (0.4)
NB A (2.0) A (7.1) A (0.9) A (2.7) A (3.0) A (1.4)
SB A (2.4) - - - - A (1.3)
Main Street & 4th Avenue
Side Street Stop
EB A (2.6) A (1.8) A (1.4)
B (11.9)
A (4.8) A (2.6) A (1.5)
C (18.5) WB A (7.0) A (4.4) A (5.0) A (5.6) A (3.0) A (1.5)
NB A (8.1) B (11.9) A (3.4) C (17.7) C (18.5) A (6.8)
SB A (9.0) - A (3.6) C (15.0) - A (5.2)
4th Avenue & Lilac Street
Side Street Stop
EB A (1.6) A (1.7) A (0.7)
A (9.9)
A (2.8) A (1.6) A (2.8)
A (9.4) WB A (1.4) A (1.1) A (0.5) A (1.1) A (1.3) A (0.4)
NB A (3.6) A (9.7) A (1.9) A (4.7) A (9.4) A (2.3)
SB A (5.3) A (9.9) A (2.6) A (5.0) A (8.9) A (2.4)
Lake Drive & Pine Street
Side Street Stop
EB A (4.9) - A (2.8)
A (4.9)
A (6.5) - A (2.2)
A (6.5) WB - - - - - -
NB A (0.8) A (0.7) - A (1.4) A (1.2) -
SB - - A (0.5) - - A (0.3)
Lake Drive & Main Street
Round-about
EB B (10.1)
A (7.5)
A (8.7)
C (15.9) WB A (6.1) B (13.4)
NB A (5.3) D (25.3)
SB A (6.6) A (8.5)
Sunset Avenue & Access A
Side Street Stop
EB - - -
A (3.5)
- - -
A (4.1) WB - - A (3.5) - - A (4.1)
NB - A (1.0) A (0.2) - A (1.8) A (0.5)
SB - - - - - -
Main Street & Access B
Side Street Stop
EB - A (2.2) A (1.7)
A (4.4)
- A (3.1) A (2.0)
A (5.2) WB - A (0.8) A (0.5) - A (1.6) A (0.9)
NB - - A (4.4) - - A (5.2)
SB - - A (3.4) - - A (5.0)
Main Street & Access C Round-about
EB A (5.6) A (5.0) A (7.1) A (8.1) WB A (4.5) A (9.5)
27 Northwest Main – Lino Lakes, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ June 2025
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Left Through Right Overall* Left Through Right Overall*
NB A (4.5) A (4.6)
SB A (4.0) A (5.1)
*Delay of worst movement is reported in place of overall delay at side-street stop-controlled intersections.
5.5. DESIGN YEAR (2045) SCENARIO 2 CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Capacity analysis was conducted for the Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 conditions to determine the long-
term effects of the proposed development. The background changes to intersection control discussed in
§3.1 were included along with the addition of the proposed development access points. The Design Year
(2045) Scenario 2 traffic volumes are shown in Exhibit 18. Capacity analysis results for the Design Year
(2045) Scenario 2 conditions are provided in Table 4-4.
Results of the Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 conditions analysis shows that with the addition of the
proposed development site traffic and long-term background growth, multiple operational issues are
anticipated at the study area. Similar to the results for Scenario 1, Main Street is generally expected to be
over the capacity of a two-lane road and would likely need to be expanded to four lanes. The intersection
of Main Street & 4th Avenue does not operate acceptably with side street stop control under Design Year
(2045) Scenario 1 conditions. A roundabout is likely the best option at this intersection in the long term.
The Sunset Avenue & Lilac Avenue roundabout may also see minor operational issues during the AM peak
hour due to school traffic, though LOS E operations at the intersection during this time likely do not
necessitate further improvements. The intersection and the Sunset Avenue corridor should be monitored
closely, however, as the road is anticipated to be nearing the capacity of a two-lane road under the Design
Year (2045) Scenario 2 conditions.
SimTraffic and Rodel 95th percentile queueing results were reviewed, and the intersection of Main Street &
4th Avenue sees excessive side street queueing which causes operational issues at the site access points
along 4th Avenue. Furthermore, severe queues are anticipated at all roundabouts along Main Street due to
insufficient capacity for eastbound and westbound vehicles at peak times.
Northwest Main – Lino Lakes, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ June 2025 28
Table 5-4: Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 Level of Service
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Left Through Right Overall* Left Through Right Overall*
Main Street & Sunset Avenue
Round-about
EB F (100+)
F (56.3)
F (100+)
F (100+) WB D (31.2) F (100+)
NB A (9.7) D (33.0)
SB C (16.4) B (10.6)
Sunset Avenue & Robinson Drive
Side Street Stop
EB - - -
A (4.2)
- - -
A (5.3) WB - - A (4.2) - - A (5.3)
NB - A (1.8) A (1.1) - A (2.5) A (1.7)
SB - A (1.1) - - A (0.8) -
Sunset Avenue & Century Trail
Side Street Stop
EB - - -
A (5.3)
- - -
A (6.7) WB - - A (5.3) - - A (6.7)
NB - A (1.6) A (0.3) - A (3.5) A (2.2)
SB - A (2.1) - - A (1.1) -
Sunset Avenue & Lilac Street
Round-about
EB -
E (36.1)
-
A (9.6) WB A (4.2) A (6.9)
NB A (4.5) B (12.6)
SB F (52.2) A (7.0)
Pine Street & 4th Avenue
Side Street Stop
EB - A (2.0) A (0.7)
A (8.0)
- A (1.3) A (0.9)
A (4.5) WB A (1.8) A (1.7) - A (3.0) A (2.7) A (0.8)
NB A (3.7) A (3.3) A (2.1) A (4.5) A (2.8) A (2.5)
SB A (2.1) A (8.0) - - - A (1.7)
Main Street & 4th Avenue
Side Street Stop
EB A (5.8) A (4.5) A (2.6)
F (100+)
F (100+) F (77.7) F (73.8)
F (100+) WB A (7.7) A (3.9) A (1.9) D (33.4) D (27.4) C (22.7)
NB F (100+) F (88.2) F (81.7) F (100+) F (100+) F (100+)
SB F (100+) F (100+) F (100+) F (100+) F (100+) F (100+)
4th Avenue & Lilac Street
Side Street Stop
EB A (1.8) A (2.1) A (1.1)
B (13.0)
C (17.3) A (10.0) B (14.6)
C (17.3) WB A (2.0) A (1.9) A (0.7) A (2.6) A (8.1) A (8.0)
NB A (4.9) B (11.0) A (4.9) A (8.6) C (16.9) A (8.3)
SB A (8.8) B (13.0) A (5.1) A (8.2) A (9.2) A (3.5)
Lake Drive & Pine Street
Side Street Stop
EB B (11.7) - A (7.4)
B (11.7)
B (12.7) - A (4.8)
B (12.7) WB - - - - - -
NB A (2.2) A (1.4) - A (3.2) A (3.0) -
SB - A (2.1) A (0.9) - A (1.5) A (0.8)
Lake Drive & Main Street
Round-about
EB F (100+)
E (46.9)
D (27.3)
F (100+) WB A (8.4) F (58.7)
NB A (6.9) F (100+)
SB B (10.3) C (17.4)
EB - - - A (5.3) - - - A (6.3) WB - - A (5.3) - - A (6.3)
29 Northwest Main – Lino Lakes, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ June 2025
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Left Through Right Overall* Left Through Right Overall*
Sunset Avenue & Access A
Side Street Stop
NB - A (2.0) A (0.6) - A (3.4) A (0.9)
SB - A (1.6) - - A (1.5) -
Main Street & Access B
Side Street Stop
EB - A (2.1) A (0.6)
A (8.4)
- A (3.9) A (1.6)
C (15.2) WB - A (2.1) A (1.3) - B (10.0) A (7.5)
NB - - A (8.4) - - C (15.2)
SB - - A (6.3) - - B (10.4)
Main Street & Access C Round-about
EB A (9.3)
A (7.9)
E (48.6)
F (56.1) WB A (7.1) F (77.3)
NB A (6.8) A (7.3)
SB A (5.5) A (7.1)
4th Avenue & Access E
Side Street Stop
EB A (5.5) - A (4.0)
A (5.5)
F (100+) - F (100+)
F (100+) WB - - - - - -
NB A (2.3) A (1.8) - F (100+) F (100+) -
SB - A (2.9) A (2.4) - A (1.2) A (0.8)
4th Avenue & Access F
Side Street Stop
EB D (26.4) - D (31.8)
D (31.8)
F (100+) - F (100+)
F (100+) WB - - - - - -
NB A (3.3) A (2.2) - A (1.5) A (1.3) -
SB - B (12.4) A (0.3) - F (100+) F (100+)
4th Avenue & Access G
Side Street Stop
EB A (5.6) - A (3.4)
A (5.6)
F (100+) - F (100+)
F (100+) WB - - - - - -
NB A (1.2) A (0.7) - A (1.5) A (1.4) -
SB - A (1.2) A (0.9) - F (100+) F (100+)
Pine Street & Access H
Side Street Stop
EB - A (0.4) -
A (3.1)
- A (0.6) -
A (3.0) WB A (1.4) - - A (2.0) - -
NB - - A (3.1) - - A (3.0)
SB - - - - - -
*Delay of worst movement is reported in place of overall delay at side-street stop-controlled intersections.
5.6. DESIGN YEAR (2045) SCENARIO 2 MITIGATED CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Based on the operational deficiencies in the unmitigated scenario, the following mitigation measures are
recommended for the Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 conditions:
• Install a roundabout at Main Street & 4th Avenue
• Expand Main Street to 4 lanes west of Lake Drive
o This includes converting all roundabouts along Main Street (at Sunset Avenue, Access C,
and 4th Avenue) to 2x1 roundabouts.
• Expand Main Street & Lake Drive roundabout to accommodate northbound left-turn traffic.
o The roundabout is anticipated to require two northbound entry lanes, two exit lanes on the
west leg, and a bypass lane for the eastbound approach.
Northwest Main – Lino Lakes, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ June 2025 30
A Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 Mitigated capacity analysis was conducted in order to test the effects of
the proposed mitigations on the roadway network. The Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 traffic volumes are
shown in Exhibit 18. Along with the background changes discussed in §3.1, the mitigation listed above in
§5.5 was included in the analysis.
Results of the Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 Mitigated capacity analysis are included below in Table 5-4.
All intersections operate at an overall LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hour, with the exception
of the previously mentioned Sunset Avenue & Lilac Street roundabout which is anticipated to operate at
LOS E during the AM peak hour due to heavy school traffic at this time. While this intersection and the
Sunset Avenue corridor as a whole should be monitored for future improvements upon the full buildout of
the site, no mitigation is anticipated to be required for Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 conditions.
The 95th percentile queueing results from SimTraffic and Rodel were reviewed and all 95th percentile queues
are expected to remain within their provided storage bays. The Sunset Avenue & Lilac Street roundabout
is anticipated to see extended queues at the southbound approach due to school traffic during the AM peak
hour, but the delay of this approach being just over 50s indicates that these queues likely dissipate quickly.
No other significant queueing issues are anticipated. The SimTraffic and Rodel analysis reports are
included in Appendix B.
Table 5-5: Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 Mitigated Level of Service
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Left Through Right Overall* Left Through Right Overall*
Main Street & Sunset Avenue
Round-about (2x1)
EB C (18.7)
B (12.3)
C (19.8)
C (18.9) WB A (9.2) C (16.5)
NB A (8.2) D (25.0)
SB A (8.6) A (7.5)
Sunset Avenue & Robinson Drive
Side Street Stop
EB - - -
A (4.6)
- - -
A (6.0) WB - - A (4.6) - - A (6.0)
NB - A (1.9) A (1.2) - A (2.7) A (1.8)
SB - A (1.1) - - A (0.8) -
Sunset Avenue & Century Trail
Side Street Stop
EB - - -
A (5.4)
- - -
A (8.0) WB - - A (5.4) - - A (8.0)
NB - A (1.7) A (0.3) - A (2.3) A (0.6)
SB - A (2.1) - - A (1.2) -
Sunset Avenue & Lilac Street
Round-about
EB -
E (36.1)
-
A (9.6) WB A (4.2) A (6.9)
NB A (4.5) B (12.6)
SB F (52.2) A (7.0)
Pine Street & 4th Avenue
Side Street Stop
EB - A (1.6) A (0.8)
A (4.2)
- A (1.4) A (0.6)
A (5.4) WB A (2.0) A (1.1) - A (3.0) A (1.9) A (3.2)
NB A (4.2) A (4.4) A (2.3) A (5.4) A (4.5) A (3.5)
SB A (2.0) A (8.0) - - - A (1.0)
Main Street & 4th Avenue
Round-about (2x1)
EB A (2.8)
A (3.2)
A (3.1)
A (3.9) WB A (2.1) A (3.7)
NB A (4.8) A (5.7)
31 Northwest Main – Lino Lakes, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ June 2025
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Left Through Right Overall* Left Through Right Overall*
SB A (5.0) A (6.1)
4th Avenue & Lilac Street
Side Street Stop
EB A (1.8) A (2.1) A (1.1)
B (14.4)
A (3.7) A (3.2) A (1.8)
C (16.3) WB A (2.0) A (1.8) A (0.6) A (2.3) A (2.3) A (0.9)
NB A (7.5) B (11.8) A (3.0) A (8.2) B (14.1) A (3.3)
SB B (11.5) B (14.4) A (7.2) A (9.5) C (16.3) A (5.0)
Lake Drive & Pine Street
Side Street Stop
EB B (10.3) - A (5.6)
B (10.3)
B (10.6) - A (3.7)
B (10.6) WB - - - - - -
NB A (2.3) A (1.3) - A (3.0) A (3.0) -
SB - A (2.0) A (0.9) - A (1.6) A (0.8)
Lake Drive & Main Street
Round-about (Multi-Lane)
EB A (17.0)
B (10.5)
A (7.9)
C (19.8) WB A (5.3) D (25.1)
NB A (2.9) D (28.2)
SB A (6.5) B (11.8)
Sunset Avenue & Access A
Side Street Stop
EB - - -
A (5.4)
- - -
A (6.2) WB - - A (5.4) - - A (6.2)
NB - A (2.1) A (0.6) - A (3.7) A (1.0)
SB - A (1.6) - - A (1.5) -
Main Street & Access B
Side Street Stop
EB - A (1.6) A (0.5)
A (8.2)
- A (3.6) A (1.7)
B (14.6) WB - A (1.7) A (0.3) - A (4.6) A (2.3)
NB - - A (6.1) - - B (14.6)
SB - - A (8.2) - - B (13.6)
Main Street & Access C
Round-about (2x1)
EB A (2.5)
A (3.4)
A (3.4)
A (4.0) WB A (2.5) A (3.9)
NB A (6.1) A (5.9)
SB A (5.2) A (5.9)
4th Avenue & Access E
Side Street Stop
EB A (5.7) - A (3.7)
A (5.7)
A (5.9) - A (2.7)
A (5.9) WB - - - - - -
NB A (2.2) A (1.9) - A (2.4) A (2.0) -
SB - A (0.6) A (0.1) - A (1.1) A (0.4)
4th Avenue & Access F
Side Street Stop
EB A (6.9) - A (4.0)
A (6.9)
A (9.6) - A (3.4)
A (9.6) WB - - - - - -
NB A (1.7) A (0.5) - A (2.0) A (1.6) -
SB - A (1.3) A (0.5) - A (1.1) A (0.6)
4th Avenue & Access G
Side Street Stop
EB A (5.5) - A (3.7)
A (5.5)
A (7.7) - A (3.4)
A (7.7) WB - - - - - -
NB A (1.4) A (0.8) - A (2.2) A (2.5) -
SB - A (1.3) A (0.8) - A (1.0) A (0.4)
Pine Street & Access H
EB - A (0.5) - A (3.1) - A (0.7) - A (2.9) WB A (1.5) - - A (2.1) - -
Northwest Main – Lino Lakes, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ June 2025 32
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Left Through Right Overall* Left Through Right Overall*
Side Street Stop
NB - - A (3.1) - - A (2.9)
SB - - - - - -
*Delay of worst movement is reported in place of overall delay at side-street stop-controlled intersections.
6. TURN LANE WARRANT ANALYSIS
The need for turn lanes along CSAH 70 was evaluated using the methodologies laid out in the National
Cooperative Highway Research Program’s Report 457 on the need for major-road turn lanes at side-street
stop-controlled intersections. Turn lane warrants were conducted at all stop-controlled site access points
for each applicable turning movement. Results of the turn lane warrant analysis are given below in Table
6-1.
Table 6-1: Access Point Turn Lane Warrant Analysis Results
Intersection Movement
Turn Lane Warrant Result By Scenario
Scenario 1 Scenario 2
2030 2045 2030 2045
Sunset Avenue & Access A NBR MET MET MET MET
Main Street & Access B EBR MET MET MET MET
WBR MET MET MET MET
Main Street & Access D EBR MET MET - -
WBR - MET - -
4th Avenue & Access E NBL - Not Met - Not Met
SBR - MET - MET
4th Avenue & Access F NBL - MET - MET
SBR - Not Met - Not Met
4th Avenue & Access G NBL - MET - MET
SBR - Not Met - Not Met
The results of the analysis indicate that under both Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, right turn lanes are warranted
on all access points along Sunset Avenue and Main Street. Additionally, the access point along 4th Avenue
south of Main Street (Access E) meets the warrant for only a southbound right turn lane, while the access
points along 4th Avenue north of Main Street (Accesses F and G) meet the warrant only for a northbound
left turn lane. Further traffic analysis should be conducted as the site develops to confirm the need for
geometric improvements after the access locations and development characteristics have been finalized.
33 Northwest Main – Lino Lakes, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ June 2025
7. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A traffic analysis was performed to quantify the impacts of the proposed development on the adjacent
roadway network and study intersections. No-Build, and Build conditions were analyzed in the Opening
Year (2030) and the Design Year (2045). An Existing Year (2025) analysis was also conducted.
7.1. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
The proposed development site is located along Main Street between Sunset Avenue and 4th Avenue in
Lino Lakes, MN. There are two development scenarios included in the AUAR; Scenario 2 represents the
densities, and land uses presently allowed in the City of Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan, while
Scenario 1 represents an alternative development to the City of Lino Lakes’ 2040 Comprehensive Plan and
as such would require an amendment to the plan. The study area intersections include the following:
• Main Street & Sunset Avenue
• Sunset Avenue & Robinson Drive
• Sunset Avenue & Century Trail
• Sunset Avenue & Lilac Street
• 4th Avenue & Pine Street
• Main Street & 4th Avenue
• 4th Avenue & Lilac Street
• Pine Street & Lake Drive
• Main Street & Lake Drive
The listed intersections were analyzed in the following scenarios:
• Existing Year (2025)
• Opening Year (2030) No-Build
• Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1
• Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2
• Design Year (2045) No-Build
• Design Year (2045) Scenario 1
• Design Year (2045) Scenario 2
Both Scenarios are anticipated to include numerous access points off Sunset Avenue, Main Street, 4th
Avenue, and Pine Street. It is anticipated that the full development of the AUAR area would take up to 30
years. However, traffic projections as part of an AUAR are typically 20-year analysis horizon. This results
in a conservative analysis for the Design Year as the site may not be fully developed by then.
7.2. BACKGROUND CONDITIONS CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY
A capacity analysis was conducted for Existing Year (2025) traffic conditions at the study intersections to
determine current operating conditions of the roadway network. Based on the analysis, all intersections and
individual movements are estimated to operate at LOS C or better.
A capacity analysis was conducted for the Opening Year (2030) No-Build traffic conditions at the study
intersections to determine baseline conditions for the 2030 analysis year. Analysis included numerous
background improvements including new roundabouts at Sunset Avenue & Lilac Street and Main Street &
Lake Drive. Based on the analysis, all study intersections and individual movements are anticipated to
operate at LOS B or better, with the operations seeing an overall improvement as a result of the upcoming
roadway projects.
Northwest Main – Lino Lakes, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ June 2025 34
A capacity analysis was conducted for the Design Year (2045) No-Build traffic conditions at the study
intersections to determine baseline conditions for the 2045 analysis year. Analysis included the upcoming
background geometry changes that will be in place by the Opening Year but no further changes to geometry
and control were assumed. All study intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS C or better and all
intersection movements/roundabout approaches are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better.
7.3. SCENARIO 1 CONDITIONS CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY
A capacity analysis was conducted for the Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 traffic conditions at the study
intersection. It was found that the addition of site traffic causes some increases in network delays compared
to the Opening Year (2030) No-Build conditions. All study intersections are anticipated to operate at an
overall LOS C or better and all individual movements/roundabout approaches operate at LOS D or better.
Additionally, with operations remaining acceptable in Opening Year (2030) build Scenario 1, an east-west
roadway connection on the south half of the AUAR site is not required from a traffic operations perspective,
however, the connection of Robinson Drive (Access E) would help improve connectivity to the
neighborhoods. The connection of Carl Street is not necessary from a traffic operations perspective.
Under Design Year (2045) Scenario 1 traffic conditions, it was found that significant operational deficiencies
could be caused by the full buildout of the proposed Scenario 1 development and mitigation measures are
likely required if traffic reaches these levels. Main Street sees operational issues due to capacity constraints
on eastbound and westbound traffic at the roundabouts and 4th Avenue sees severe side street delays at
the intersection with Main Street. Therefore, it is anticipated that Main Street may need to be expanded to
four lanes west of Lake Drive under the buildout conditions of Scenario 1 and a roundabout may be needed
at Main Street & 4th Avenue. The infrastructure improvements within the AUAR site should be evaluated as
development occurs on the site.
Analysis of the Design Year (2045) Scenario 1 Mitigated traffic conditions indicated that with the proposed
improvements in place, all study intersections are anticipated to operate acceptably.
7.4. SCENARIO 2 CONDITIONS CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY
A capacity analysis was conducted for the Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 traffic conditions at the study
intersection. It was found that the addition of site traffic causes some increases in network delays compared
to the Opening Year (2030) No-Build conditions. All study intersections are anticipated to operate at an
overall LOS C or better and all individual movements/roundabout approaches operate at LOS D or better.
Additionally, with operations remaining acceptable in Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 2, an east-west
roadway connection on the south half of the AUAR site is not required from a traffic operations perspective,
however, the connection of Robinson Drive (Access E) would help improve connectivity to the
neighborhoods. The connection of Carl Street is not necessary from a traffic operations perspective.
Under Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 traffic conditions, it was found that significant operational deficiencies
could be caused by the full buildout of the proposed Scenario 2 development and mitigation measures are
likely required if traffic reaches these levels. Main Street sees operational issues due to capacity constraints
on eastbound and westbound traffic at the roundabouts and 4th Avenue sees severe side street delays at
the intersection with Main Street. Therefore, it is anticipated that Main Street may need to be expanded to
four lanes west of Lake Drive under the buildout conditions of Scenario 2 and a roundabout may be needed
at Main Street & 4th Avenue. The infrastructure improvements within the AUAR site should be evaluated as
development occurs on the site.
Analysis of the Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 Mitigated traffic conditions indicated that with the proposed
improvements in place, all study intersections are anticipated to operate acceptably. Some minor
35 Northwest Main – Lino Lakes, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ June 2025
operational deficiencies may also be present along Sunset Avenue in the AM peak hour due to the presence
of school traffic, but the anticipated level of delay does not necessitate further improvement.
7.5. MITIGATION PLAN
The following provides a summary of mitigation improvements that were identified as part of the traffic
analysis for the proposed development.
Existing (2025) Conditions
• No recommended mitigation
Opening Year (2030) No-Build Conditions
• No recommended mitigation (beyond planned improvements)
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 Conditions
• Install side street stop control at the site access points.
• Install right turn lanes at all access points along Sunset Avenue & Main Street
• Install a roundabout at the full-access point along Main Street (Access C)
• While not required based on the traffic operations results, it is recommended to connect Robinson
Drive to 4th Avenue (Access E) to improve connectivity.
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 Conditions
• Install a roundabout at the full-access point along Main Street (Access C)
• Install side street stop control at all other site access points.
• Install right turn lanes at all access points along Sunset Avenue & Main Street
• While not required based on the traffic operations results, it is recommended to connect Robinson
Drive to 4th Avenue (Access E) to improve connectivity.
Design Year (2045) No-Build Conditions
• No recommended mitigation (beyond planned improvements)
Design Year (2045) Scenario 1 Conditions
• All Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 conditions mitigations
• Install side street stop control at all access points along 4th Avenue and Pine Street.
• Install southbound right turn lanes at 4th Avenue & Access E (south of Main Street)
• Install northbound left turn lanes at access points on 4th Avenue north of Main Street (Access F and
Access G).
• Expand Main Street to a four-lane road west of Lake Drive
o Includes expanding roundabouts at Sunset Avenue and Access C to 2x1 roundabouts.
• Install a 2x1 roundabout at Main Street & 4th Avenue.
• Expand Main Street & Lake Drive roundabout to accommodate northbound left-turn traffic.
o The roundabout is anticipated to require two northbound entry lanes, two exit lanes on
the west leg, and a bypass lane for the eastbound approach
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 Conditions
• All Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 conditions mitigations
Northwest Main – Lino Lakes, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ June 2025 36
• Install side street stop control at all access points along 4th Avenue and Pine Street.
• Install southbound right turn lanes at access points along 4th Avenue south of Main Street (i.e.,
Access E).
• Install northbound left turn lanes at access points on 4th Avenue north of Main Street (Access F and
Access G).
• Expand Main Street to a four-lane road west of Lake Drive
o Includes expanding roundabouts at Sunset Avenue and Access C to 2x1 roundabouts.
• Install a 2x1 roundabout at Main Street & 4th Avenue
• Expand Main Street & Lake Drive roundabout to accommodate northbound left-turn traffic.
o The roundabout is anticipated to require two northbound entry lanes, two exit lanes on
the west leg, and a bypass lane for the eastbound approach
Note that it is anticipated that the full development of the AUAR area would take up to 30 years. However,
traffic projections as part of an AUAR are typically 20-year analysis horizon. This results in a conservative
analysis for the Design Year as the full site may not be built out yet. All traffic mitigation should be updated
when the AUAR is updated.
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY 14COUNTY
23COUNTY
53COUNTY
35W
53COUNTY
EXHIBIT 1
AUAR BOUNDARIES & STUDY INTERSECTIONS
NORTHWEST MAIN — LINO LAKES, MN
AUAR Boundaries
Existing Study Intersections
LEGEND
53COUNTY
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY 14COUNTY
23COUNTY
53COUNTY
35W
EXHIBIT 2
EXISTING GEOMETRY AND INTERSECTION CONTROL
NORTHWEST MAIN — LINO LAKES, MN
LEGEND
Study Intersections
Existing Stop Control
Existing Signal Control
Roundabout
Channelized Turn
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY 14COUNTY
23COUNTY
53COUNTY
35W
LEGEND
Study Intersections
AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (XX)
EXHIBIT 3
EXISTING (2025) TRAFFIC VOLUMES
NORTHWEST MAIN — LINO LAKES, MN
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY 14COUNTY
23COUNTY
53COUNTY
35W
EXHIBIT 4
PLANNED FUTURE GEOMETRY AND INTERSECTION CONTROL
NORTHWEST MAIN — LINO LAKES, MN
LEGEND
Study Intersections
Existing Stop Control
Existing Signal Control
Roundabout
Channelized Turn
Note: All changes are anticipated
to be in place by 2030.
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY 14COUNTY
23COUNTY
53COUNTY
35W
LEGEND
Study Intersections
AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (XX)
EXHIBIT 5
OPENING YEAR (2030) NO-BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES
NORTHWEST MAIN — LINO LAKES, MN
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY 14COUNTY
23COUNTY
53COUNTY
35W
LEGEND
Study Intersections
AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (XX)
EXHIBIT 6
DESIGN YEAR (2045) NO-BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES
NORTHWEST MAIN — LINO LAKES, MN
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY 14COUNTY
23COUNTY
53COUNTY
35W
EXHIBIT 7
OPENING YEAR (2030) SCENARIO 1 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION
NORTHWEST MAIN — LINO LAKES, MN
LEGEND
2030 Development Areas
Global Traffic Distribution
Inbound Site Traffic
Outbound Site Traffic
Full-Access Intersection
RIRO Intersection
Roundabout
Potential Roadway
Connection
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY 14COUNTY
23COUNTY
53COUNTY
35W
EXHIBIT 8
OPENING YEAR (2030) SCENARIO 1 SITE TRIPS
NORTHWEST MAIN — LINO LAKES, MN
LEGEND
2030 Development Areas
AM (PM) Peak Site Trips
Full-Access Intersection
RIRO Intersection
Roundabout
xx (xx)
Potential Roadway
Connection
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY 14COUNTY
23COUNTY
53COUNTY
35W
EXHIBIT 9
OPENING YEAR (2030) SCENARIO 1 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
NORTHWEST MAIN — LINO LAKES, MN
LEGEND
2030 Development Areas
AM (PM) Peak Traffic Volume
Full-Access Intersection
RIRO Intersection
Roundabout
xx (xx)
Potential Roadway
Connection
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY 14COUNTY
23COUNTY
53COUNTY
35W
53COUNTY53COUNTY
EXHIBIT 10
DESIGN YEAR (2045) SCENARIO 1 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION
NORTHWEST MAIN — LINO LAKES, MN
LEGEND
Development Location
Global Traffic Distribution
Inbound Site Traffic
Outbound Site Traffic
Full-Access Intersection
RIRO Intersection
Roundabout
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY 14COUNTY
23COUNTY
53COUNTY
35W
EXHIBIT 11
DESIGN YEAR (2045) SCENARIO 1 SITE TRIPS
NORTHWEST MAIN — LINO LAKES, MN
53COUNTY53COUNTY
LEGEND
Development Location
AM (PM) Peak Site Trips
Full-Access Intersection
RIRO Intersection
Roundabout
xx (xx)
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY 14COUNTY
23COUNTY
53COUNTY
35W
53COUNTY53COUNTY
EXHIBIT 12
DESIGN YEAR (2045) SCENARIO 1 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
NORTHWEST MAIN — LINO LAKES, MN
LEGEND
Development Location
AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes
Full-Access Intersection
RIRO Intersection
Roundabout
xx (xx)
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY 14COUNTY
23COUNTY
53COUNTY
35W
EXHIBIT 13
OPENING YEAR (2030) SCENARIO 2 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION
NORTHWEST MAIN — LINO LAKES, MN
LEGEND
2030 Development Areas
Global Traffic Distribution
Inbound Site Traffic
Outbound Site Traffic
Full-Access Intersection
RIRO Intersection
Roundabout
Potential Roadway
Connection
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY 14COUNTY
23COUNTY
53COUNTY
35W
EXHIBIT 14
OPENING YEAR (2030) SCENARIO 2 SITE TRIPS
NORTHWEST MAIN — LINO LAKES, MN
LEGEND
2030 Development Areas
AM (PM) Peak Site Trips
Full-Access Intersection
RIRO Intersection
Roundabout
xx (xx)
Potential Roadway
Connection
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY 14COUNTY
23COUNTY
53COUNTY
35W
EXHIBIT 15
OPENING YEAR (2030) SCENARIO 2 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
NORTHWEST MAIN — LINO LAKES, MN
LEGEND
2030 Development Areas
AM (PM) Peak Traffic Volume
Full-Access Intersection
RIRO Intersection
Roundabout
xx (xx)
Potential Roadway
Connection
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY 14COUNTY
23COUNTY
53COUNTY
35W
53COUNTY53COUNTY
EXHIBIT 16
DESIGN YEAR (2045) SCENARIO 2 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION
NORTHWEST MAIN — LINO LAKES, MN
LEGEND
Development Location
Global Traffic Distribution
Inbound Site Traffic
Outbound Site Traffic
Full-Access Intersection
RIRO Intersection
Roundabout
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY 14COUNTY
23COUNTY
53COUNTY
35W
EXHIBIT 17
DESIGN YEAR (2045) SCENARIO 2 SITE TRIPS
NORTHWEST MAIN — LINO LAKES, MN
53COUNTY53COUNTY
LEGEND
Development Location
AM (PM) Peak Site Trips
Full-Access Intersection
RIRO Intersection
Roundabout
xx (xx)
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY 14COUNTY
23COUNTY
53COUNTY
35W
EXHIBIT 18
DESIGN YEAR (2045) SCENARIO 2 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
NORTHWEST MAIN — LINO LAKES, MN
53COUNTY53COUNTY
LEGEND
Development Location
AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes
Full-Access Intersection
RIRO Intersection
Roundabout
xx (xx)
37 Northwest Main – Lino Lakes, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ June 2025
8. APPENDIX
Appendix A: Turning Movement Counts
Appendix B: SimTraffic Reports
Appendix C: Turn Lane Warrant Sheets
Northwest Main – Lino Lakes, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ June 2025 38
Appendix A:
Turning Movement Counts
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: 4th Ave & Lilac StSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 1Turning Movement DataStart TimeLilac StLilac St4th Ave4th AveEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeft Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total7:00 AM320225610420010167114607:15 AM4180225112180112104418607:30 AM21501728313010173111427:45 AM01801811001102139311345Hourly Total9712821439962052732177562078:00 AM1190202821200004127398:15 AM1901021111400441113318:30 AM162901131402023418338:45 AM39012461111236210332Hourly Total64325183675114712107421135*** BREAK ***-----------------4:00 PM4131181347422712213014854:15 PM328031026329032553210754:30 PM317121132841040422610764:45 PM5160211283320527441969Hourly Total1574291312021144219163714910333055:00 PM01601663574812143036745:15 PM180902032302134026415:30 PM21201411542012031034415:45 PM1100111204250314413848Hourly Total44605089018116293141211124204Grand Total34234627433285553735372870683432134851Approach %12.4 85.42.2-8.876.4 14.7-7.152.9 40.0-50.7 25.4 23.9--Total %4.027.50.732.23.933.56.543.80.64.33.38.28.04.03.815.7-Lights32230626830278543625362667663330129826% Lights94.1 98.3 100.0 97.8 90.9 97.5 98.2 97.1 100.0 97.3 92.9 95.7 97.1 97.1 93.8 96.3 97.1Buses11020314010110129% Buses2.90.40.00.70.01.11.81.10.02.70.01.41.50.03.11.51.1Trucks130434070022111316% Trucks2.91.30.01.59.11.40.01.90.00.07.12.91.52.93.12.21.9
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: 4th Ave & Lilac StSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 204/03/2025 7:00 AMEnding At04/03/2025 6:00 PMLightsBusesTrucks4th Ave [SB]Out In Total122 129 2513 2 51 3 4126 134 26030 33 661 0 11 1 132 34 68R T L
330
6
2
322
Out
373
7
4
362
In
703
13
6
684
Total
Lilac St [WB]
R
55
0
1
54
T
285
4
3
278
L
33
3
0
30
69 67 1360 1 14 2 673 70 143Out In Total4th Ave [NB]L T R5 36 260 1 00 0 25 37 28Lilac St [EB]Total58169596In26824274Out31345322321134L23013234T6006RTurning Movement Data Plot
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: 4th Ave & Lilac StSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 3Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:00 AM)Start TimeLilac StLilac St4th Ave4th AveEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeft Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total7:00 AM320225610420010167114607:15 AM4180225112180112104418607:30 AM21501728313010173111427:45 AM01801811001102139311345Total971282143996205273217756207Approach %11.0 86.62.4-22.6 62.9 14.5-0.071.4 28.6-57.1 30.4 12.5--Total %4.334.31.039.66.818.84.330.00.02.41.03.415.58.23.427.1-PHF0.563 0.888 0.250 0.820 0.583 0.886 0.563 0.775 0.000 0.625 0.500 0.583 0.800 0.607 0.438 0.778 0.863Lights867277133685704263117654194% Lights88.9 94.4 100.0 93.9 92.9 92.3 88.9 91.9-80.0 100.0 85.7 96.9 100.0 85.7 96.4 93.7Buses11020213010110128% Buses11.11.40.02.40.05.111.14.8-20.00.014.33.10.014.33.63.9Trucks03031102000000005% Trucks0.04.20.03.77.12.60.03.2-0.00.00.00.00.00.00.02.4
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: 4th Ave & Lilac StSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 4Peak Hour Data04/03/2025 7:00 AMEnding At04/03/2025 8:00 AMLightsBusesTrucks4th Ave [SB]Out In Total20 54 743 2 50 0 023 56 796 17 311 0 10 0 07 17 32R T L
105
3
2
100
Out
62
2
3
57
In
167
5
5
157
Total
Lilac St [WB]
R
9
0
1
8
T
39
1
2
36
L
14
1
0
13
32 6 380 1 11 0 133 7 40Out In Total4th Ave [NB]L T R0 4 20 1 00 0 00 5 2Lilac St [EB]Total11954128In772382Out4231468109L671371T2002RTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:00 AM)
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: 4th Ave & Lilac StSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 5Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:00 PM)Start TimeLilac StLilac St4th Ave4th AveEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeft Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total4:00 PM4131181347422712213014854:15 PM328031026329032553210754:30 PM317121132841040422610764:45 PM5160211283320527441969Total157429131202114421916371491033305Approach %16.5 81.32.2-2.183.3 14.6-5.451.4 43.2-42.4 27.3 30.3--Total %4.924.30.729.81.039.36.947.20.76.25.212.14.63.03.310.8-PHF0.750 0.661 0.500 0.734 0.750 0.882 0.656 0.857 0.250 0.679 0.333 0.440 0.700 0.563 0.417 0.825 0.897Lights157429131182114221916371491033303% Lights100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.3 100.0 98.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.3Buses00000000000000000% Buses0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Trucks00000202000000002% Trucks0.00.00.00.00.01.70.01.40.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.7
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: 4th Ave & Lilac StSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 6Peak Hour Data04/03/2025 4:00 PMEnding At04/03/2025 5:00 PMLightsBusesTrucks4th Ave [SB]Out In Total55 33 880 0 00 0 055 33 8810 9 140 0 00 0 010 9 14R T L
104
0
0
104
Out
144
2
0
142
In
248
2
0
246
Total
Lilac St [WB]
R
21
0
0
21
T
120
2
0
118
L
3
0
0
3
14 37 510 0 00 0 014 37 51Out In Total4th Ave [NB]L T R2 19 160 0 00 0 02 19 16Lilac St [EB]Total22102223In910091Out13002132150015L740074T2002RTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:00 PM)
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: 4th Ave & Main St/125th AveSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 1Turning Movement DataStart TimeMain StMain St4th Ave4th AveEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeft Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total12:00 AM0101000010010000212:15 AM0213030310010000712:30 AM0202050500000000712:45 AM02020202000000004Hourly Total071801001020020000201:00 AM000003030000000031:15 AM010101010000000021:30 AM000000000000000001:45 AM02020202000000004Hourly Total030306060000000092:00 AM041501010000000062:15 AM0314060600000000102:30 AM031401010000000052:45 AM02020404000000006Hourly Total01231501201200000000273:00 AM051600000000000063:15 AM021301011001000053:30 AM09211060600000112193:45 AM01241608080000010125Hourly Total02883601501510010213554:00 AM08210080820130033244:15 AM02332601101100112103414:30 AM03654111401500110011584:45 AM13712502110130033011268Hourly Total110422127344047206822591915:00 AM02673312202310011427645:15 AM046955639045202404151095:30 AM0716772410431034361101345:45 AM072168854004510121315140Hourly Total021538253141420156506115175274476:00 AM068775247049414901341376:15 AM070777252256003311241406:30 AM11098118462167011224171946:45 AM064670371175222617311162Hourly Total1311283401123242476410204139266337:00 AM76467714905030362237140
7:15 AM066672263065223703031477:30 AM253055450155412711461237:45 AM162366250052110254312132Hourly Total10245152709212122210482281010285428:00 AM247049250052201305381128:15 AM159262161163001100221288:30 AM257261139141030340371128:45 AM05625813713910120011100Hourly Total52196230518731953339459184529:00 AM14034423814120020224919:15 AM046753044044102342171079:30 AM358263143448004402131189:45 AM35015424434911241315112Hourly Total71941321451698182418135951942810:00 AM3461501460470123022410410:15 AM2550573411450123100110610:30 AM1461480511522125004410910:45 AM165268553058352101124140Hourly Total7212422391912202588212381345911:00 AM1561581651673025022413411:15 AM2440460691700022205712511:30 AM0510513512560202011211111:45 AM45606035926424062226136Hourly Total72071215724462575641545101950612:00 PM1500510520528019030311512:15 PM4531582371404015013410712:30 PM0651660491502248110212612:45 PM25615926326740041113133Hourly Total7224323442014209182626264124811:00 PM048250159161123611131201:15 PM142750152053111301011071:30 PM267574166168323801231531:45 PM1743782631661132163205165Hourly Total42311725252403248168933453125452:00 PM35626117207311261912581612:15 PM4632691880894421021031712:30 PM965276396099503803361892:45 PM270577111221155112181113213Hourly Total1825411283636823762572355479207343:00 PM5703782850878161511571873:15 PM391498212611295431200222413:30 PM412121272113211711382222372733:45 PM6813901104210713150022204Hourly Total183631239374285440251118543312189054:00 PM891099311411186621400222334:15 PM78709411022105312601562114:30 PM21010103411411194241000552374:45 PM471277288191362111315184Hourly Total213502373104185433161510411413188655:00 PM444351062163210311131205:15 PM358162269172210301231405:30 PM46106516116331040112134
5:45 PM15435824915211130314117Hourly Total1221772365241425084113165125116:00 PM345149158160412710451216:15 PM151254157159131501121206:30 PM353056047249322701341166:45 PM45736404724941161012121Hourly Total11206622322096217127625229134787:00 PM14614803603601010224897:15 PM13213405505513041124977:30 PM33203513513701011102757:45 PM2300320212230101101258Hourly Total71402149114731511607345123198:00 PM13323602502500000011628:15 PM22913203203200000011658:30 PM11611802102100000000398:45 PM0240240140141001000039Hourly Total41024110092092100100222059:00 PM11011202002000110112359:15 PM01121311801910010000339:30 PM062801411550490101339:45 PM07070120122002000021Hourly Total13454016416680513021312210:00 PM161808084071100002710:15 PM09090505000000001410:30 PM06061405100101011310:45 PM06060110110101000018Hourly Total1271291280295171301017211:00 PM091100808000000001811:15 PM06060505000000001111:30 PM07070505100100001311:45 PM02020303000000005Hourly Total0241250210211001000047Grand Total142 3929 210 4281 105 3921574083 1798713840454106125285 9053Approach %3.391.84.9-2.696.01.4-44.3 21.5 34.2-18.9 37.2 43.9--Total %1.643.42.347.31.243.30.645.12.01.01.54.50.61.21.43.1-Lights134 3828 202 4164973788483933 1758513139148100120268 8756% Lights94.4 97.4 96.2 97.3 92.4 96.6 84.2 96.3 97.8 97.7 94.9 96.8 88.9 94.3 96.0 94.0 96.7Buses1113151121140000411635% Buses0.70.31.40.41.00.31.80.30.00.00.00.07.40.90.82.10.4Trucks7905102712181364271325411262% Trucks4.92.32.42.46.73.114.03.32.22.35.13.23.74.73.23.92.9
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: 4th Ave & Main St/125th AveSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 404/03/2025 12:00 AMEnding At04/04/2025 12:00 AMLightsBusesTrucks4th Ave [SB]Out In Total267 268 5352 6 817 11 28286 285 571120 100 481 1 44 5 2125 106 54R T L
4121
99
15
4007
Out
4083
136
14
3933
In
8204
235
29
7940
Total
Main St [WB]
R
57
8
1
48
T
3921
121
12
3788
L
105
7
1
97
399 391 7905 0 517 13 30421 404 825Out In Total4th Ave [NB]L T R175 85 1310 0 04 2 7179 87 138Main St [EB]Total8247282318506In4164151024281Out408313129422513417142L382811903929T20235210RTurning Movement Data Plot
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: 4th Ave & Main St/125th AveSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 5Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (6:30 AM)Start TimeMain StMain St4th Ave4th AveEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeft Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total6:30 AM11098118462167011224171946:45 AM0646703711752226173111627:00 AM764677149050303622371407:15 AM06667226306522370303147Total83032633710245225775921516728643Approach %2.489.97.7-3.995.30.8-33.3 23.8 42.9-17.9 57.1 25.0--Total %1.247.14.052.41.638.10.340.01.10.81.43.30.82.51.14.4-PHF0.286 0.695 0.813 0.714 0.625 0.863 0.500 0.857 0.583 0.625 0.750 0.750 0.625 0.571 0.583 0.636 0.829Lights72962632910229224174819515727616% Lights87.5 97.7 100.0 97.6 100.0 93.5 100.0 93.8 100.0 80.0 88.9 90.5 100.0 93.8 100.0 96.4 95.8Buses00000101000000001% Buses0.00.00.00.00.00.40.00.40.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.2Trucks17080150150112010126% Trucks12.52.30.02.40.06.10.05.80.020.0 11.19.50.06.30.03.64.0
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: 4th Ave & Main St/125th AveSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 6Peak Hour Data04/03/2025 6:30 AMEnding At04/03/2025 7:30 AMLightsBusesTrucks4th Ave [SB]Out In Total13 27 400 0 02 1 315 28 437 15 50 0 00 1 07 16 5R T L
317
8
0
309
Out
257
15
1
241
In
574
23
1
550
Total
Main St [WB]
R
2
0
0
2
T
245
15
1
229
L
10
0
0
10
51 19 700 0 01 2 352 21 73Out In Total4th Ave [NB]L T R7 4 80 0 00 1 17 5 9Main St [EB]Total572123596In32908337Out2431152597018L29607303T260026RTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (6:30 AM)
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: 4th Ave & Main St/125th AveSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 7Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (3:15 PM)Start TimeMain StMain St4th Ave4th AveEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeft Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total3:15 PM391498212611295431200222413:30 PM412121272113211711382222372733:45 PM68139011042107131500222044:00 PM89109931141118662140022233Total213849414845764712316145322913951Approach %5.192.82.2-1.797.01.3-43.4 30.2 26.4-15.4 15.4 69.2--Total %2.240.40.943.50.848.10.649.52.41.71.55.60.20.20.91.4-PHF0.656 0.793 0.563 0.815 0.667 0.907 0.750 0.913 0.523 0.667 0.438 0.602 0.250 0.250 0.750 0.464 0.871Lights213809410844864622316145322812937% Lights100.0 99.0 100.0 99.0 100.0 98.0 100.0 98.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 88.9 92.3 98.5Buses03030101000000004% Buses0.00.80.00.70.00.20.00.20.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.4Trucks010108080000001110% Trucks0.00.30.00.20.01.80.01.70.00.00.00.00.00.011.17.71.1
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: 4th Ave & Main St/125th AveSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 8Peak Hour Data04/03/2025 3:15 PMEnding At04/03/2025 4:15 PMLightsBusesTrucks4th Ave [SB]Out In Total43 12 550 0 00 1 143 13 568 2 20 0 01 0 09 2 2R T L
400
1
3
396
Out
471
8
1
462
In
871
9
4
858
Total
Main St [WB]
R
6
0
0
6
T
457
8
1
448
L
8
0
0
8
19 53 720 0 00 0 019 53 72Out In Total4th Ave [NB]L T R23 16 140 0 00 0 023 16 14Main St [EB]Total889410903In41031414Out47919489210021L38031384T9009RTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (3:15 PM)
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: 4th Ave & Pine StSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 1Turning Movement DataStart TimePine StPine St4th Ave4th AveEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeft Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total7:00 AM001120021214020297:15 AM0022011240150101107:30 AM002211020022010177:45 AM0651100110022010115Hourly Total0610163227526130505418:00 AM0145010110120213118:15 AM002210011012000058:30 AM011212140101000078:45 AM00000000021300003Hourly Total027923162338021326*** BREAK ***-----------------4:00 PM02022226235100011194:15 PM0134110231590011164:30 PM001110010011000034:45 PM010120024004120310Hourly Total0448632119411241225485:00 PM0101121401341102115:15 PM000020131236000095:30 PM010120022215100195:45 PM00003003012300006Hourly Total02028221236918210335Grand Total0142135191073619152963310316150Approach %0.040.0 60.0-52.8 27.8 19.4-30.2 23.8 46.0-18.8 62.5 18.8--Total %0.09.314.0 23.3 12.76.74.724.0 12.7 10.0 19.3 42.02.06.72.010.7-Lights012162819773317152759310114134% Lights-85.7 76.2 80.0 100.0 70.0 100.0 91.7 89.5 100.0 93.1 93.7 100.0 100.0 33.3 87.5 89.3Buses01010101000000002% Buses-7.10.02.90.010.00.02.80.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.01.3Trucks015602022024002214% Trucks-7.123.8 17.10.020.00.05.610.50.06.96.30.00.066.7 12.59.3
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: 4th Ave & Pine StSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 204/03/2025 7:00 AMEnding At04/03/2025 6:00 PMLightsBusesTrucks4th Ave [SB]Out In Total22 14 360 0 00 2 222 16 381 10 30 0 02 0 03 10 3R T L
46
3
1
42
Out
36
2
1
33
In
82
5
2
75
Total
Pine St [WB]
R
7
0
0
7
T
10
2
1
7
L
19
0
0
19
45 59 1040 0 05 4 950 63 113Out In Total4th Ave [NB]L T R17 15 270 0 02 0 219 15 29Pine St [EB]Total5321267In281635Out2516320000L121114T160521RTurning Movement Data Plot
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: 4th Ave & Pine StSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 3Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:15 AM)Start TimePine StPine St4th Ave4th AveEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeft Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total7:15 AM0022011240150101107:30 AM002211020022010177:45 AM06511001100220101158:00 AM014501011012021311Total071320132650611051643Approach %0.035.0 65.0-16.7 50.0 33.3-45.50.054.5-0.083.3 16.7--Total %0.016.3 30.2 46.52.37.04.714.0 11.60.014.0 25.60.011.62.314.0-PHF0.000 0.292 0.650 0.455 0.250 0.750 0.500 0.750 0.313 0.000 0.750 0.550 0.000 0.625 0.250 0.500 0.717Lights05101511243069050533% Lights-71.4 76.9 75.0 100.0 33.3 100.0 66.7 60.0-100.0 81.8-100.0 0.083.3 76.7Buses01010101000000002% Buses-14.30.05.00.033.30.016.70.0-0.00.0-0.00.00.04.7Trucks01340101200200118% Trucks-14.3 23.1 20.00.033.30.016.7 40.0-0.018.2-0.0 100.0 16.7 18.6
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: 4th Ave & Pine StSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 4Peak Hour Data04/03/2025 7:15 AMEnding At04/03/2025 8:15 AMLightsBusesTrucks4th Ave [SB]Out In Total2 5 70 0 00 1 12 6 80 5 00 0 01 0 01 5 0R T L
13
1
1
11
Out
6
1
1
4
In
19
2
2
15
Total
Pine St [WB]
R
2
0
0
2
T
3
1
1
1
L
1
0
0
1
16 9 250 0 03 2 519 11 30Out In Total4th Ave [NB]L T R3 0 60 0 02 0 05 0 6Pine St [EB]Total192829In151420Out41490000L5117T100313RTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:15 AM)
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: 4th Ave & Pine StSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 5Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:00 PM)Start TimePine StPine St4th Ave4th AveEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeft Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total4:00 PM02022226235100011194:15 PM0134110231590011164:30 PM001110010011000034:45 PM010120024004120310Total044863211941124122548Approach %0.050.0 50.0-54.5 27.3 18.2-37.5 16.7 45.8-20.0 40.0 40.0--Total %0.08.38.316.7 12.56.34.222.9 18.88.322.9 50.02.14.24.210.4-PHF0.000 0.500 0.333 0.500 0.750 0.375 0.250 0.458 0.563 0.333 0.550 0.600 0.250 0.250 0.500 0.417 0.632Lights043763211941124121446% Lights-100.0 75.0 87.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 50.0 80.0 95.8Buses00000000000000000% Buses-0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Trucks00110000000000112% Trucks-0.025.0 12.50.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.050.0 20.04.2
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: 4th Ave & Pine StSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 6Peak Hour Data04/03/2025 4:00 PMEnding At04/03/2025 5:00 PMLightsBusesTrucks4th Ave [SB]Out In Total6 4 100 0 00 1 16 5 111 2 10 0 01 0 02 2 1R T L
16
0
0
16
Out
11
0
0
11
In
27
0
0
27
Total
Pine St [WB]
R
2
0
0
2
T
3
0
0
3
L
6
0
0
6
11 24 350 0 01 0 112 24 36Out In Total4th Ave [NB]L T R9 4 110 0 00 0 09 4 11Pine St [EB]Total200222In7018Out1301140000L4004T3014RTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:00 PM)
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Lake Dr & Main StSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 1Turning Movement DataStart TimeMain StMain StLake DrLake DrEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeft Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total7:00 AM303211734225370522194646019832727:15 AM2658129667314102618204436320863287:30 AM31631811277452124623215035625843707:45 AM314321955436494173431823453078349Hourly Total11819662376240137133903497912221322494331 13198:00 AM2134227738305731625387923416522818:15 AM213420753933476822184864126732728:30 AM2033106338264681017295673022592468:45 AM223218724337989132324604262959280Hourly Total84133702871581262230647871092431913193243 1079*** BREAK ***-----------------4:00 PM254610814956611123745515272534664104:15 PM4447201115080813823915216694037865014:30 PM52522012452671012934725115783025634734:45 PM31392898465991143187641825453080474Hourly Total152184784141972623349211132422265729140126295 18585:00 PM314517934661911643625916445039934665:15 PM4141181005455711622667115963434744495:30 PM364521102296449732634213723727664025:45 PM2134207534433802342491143222449318Hourly Total129165763701632232340912023322157415143124282 1635Grand Total483678286 1447 758748911597 312741643 169676638437 1151 5891Approach %33.4 46.9 19.8-47.5 46.85.7-18.4 43.7 37.9-6.655.4 38.0--Total %8.211.54.924.6 12.9 12.71.527.15.312.6 10.9 28.81.310.87.419.5-Lights472661272 1405 742726811549 308700620 162864602423 1089 5671% Lights97.7 97.5 95.1 97.1 97.9 97.1 89.0 97.0 98.7 94.5 96.4 96.0 84.2 94.4 96.8 94.6 96.3Buses615122801013610113537% Buses1.20.11.70.80.31.10.00.60.30.40.90.61.30.20.70.40.6Trucks51693014141038338175811351157183% Trucks1.02.43.12.11.81.911.02.41.05.12.63.414.55.52.55.03.1
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Lake Dr & Main StSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 204/03/2025 7:00 AMEnding At04/03/2025 6:00 PMLightsBusesTrucksLake Dr [SB]Out In Total1253 1089 23429 5 1453 57 1101315 1151 2466423 602 643 1 111 35 11437 638 76R T L
1397
44
8
1345
Out
1597
38
10
1549
In
2994
82
18
2894
Total
Main St [WB]
R
91
10
0
81
T
748
14
8
726
L
758
14
2
742
1616 1628 32448 10 1858 58 1161682 1696 3378Out In TotalLake Dr [NB]L T R308 700 6201 3 63 38 17312 741 643Main St [EB]Total286224582944In140512301447Out14571228149747265483L661116678T27259286RTurning Movement Data Plot
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Lake Dr & Main StSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 3Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:15 AM)Start TimeMain StMain StLake DrLake DrEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeft Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total7:15 AM2658129667314102618204436320863287:30 AM31631811277452124623215035625843707:45 AM3143219554364941734318234530783498:00 AM213422773830573162538792341652281Total1091987338023614215393451001102551119891300 1328Approach %28.7 52.1 19.2-60.1 36.13.8-17.6 39.2 43.1-3.766.0 30.3--Total %8.214.95.528.6 17.8 10.71.129.63.47.58.319.20.814.96.922.6-PHF0.879 0.786 0.830 0.848 0.766 0.789 0.750 0.792 0.662 0.735 0.724 0.777 0.917 0.786 0.758 0.872 0.897Lights107193683682301341337744931002371018285277 1259% Lights98.2 97.5 93.2 96.8 97.5 94.4 86.7 95.9 97.8 93.0 90.9 92.9 90.9 91.9 93.4 92.3 94.8Buses00110101022400117% Buses0.00.01.40.30.00.70.00.30.02.01.81.60.00.01.10.30.5Trucks25411672151581411652262% Trucks1.82.55.52.92.54.913.33.82.25.07.35.59.18.15.57.34.7
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Lake Dr & Main StSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 4Peak Hour Data04/03/2025 7:15 AMEnding At04/03/2025 8:15 AMLightsBusesTrucksLake Dr [SB]Out In Total213 277 4902 1 39 22 31224 300 52485 182 101 0 05 16 191 198 11R T L
319
14
2
303
Out
393
15
1
377
In
712
29
3
680
Total
Main St [WB]
R
15
2
0
13
T
142
7
1
134
L
236
6
0
230
480 237 7171 4 526 14 40507 255 762Out In TotalLake Dr [NB]L T R44 93 1000 2 21 5 845 100 110Main St [EB]Total631324658In368111380Out26321327810702109L19305198T681473RTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:15 AM)
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Lake Dr & Main StSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 5Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:15 PM)Start TimeMain StMain StLake DrLake DrEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeft Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total4:15 PM4447201115080813823915216694037865014:30 PM52522012452671012934725115783025634734:45 PM313928984659911431876418254530804745:00 PM31451793466191164362591644503993466Total158183854261942673649713131222666926165131322 1914Approach %37.1 43.0 20.0-39.0 53.77.2-19.6 46.6 33.8-8.151.2 40.7--Total %8.39.64.422.3 10.1 13.91.926.06.816.3 11.8 35.01.48.66.816.8-PHF0.760 0.880 0.759 0.859 0.933 0.834 0.900 0.900 0.762 0.857 0.883 0.919 0.722 0.825 0.840 0.866 0.955Lights156181844211882643148313029321964225160125310 1856% Lights98.7 98.9 98.8 98.8 96.9 98.9 86.1 97.2 99.2 93.9 96.9 96.0 96.2 97.0 95.4 96.3 97.0Buses11132103001100118% Buses0.60.51.20.71.00.40.00.60.00.00.40.10.00.00.80.30.4Trucks1102425111196261551150% Trucks0.60.50.00.52.10.713.92.20.86.12.73.93.83.03.83.42.6
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Lake Dr & Main StSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 6Peak Hour Data04/03/2025 4:15 PMEnding At04/03/2025 5:15 PMLightsBusesTrucksLake Dr [SB]Out In Total480 310 7901 1 225 11 36506 322 828125 160 251 0 05 5 1131 165 26R T L
435
8
2
425
Out
497
11
3
483
In
932
19
5
908
Total
Main St [WB]
R
36
5
0
31
T
267
2
1
264
L
194
4
2
188
432 642 10743 1 49 26 35444 669 1113Out In TotalLake Dr [NB]L T R130 293 2190 0 11 19 6131 312 226Main St [EB]Total940510955In42132426Out5192852915611158L18111183T841085RTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:15 PM)
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Lake Dr & Pine StSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 1Turning Movement DataStart TimePine StLake DrLake DrEastboundNorthboundSouthboundLeftRightApp. TotalLeftThruApp. TotalThruRightApp. TotalInt. Total7:00 AM02224749520521037:15 AM00014546630631097:30 AM1343384152052977:45 AM3471394058058105Hourly Total4913716917622502254148:00 AM14506363450451138:15 AM11224042610611058:30 AM1233434635035848:45 AM022141424004084Hourly Total391261871931810181386*** BREAK ***----------4:00 PM24638487611621554:15 PM15638487641651584:30 PM246898106482501624:45 PM1453626536137107Hourly Total617231732834520952145825:00 PM3363475038139955:15 PM22415758402421045:30 PM03335558522541155:45 PM112155564014199Hourly Total691582142221706176413Grand Total19446338898936785117961795Approach %30.269.8-4.195.9-98.61.4--Total %1.12.53.52.150.052.143.70.644.3-Lights19395832846878735117461682% Lights100.088.692.184.294.293.893.6100.093.793.7Buses0111101130315% Buses0.02.31.62.61.11.20.40.00.40.8Trucks044542474704798% Trucks0.09.16.313.24.75.06.00.05.95.5
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Lake Dr & Pine StSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 204/03/2025 7:00 AMEnding At04/03/2025 6:00 PMLightsBusesTrucksLake Dr [SB]Out In Total865 746 161110 3 1342 47 89917 796 171311 7350 30 4711 785R T
0
0
0
0
Out
0
0
0
0
In
0
0
0
0
Total
Fake Approach [WB]774 878 16524 11 1551 47 98829 936 1765Out In TotalLake Dr [NB]L T32 8461 105 4238 898Pine St [EB]Total10129112In581463Out431549190019L391444RTurning Movement Data Plot
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Lake Dr & Pine StSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 3Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:15 AM)Start TimePine StLake DrLake DrEastboundNorthboundSouthboundLeftRightApp. TotalLeftThruApp. TotalThruRightApp. TotalInt. Total7:15 AM00014546630631097:30 AM1343384152052977:45 AM34713940580581058:00 AM1450636345045113Total5111651851902180218424Approach %31.368.8-2.697.4-100.00.0--Total %1.22.63.81.243.644.851.40.051.4-PHF0.4170.6880.5710.4170.7340.7540.8650.0000.8650.938Lights591421611631960196373% Lights100.081.887.540.087.085.889.9-89.988.0Buses011191030314% Buses0.09.16.320.04.95.31.4-1.43.3Trucks011215171901937% Trucks0.09.16.340.08.18.98.7-8.78.7
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Lake Dr & Pine StSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 4Peak Hour Data04/03/2025 7:15 AMEnding At04/03/2025 8:15 AMLightsBusesTrucksLake Dr [SB]Out In Total166 196 3629 3 1215 19 34190 218 4080 1960 30 190 218R T
0
0
0
0
Out
0
0
0
0
In
0
0
0
0
Total
Fake Approach [WB]205 163 3684 10 1420 17 37229 190 419Out In TotalLake Dr [NB]L T2 1611 92 155 185Pine St [EB]Total162321In141116Out21255005L91111RTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:15 AM)
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Lake Dr & Pine StSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 5Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:00 PM)Start TimePine StLake DrLake DrEastboundNorthboundSouthboundLeftRightApp. TotalLeftThruApp. TotalThruRightApp. TotalInt. Total4:00 PM24638487611621554:15 PM15638487641651584:30 PM246898106482501624:45 PM1453626536137107Total61723173283452095214582Approach %26.173.9-4.995.1-97.72.3--Total %1.02.94.02.956.459.335.90.936.8-PHF0.7500.8500.9580.5310.8370.8140.8160.6250.8230.898Lights61723163193352065211569% Lights100.0100.0100.094.197.397.198.6100.098.697.8Buses0000000000% Buses0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Trucks000191030313% Trucks0.00.00.05.92.72.91.40.01.42.2
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Lake Dr & Pine StSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 6Peak Hour Data04/03/2025 4:00 PMEnding At04/03/2025 5:00 PMLightsBusesTrucksLake Dr [SB]Out In Total325 211 5360 0 09 3 12334 214 5485 2060 00 35 209R T
0
0
0
0
Out
0
0
0
0
In
0
0
0
0
Total
Fake Approach [WB]223 335 5580 0 03 10 13226 345 571Out In TotalLake Dr [NB]L T16 3190 01 917 328Pine St [EB]Total440145In230023Out2101226006L170017RTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:00 PM)
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Lilac St & 4th AveSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 1Turning Movement DataStart TimeLilac StLilac St4th St4th StEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeft Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total6:00 AM2192231313026252995418766:15 AM320124168226014598118736:30 AM0331349100192125912425836:45 AM321226111442901239901876Hourly Total8936107494561004810223634979308*** BREAK ***-----------------3:00 PM290113266350109193025703:15 PM222024231144757102252181013:30 PM51712322511383114185027863:45 PM0160163327421517302570Hourly Total96417410114381629332466162725327Grand Total171577181591594426213413488523616104635Approach %9.486.73.9-22.5 60.7 16.8-14.8 46.6 38.6-50.0 34.6 15.4--Total %2.724.71.128.59.325.06.941.32.06.55.413.98.25.72.516.4-Lights161567179551574425612403183523515102620% Lights94.1 99.4 100.0 98.9 93.2 98.7 100.0 97.7 92.3 97.6 91.2 94.3 100.0 97.2 93.8 98.1 97.6Buses11021203100101128% Buses5.90.60.01.11.71.30.01.17.70.00.01.10.02.86.31.91.3Trucks00003003013400007% Trucks0.00.00.00.05.10.00.01.10.02.48.84.50.00.00.00.01.1
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Lilac St & 4th AveSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 204/03/2025 6:00 AMEnding At04/03/2025 4:00 PMLightsBusesTrucks4th St [SB]Out In Total100 102 2021 2 31 0 1102 104 20615 35 521 1 00 0 016 36 52R T L
243
3
1
239
Out
262
3
3
256
In
505
6
4
495
Total
Lilac St [WB]
R
44
0
0
44
T
159
0
2
157
L
59
3
1
55
97 83 1802 1 33 4 7102 88 190Out In Total4th St [NB]L T R12 40 311 0 00 1 313 41 34Lilac St [EB]Total36360369In17920181Out18440188161017L15610157T7007RTurning Movement Data Plot
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Lilac St & 4th AveSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 3Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (6:00 AM)Start TimeLilac StLilac St4th St4th StEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeft Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total6:00 AM2192231313026252995418766:15 AM320124168226014598118736:30 AM0331349100192125912425836:45 AM321226111442901239901876Total8936107494561004810223634979308Approach %7.586.95.6-49.0 45.06.0-18.2 36.4 45.5-45.6 43.0 11.4--Total %2.630.21.934.7 15.9 14.61.932.51.32.63.27.111.7 11.02.925.6-PHF0.667 0.705 0.750 0.787 0.766 0.804 0.375 0.862 0.500 0.400 0.625 0.611 1.000 0.708 0.563 0.790 0.928Lights79261054844698387183633978299% Lights87.5 98.9 100.0 98.1 98.0 97.8 100.0 98.0 75.0 100.0 70.0 81.8 100.0 97.1 100.0 98.7 97.1Buses11021102100101016% Buses12.51.10.01.92.02.20.02.025.00.00.04.50.02.90.01.31.9Trucks00000000003300003% Trucks0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.030.0 13.60.00.00.00.01.0
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Lilac St & 4th AveSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 4Peak Hour Data04/03/2025 6:00 AMEnding At04/03/2025 7:00 AMLightsBusesTrucks4th St [SB]Out In Total21 78 991 1 20 0 022 79 1019 33 360 1 00 0 09 34 36R T L
139
3
1
135
Out
100
0
2
98
In
239
3
3
233
Total
Lilac St [WB]
R
6
0
0
6
T
45
0
1
44
L
49
0
1
48
87 18 1052 1 30 3 389 22 111Out In Total4th St [NB]L T R3 8 71 0 00 0 34 8 10Lilac St [EB]Total16140165In10520107Out5620587108L921093T6006RTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (6:00 AM)
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Lilac St & 4th AveSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 5Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (3:00 PM)Start TimeLilac StLilac St4th St4th StEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeft Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total3:00 PM290113266350109193025703:15 PM222024231144757102252181013:30 PM51712322511383114185027863:45 PM0160163327421517302570Total96417410114381629332466162725327Approach %12.2 86.51.4-6.270.4 23.5-13.6 50.0 36.4-64.08.028.0--Total %2.819.60.322.63.134.9 11.6 49.52.810.17.320.24.90.62.17.6-PHF0.450 0.727 0.250 0.771 0.833 0.891 0.679 0.862 0.450 0.750 0.600 0.750 0.800 0.250 0.875 0.781 0.809Lights9641747113381589322465162624321% Lights100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 70.0 99.1 100.0 97.5 100.0 97.0 100.0 98.5 100.0 100.0 85.7 96.0 98.2Buses00000101000000112% Buses0.00.00.00.00.00.90.00.60.00.00.00.00.00.014.34.00.6Trucks00003003010100004% Trucks0.00.00.00.030.00.00.01.90.03.00.01.50.00.00.00.01.2
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Lilac St & 4th AveSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 6Peak Hour Data04/03/2025 3:00 PMEnding At04/03/2025 4:00 PMLightsBusesTrucks4th St [SB]Out In Total79 24 1030 1 11 0 180 25 1056 2 161 0 00 0 07 2 16R T L
104
0
0
104
Out
162
3
1
158
In
266
3
1
262
Total
Lilac St [WB]
R
38
0
0
38
T
114
0
1
113
L
10
3
0
7
10 65 750 0 03 1 413 66 79Out In Total4th St [NB]L T R9 32 240 0 00 1 09 33 24Lilac St [EB]Total20220204In740074Out128201309009L640064T1001RTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (3:00 PM)
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Pine St & 4th AveSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 1Turning Movement DataStart TimePine StPine St4th Ave4th AveEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeft Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total6:00 AM001120020112100166:15 AM020200000112130486:30 AM002201011001110266:45 AM00221001100112037Hourly Total0257310422264601027*** BREAK ***-----------------3:00 PM0112210301340202113:15 PM0000300321690000123:30 PM0022201310560000113:45 PM000002024318000010Hourly Total013473111751527020244Grand Total038111041159717334801271Approach %0.027.3 72.7-66.7 26.76.7-27.3 21.2 51.5-33.3 66.70.0--Total %0.04.211.3 15.5 14.15.61.421.1 12.79.923.9 46.55.611.30.016.9-Lights028101031149716324801268% Lights-66.7 100.0 90.9 100.0 75.0 100.0 93.3 100.0 100.0 94.1 97.0 100.0 100.0-100.0 95.8Buses01010101000000002% Buses-33.30.09.10.025.00.06.70.00.00.00.00.00.0-0.02.8Trucks00000000001100001% Trucks-0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.05.93.00.00.0-0.01.4
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Pine St & 4th AveSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 204/03/2025 6:00 AMEnding At04/03/2025 4:00 PMLightsBusesTrucks4th Ave [SB]Out In Total8 12 200 0 00 0 08 12 200 8 40 0 00 0 00 8 4R T L
24
1
1
22
Out
15
0
1
14
In
39
1
2
36
Total
Pine St [WB]
R
1
0
0
1
T
4
0
1
3
L
10
0
0
10
26 32 580 0 00 1 126 33 59Out In Total4th Ave [NB]L T R9 7 160 0 00 0 19 7 17Pine St [EB]Total222024In101011Out1210130000L2103T8008RTurning Movement Data Plot
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Pine St & 4th AveSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 3Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (6:00 AM)Start TimePine StPine St4th Ave4th AveEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeft Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total6:00 AM001120020112100166:15 AM020200000112130486:30 AM002201011001110266:45 AM00221001100112037Total0257310422264601027Approach %0.028.6 71.4-75.0 25.00.0-33.3 33.3 33.3-40.0 60.00.0--Total %0.07.418.5 25.9 11.13.70.014.87.47.47.422.2 14.8 22.20.037.0-PHF0.000 0.250 0.625 0.875 0.375 0.250 0.000 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.750 1.000 0.500 0.000 0.625 0.844Lights0257310422264601027% Lights-100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0-100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0-100.0 100.0Buses00000000000000000% Buses-0.00.00.00.00.0-0.00.00.00.00.00.00.0-0.00.0Trucks00000000000000000% Trucks-0.00.00.00.00.0-0.00.00.00.00.00.00.0-0.00.0
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Pine St & 4th AveSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 4Peak Hour Data04/03/2025 6:00 AMEnding At04/03/2025 7:00 AMLightsBusesTrucks4th Ave [SB]Out In Total2 10 120 0 00 0 02 10 120 6 40 0 00 0 00 6 4R T L
8
0
0
8
Out
4
0
0
4
In
12
0
0
12
Total
Pine St [WB]
R
0
0
0
0
T
1
0
0
1
L
3
0
0
3
14 6 200 0 00 0 014 6 20Out In Total4th Ave [NB]L T R2 2 20 0 00 0 02 2 2Pine St [EB]Total100010In7007Out30030000L2002T5005RTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (6:00 AM)
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Pine St & 4th AveSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 5Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (3:00 PM)Start TimePine StPine St4th Ave4th AveEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeft Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total3:00 PM0112210301340202113:15 PM0000300321690000123:30 PM0022201310560000113:45 PM000002024318000010Total013473111751527020244Approach %0.025.0 75.0-63.6 27.39.1-25.9 18.5 55.6-0.0 100.0 0.0--Total %0.02.36.89.115.96.82.325.0 15.9 11.4 34.1 61.40.04.50.04.5-PHF0.000 0.250 0.375 0.500 0.583 0.375 0.250 0.917 0.438 0.417 0.625 0.750 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.250 0.917Lights003372110751426020241% Lights-0.0 100.0 75.0 100.0 66.7 100.0 90.9 100.0 100.0 93.3 96.3-100.0-100.0 93.2Buses01010101000000002% Buses-100.0 0.025.00.033.30.09.10.00.00.00.0-0.0-0.04.5Trucks00000000001100001% Trucks-0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.06.73.7-0.0-0.02.3
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Pine St & 4th AveSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 6Peak Hour Data04/03/2025 3:00 PMEnding At04/03/2025 4:00 PMLightsBusesTrucks4th Ave [SB]Out In Total6 2 80 0 00 0 06 2 80 2 00 0 00 0 00 2 0R T L
16
1
1
14
Out
11
0
1
10
In
27
1
2
24
Total
Pine St [WB]
R
1
0
0
1
T
3
0
1
2
L
7
0
0
7
12 26 380 0 00 1 112 27 39Out In Total4th Ave [NB]L T R7 5 140 0 00 0 17 5 15Pine St [EB]Total122014In3104Out910100000L0101T3003RTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (3:00 PM)
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Pine St & Lake DrSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 1Turning Movement DataStart TimePine StLake DriveLake DriveEastboundNorthboundSouthboundLeftRightApp. TotalLeftThruApp. TotalThruRightApp. TotalInt. Total6:00 AM12305555800801386:15 AM14505555810811416:30 AM23524850801811366:45 AM3252555772072134Hourly Total7111842132173131314549*** BREAK ***----------3:00 PM235399102532551623:15 PM4591105106754791943:30 PM0227121128572591893:45 PM10179910669069176Hourly Total71017184244422548262721Grand Total1421352263765956795761270Approach %40.060.0-3.396.7-98.41.6--Total %1.11.72.81.750.251.944.60.745.4-Lights1420342061163151485221187% Lights100.095.297.190.995.995.890.788.990.693.5Buses0110552028% Buses0.04.82.90.00.80.80.40.00.30.6Trucks000221235115275% Trucks0.00.00.09.13.33.59.011.19.05.9
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Pine St & Lake DrSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 204/03/2025 6:00 AMEnding At04/03/2025 4:00 PMLightsBusesTrucksLake Drive [SB]Out In Total625 522 11475 2 721 52 73651 576 12278 5140 21 519 567R T
0
0
0
0
Out
0
0
0
0
In
0
0
0
0
Total
Fake Approach [WB]534 631 11653 5 851 23 74588 659 1247Out In TotalLake Drive [NB]L T20 6110 52 2122 637Pine St [EB]Total621366In341035Out280331140014L201021RTurning Movement Data Plot
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Pine St & Lake DrSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 3Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (6:00 AM)Start TimePine StLake DriveLake DriveEastboundNorthboundSouthboundLeftRightApp. TotalLeftThruApp. TotalThruRightApp. TotalInt. Total6:00 AM12305555800801386:15 AM14505555810811416:30 AM23524850801811366:45 AM3252555772072134Total7111842132173131314549Approach %38.961.1-1.898.2-99.70.3--Total %1.32.03.30.738.839.557.00.257.2-PHF0.5830.6880.9000.5000.9680.9520.9660.2500.9690.973Lights7111842052092721273500% Lights100.0100.0100.0100.096.296.386.9100.086.991.1Buses0000221013% Buses0.00.00.00.00.90.90.30.00.30.5Trucks0000664004046% Trucks0.00.00.00.02.82.812.80.012.78.4
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Pine St & Lake DrSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 4Peak Hour Data04/03/2025 6:00 AMEnding At04/03/2025 7:00 AMLightsBusesTrucksLake Drive [SB]Out In Total212 273 4852 1 36 40 46220 314 5341 2720 10 401 313R T
0
0
0
0
Out
0
0
0
0
In
0
0
0
0
Total
Fake Approach [WB]283 209 4921 2 340 6 46324 217 541Out In TotalLake Drive [NB]L T4 2050 20 64 213Pine St [EB]Total230023In180018Out50057007L110011RTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (6:00 AM)
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Pine St & Lake DrSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 5Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (3:00 PM)Start TimePine StLake DriveLake DriveEastboundNorthboundSouthboundLeftRightApp. TotalLeftThruApp. TotalThruRightApp. TotalInt. Total3:00 PM235399102532551623:15 PM4591105106754791943:30 PM0227121128572591893:45 PM10179910669069176Total71017184244422548262721Approach %41.258.8-4.195.9-96.93.1--Total %1.01.42.42.558.861.335.21.136.3-PHF0.4380.5000.4720.6430.8760.8630.8470.5000.8290.929Lights7916164064222427249687% Lights100.090.094.188.995.895.595.387.595.095.3Buses0110331015% Buses0.010.05.90.00.70.70.40.00.40.7Trucks000215171111229% Trucks0.00.00.011.13.53.84.312.54.64.0
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Pine St & Lake DrSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 6Peak Hour Data04/03/2025 3:00 PMEnding At04/03/2025 4:00 PMLightsBusesTrucksLake Drive [SB]Out In Total413 249 6623 1 415 12 27431 262 6937 2420 11 118 254R T
0
0
0
0
Out
0
0
0
0
In
0
0
0
0
Total
Fake Approach [WB]251 422 6732 3 511 17 28264 442 706Out In TotalLake Drive [NB]L T16 4060 32 1518 424Pine St [EB]Total391343In161017Out2303267007L91010RTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (3:00 PM)
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Sunset Ave & Century TrlSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 1Turning Movement DataStart TimeEastbound ApproachCentury TrailSunset AveSunset AveEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeft Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total7:00 AM00005038036137129030757:15 AM00005005028129140041757:30 AM00004037020222241043727:45 AM0000301401822016206387Hourly Total000017072401026108517201773098:00 AM00006017038240046046938:15 AM00007018049150131032908:30 AM00004004033336117018588:45 AM0000502701021212002140Hourly Total00002204260130813831140117281*** BREAK ***-----------------4:00 PM0000800806612783600631494:15 PM0000505100715764570611474:30 PM0000402605911701520531294:45 PM00007007053760247049116Hourly Total00002407310249352841021602265415:00 PM000060390567631330341065:15 PM000070290471057230032985:30 PM000050270467536420481085:45 PM0000602804044422202476Hourly Total0000240933018928217111270138388Grand Total000087027114067077747296290658 1519Approach %0.00.00.0-76.30.023.7-0.089.7 10.3-4.495.60.0--Total %0.00.00.00.05.70.01.87.50.044.15.149.21.941.40.043.3-Lights000085026111066375738286170645 1494% Lights----97.7-96.3 97.4-99.0 97.4 98.8 96.6 98.1-98.0 98.4Buses000010120224140511% Buses----1.1-3.71.8-0.32.60.53.40.6-0.80.7Trucks000010010505080814% Trucks----1.1-0.00.9-0.70.00.70.01.3-1.20.9
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Sunset Ave & Century TrlSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 204/03/2025 7:00 AMEnding At04/03/2025 6:00 PMLightsBusesTrucksSunset Ave [SB]Out In Total689 645 13343 5 85 8 13697 658 13550 617 280 4 10 8 00 629 29R T L
106
0
3
103
Out
114
1
2
111
In
220
1
5
214
Total
Century Trail [WB]
R
27
0
1
26
T
0
0
0
0
L
87
1
1
85
702 738 14405 4 99 5 14716 747 1463Out In TotalSunset Ave [NB]L T R0 663 750 2 20 5 00 670 77Eastbound Approach [EB]Total0000In0000Out00000000L0000T0000RTurning Movement Data Plot
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Sunset Ave & Century TrlSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 3Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:30 AM)Start TimeEastbound ApproachCentury TrailSunset AveSunset AveEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeft Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total7:30 AM00004037020222241043727:45 AM00003014018220162063878:00 AM00006017038240046046938:15 AM0000701804915013103290Total00002006260125713241800184342Approach %0.00.00.0-76.90.023.1-0.094.75.3-2.297.80.0--Total %0.00.00.00.05.80.01.87.60.036.52.038.61.252.60.053.8-PHF0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.714 0.000 0.500 0.813 0.000 0.638 0.875 0.660 0.500 0.726 0.000 0.730 0.919Lights00002005250125513031730176331% Lights----100.0-83.3 96.2-100.0 71.4 98.5 75.0 96.1-95.7 96.8Buses00000011002213047% Buses----0.0-16.73.8-0.028.61.525.01.7-2.22.0Trucks00000000000004044% Trucks----0.0-0.00.0-0.00.00.00.02.2-2.21.2
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Sunset Ave & Century TrlSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 4Peak Hour Data04/03/2025 7:30 AMEnding At04/03/2025 8:30 AMLightsBusesTrucksSunset Ave [SB]Out In Total130 176 3061 4 50 4 4131 184 3150 173 30 3 10 4 00 180 4R T L
11
0
3
8
Out
26
0
1
25
In
37
0
4
33
Total
Century Trail [WB]
R
6
0
1
5
T
0
0
0
0
L
20
0
0
20
193 130 3233 2 54 0 4200 132 332Out In TotalSunset Ave [NB]L T R0 125 50 0 20 0 00 125 7Eastbound Approach [EB]Total0000In0000Out00000000L0000T0000RTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:30 AM)
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Sunset Ave & Century TrlSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 5Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:00 PM)Start TimeEastbound ApproachCentury TrailSunset AveSunset AveEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeft Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total4:00 PM0000800806612783600631494:15 PM0000505100715764570611474:30 PM0000402605911701520531294:45 PM00007007053760247049116Total0000240731024935284102160226541Approach %0.00.00.0-77.40.022.6-0.087.7 12.3-4.495.60.0--Total %0.00.00.00.04.40.01.35.70.046.06.552.51.839.90.041.8-PHF0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.750 0.000 0.350 0.775 0.000 0.877 0.729 0.910 0.625 0.900 0.000 0.897 0.908Lights0000240731024935284102160226541% Lights----100.0-100.0 100.0-100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0-100.0 100.0Buses00000000000000000% Buses----0.0-0.00.0-0.00.00.00.00.0-0.00.0Trucks00000000000000000% Trucks----0.0-0.00.0-0.00.00.00.00.0-0.00.0
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Sunset Ave & Century TrlSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 6Peak Hour Data04/03/2025 4:00 PMEnding At04/03/2025 5:00 PMLightsBusesTrucksSunset Ave [SB]Out In Total256 226 4820 0 00 0 0256 226 4820 216 100 0 00 0 00 216 10R T L
45
0
0
45
Out
31
0
0
31
In
76
0
0
76
Total
Century Trail [WB]
R
7
0
0
7
T
0
0
0
0
L
24
0
0
24
240 284 5240 0 00 0 0240 284 524Out In TotalSunset Ave [NB]L T R0 249 350 0 00 0 00 249 35Eastbound Approach [EB]Total0000In0000Out00000000L0000T0000RTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:00 PM)
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Sunset Ave & Lilac StSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 1Turning Movement DataStart TimeLilac StSunset AveSunset AveWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeftRightApp. TotalThruRightApp. TotalLeftThruApp. TotalInt. Total7:00 AM971619625753601017:15 AM92112142510941041407:30 AM1331623124141781922327:45 AM109194795659095170Hourly Total41216211020130364154516438:00 AM48123053563238858:15 AM971622022113445838:30 AM47111872554045818:45 AM122141852336467104Hourly Total292453881710525170195353*** BREAK ***----------4:00 PM11112791594426301364:15 PM522275212641237491404:30 PM891767673834421324:45 PM91423521668114960151Hourly Total23567925049299351461815595:00 PM82028661884957661785:15 PM1114257212841350631725:30 PM2214366014741346591695:45 PM71825501969114657151Hourly Total48661142486331146199245670Grand Total14116730869614984514293010722225Approach %45.854.2-82.417.6-13.286.8--Total %6.37.513.831.36.738.06.441.848.2-Lights14016230267714682313991410532178% Lights99.397.098.197.398.097.497.998.398.297.9Buses112133160151533% Buses0.70.60.61.92.01.90.01.61.41.5Trucks04460631414% Trucks0.02.41.30.90.00.72.10.10.40.6
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Sunset Ave & Lilac StSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 204/03/2025 7:00 AMEnding At04/03/2025 6:00 PMLightsBusesTrucksSunset Ave [SB]Out In Total839 1053 189214 15 2910 4 14863 1072 1935914 13915 01 3930 142T L
291
3
3
285
Out
308
4
2
302
In
599
7
5
587
Total
Lilac St [WB]
R
167
4
1
162
L
141
0
1
140
1054 823 187716 16 321 6 71071 845 1916Out In TotalSunset Ave [NB]T R677 14613 36 0696 149Fake Approach [EB]Total0000In0000Out0000Turning Movement Data Plot
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Sunset Ave & Lilac StSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 3Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:00 AM)Start TimeLilac StSunset AveSunset AveWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeftRightApp. TotalThruRightApp. TotalLeftThruApp. TotalInt. Total7:00 AM971619625753601017:15 AM92112142510941041407:30 AM1331623124141781922327:45 AM109194795659095170Total4121621102013036415451643Approach %66.133.9-84.615.4-8.092.0--Total %6.43.39.617.13.120.25.664.570.1-PHF0.7880.5830.8160.5850.5560.5800.6430.5830.5870.693Lights4021611041912336408444628% Lights97.6100.098.494.595.094.6100.098.398.497.7Buses10161706614% Buses2.40.01.65.55.05.40.01.41.32.2Trucks0000000111% Trucks0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.20.20.2
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Sunset Ave & Lilac StSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 4Peak Hour Data04/03/2025 7:00 AMEnding At04/03/2025 8:00 AMLightsBusesTrucksSunset Ave [SB]Out In Total125 444 5696 6 120 1 1131 451 582408 366 01 0415 36T L
56
0
1
55
Out
62
0
1
61
In
118
0
2
116
Total
Lilac St [WB]
R
21
0
0
21
L
41
0
1
40
448 123 5717 7 141 0 1456 130 586Out In TotalSunset Ave [NB]T R104 196 10 0110 20Fake Approach [EB]Total0000In0000Out0000Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:00 AM)
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Sunset Ave & Lilac StSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 5Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:45 PM)Start TimeLilac StSunset AveSunset AveWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeftRightApp. TotalThruRightApp. TotalLeftThruApp. TotalInt. Total4:45 PM914235216681149601515:00 PM82028661884957661785:15 PM1114257212841350631725:30 PM221436601474134659169Total50621122506031046202248670Approach %44.655.4-80.619.4-18.581.5--Total %7.59.316.737.39.046.36.930.137.0-PHF0.5680.7750.7780.8680.8330.9230.8850.8860.9390.941Lights50601102465830446201247661% Lights100.096.898.298.496.798.1100.099.599.698.7Buses0000220113% Buses0.00.00.00.03.30.60.00.50.40.4Trucks0224040006% Trucks0.03.21.81.60.01.30.00.00.00.9
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Sunset Ave & Lilac StSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 6Peak Hour Data04/03/2025 4:45 PMEnding At04/03/2025 5:45 PMLightsBusesTrucksSunset Ave [SB]Out In Total306 247 5530 1 16 0 6312 248 560201 461 00 0202 46T L
106
0
2
104
Out
112
2
0
110
In
218
2
2
214
Total
Lilac St [WB]
R
62
2
0
60
L
50
0
0
50
251 304 5551 2 30 4 4252 310 562Out In TotalSunset Ave [NB]T R246 580 24 0250 60Fake Approach [EB]Total0000In0000Out0000Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:45 PM)
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: Sunset Ave &Main St/125th AveSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 1
Turning Movement Data
Start Time
Main St Main St Sunset Ave
Eastbound Westbound Northbound
Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Int. Total
12:00 AM 0 8 2 10 0 1 1 1 0 1 12
12:15 AM 0 5 0 5 1 5 6 0 0 0 11
12:30 AM 0 4 2 6 0 3 3 0 0 0 9
12:45 AM 0 3 1 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 5
Hourly Total 0 20 5 25 1 10 11 1 0 1 37
1:00 AM 0 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 1 5
1:15 AM 0 2 0 2 0 3 3 0 0 0 5
1:30 AM 0 3 0 3 0 5 5 0 0 0 8
1:45 AM 0 2 0 2 0 3 3 0 0 0 5
Hourly Total 0 8 1 9 1 12 13 0 1 1 23
2:00 AM 0 0 1 1 0 3 3 0 0 0 4
2:15 AM 0 3 1 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 5
2:30 AM 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
2:45 AM 0 3 0 3 0 1 1 1 0 1 5
Hourly Total 0 6 3 9 0 5 5 1 0 1 15
3:00 AM 0 4 0 4 0 2 2 0 0 0 6
3:15 AM 0 3 0 3 0 5 5 0 1 1 9
3:30 AM 0 4 1 5 0 1 1 0 0 0 6
3:45 AM 0 2 1 3 0 4 4 0 0 0 7
Hourly Total 0 13 2 15 0 12 12 0 1 1 28
4:00 AM 0 6 0 6 0 1 1 1 0 1 8
4:15 AM 0 3 0 3 0 2 2 2 0 2 7
4:30 AM 0 11 2 13 1 5 6 1 0 1 20
4:45 AM 0 15 1 16 2 6 8 0 1 1 25
Hourly Total 0 35 3 38 3 14 17 4 1 5 60
5:00 AM 0 11 5 16 1 9 10 0 2 2 28
5:15 AM 0 25 4 29 1 13 14 3 1 4 47
5:30 AM 1 40 7 48 1 14 15 7 2 9 72
5:45 AM 0 48 9 57 1 12 13 3 1 4 74
Hourly Total 1 124 25 150 4 48 52 13 6 19 221
6:00 AM 0 34 9 43 1 22 23 6 0 6 72
6:15 AM 1 55 13 69 5 40 45 6 2 8 122
6:30 AM 1 80 17 98 2 42 44 14 3 17 159
6:45 AM 0 75 44 119 2 38 40 9 7 16 175
Hourly Total 2 244 83 329 10 142 152 35 12 47 528
7:00 AM 1 69 26 96 7 50 57 16 9 25 178
7:15 AM 0 74 55 129 11 43 54 13 8 21 204
7:30 AM 2 104 82 188 18 49 67 23 8 31 286
7:45 AM 1 64 56 121 14 58 72 28 6 34 227
Hourly Total 4 311 219 534 50 200 250 80 31 111 895
8:00 AM 1 75 18 94 5 52 57 29 8 37 188
8:15 AM 2 65 29 96 8 57 65 25 2 27 188
8:30 AM 0 53 18 71 6 56 62 20 1 21 154
8:45 AM 0 61 29 90 5 49 54 13 7 20 164
Hourly Total 3 254 94 351 24 214 238 87 18 105 694
9:00 AM 2 42 24 68 8 42 50 17 5 22 140
9:15 AM 2 56 25 83 9 54 63 30 4 34 180
9:30 AM 2 53 14 69 5 39 44 30 7 37 150
9:45 AM 0 57 8 65 4 37 41 7 3 10 116
Hourly Total 6 208 71 285 26 172 198 84 19 103 586
10:00 AM 1 41 5 47 3 39 42 15 2 17 106
10:15 AM 1 49 12 62 6 39 45 16 5 21 128
10:30 AM 0 57 9 66 3 41 44 8 6 14 124
10:45 AM 1 48 18 67 2 46 48 15 5 20 135
Hourly Total 3 195 44 242 14 165 179 54 18 72 493
11:00 AM 0 38 11 49 6 38 44 10 7 17 110
11:15 AM 0 54 14 68 2 44 46 19 7 26 140
11:30 AM 0 37 11 48 9 45 54 17 6 23 125
11:45 AM 0 65 15 80 3 56 59 12 6 18 157
Hourly Total 0 194 51 245 20 183 203 58 26 84 532
12:00 PM 1 52 14 67 9 60 69 14 4 18 154
12:15 PM 1 47 6 54 9 62 71 10 2 12 137
12:30 PM 1 49 10 60 6 46 52 17 5 22 134
12:45 PM 0 50 17 67 9 56 65 14 6 20 152
Hourly Total 3 198 47 248 33 224 257 55 17 72 577
1:00 PM 1 46 10 57 5 56 61 16 8 24 142
1:15 PM 0 48 20 68 4 39 43 10 6 16 127
1:30 PM 0 63 11 74 2 50 52 19 7 26 152
1:45 PM 0 54 20 74 6 55 61 11 7 18 153
Hourly Total 1 211 61 273 17 200 217 56 28 84 574
2:00 PM 0 44 14 58 1 60 61 18 6 24 143
2:15 PM 0 48 21 69 6 51 57 18 6 24 150
2:30 PM 0 69 25 94 10 60 70 20 8 28 192
2:45 PM 1 60 20 81 3 69 72 30 14 44 197
Hourly Total 1 221 80 302 20 240 260 86 34 120 682
3:00 PM 2 55 21 78 12 76 88 50 7 57 223
3:15 PM 2 59 29 90 5 87 92 39 10 49 231
3:30 PM 1 64 38 103 6 94 100 26 12 38 241
3:45 PM 3 66 24 93 9 112 121 50 12 62 276
Hourly Total 8 244 112 364 32 369 401 165 41 206 971
4:00 PM 1 63 15 79 2 100 102 41 12 53 234
4:15 PM 2 93 26 121 11 117 128 46 16 62 311
4:30 PM 1 115 41 157 6 121 127 37 15 52 336
4:45 PM 2 76 34 112 15 98 113 32 11 43 268
Hourly Total 6 347 116 469 34 436 470 156 54 210 1149
5:00 PM 2 90 41 133 10 113 123 32 14 46 302
5:15 PM 1 81 32 114 8 114 122 36 16 52 288
5:30 PM 2 92 31 125 11 116 127 29 12 41 293
5:45 PM 0 67 22 89 9 94 103 29 9 38 230
Hourly Total 5 330 126 461 38 437 475 126 51 177 1113
6:00 PM 0 46 18 64 4 68 72 38 7 45 181
6:15 PM 1 51 23 75 6 66 72 30 8 38 185
6:30 PM 1 56 21 78 9 60 69 24 11 35 182
6:45 PM 3 48 16 67 4 52 56 19 6 25 148
Hourly Total 5 201 78 284 23 246 269 111 32 143 696
7:00 PM 2 47 21 70 5 58 63 12 3 15 148
7:15 PM 2 46 13 61 2 64 66 14 7 21 148
7:30 PM 0 54 13 67 6 47 53 14 7 21 141
7:45 PM 3 54 13 70 5 50 55 8 11 19 144
Hourly Total 7 201 60 268 18 219 237 48 28 76 581
8:00 PM 2 38 7 47 4 35 39 14 2 16 102
8:15 PM 1 35 14 50 8 50 58 6 3 9 117
8:30 PM 1 33 13 47 4 33 37 12 1 13 97
8:45 PM 4 29 18 51 1 19 20 19 2 21 92
Hourly Total 8 135 52 195 17 137 154 51 8 59 408
9:00 PM 3 31 11 45 2 24 26 13 4 17 88
9:15 PM 3 29 7 39 1 36 37 12 0 12 88
9:30 PM 2 15 12 29 3 18 21 5 2 7 57
9:45 PM 0 25 4 29 2 14 16 5 1 6 51
Hourly Total 8 100 34 142 8 92 100 35 7 42 284
10:00 PM 0 11 4 15 1 21 22 3 0 3 40
10:15 PM 0 11 7 18 0 14 14 8 3 11 43
10:30 PM 0 8 4 12 2 22 24 4 1 5 41
10:45 PM 0 7 4 11 0 16 16 2 0 2 29
Hourly Total 0 37 19 56 3 73 76 17 4 21 153
11:00 PM 1 10 4 15 0 11 11 2 1 3 29
11:15 PM 1 7 1 9 0 6 6 2 0 2 17
11:30 PM 1 6 1 8 0 5 5 1 1 2 15
11:45 PM 0 3 2 5 0 9 9 1 4 5 19
Hourly Total 3 26 8 37 0 31 31 6 6 12 80
Grand Total 74 3863 1394 5331 396 3881 4277 1329 443 1772 11380
Approach %1.4 72.5 26.1 -9.3 90.7 -75.0 25.0 --
Total %0.7 33.9 12.2 46.8 3.5 34.1 37.6 11.7 3.9 15.6 -
Lights 74 3769 1364 5207 392 3761 4153 1303 432 1735 11095
% Lights 100.0 97.6 97.8 97.7 99.0 96.9 97.1 98.0 97.5 97.9 97.5
Buses 0 15 11 26 3 16 19 4 5 9 54
% Buses 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.3 1.1 0.5 0.5
Trucks 0 79 19 98 1 104 105 22 6 28 231
% Trucks 0.0 2.0 1.4 1.8 0.3 2.7 2.5 1.7 1.4 1.6 2.0
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: Sunset Ave &Main St/125th AveSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 3
04/03/2025 12:00 AMEnding At04/04/2025 12:00 AM
LightsBusesTrucks
Fake Approach [SB]
Out In Total
74 0 74
0 0 0
0 0 0
74 0 74
430685204201Out4277105194153In8583190398354TotalMain St [WB]T3881104163761L396133921756 1735 3491
14 9 23
20 28 48
1790 1772 3562
Out In Total
Sunset Ave [NB]
L R
1303 432
4 5
22 6
1329 443Main St [EB]Total102714622410541In520726985331Out5064201265210740074L376915793863T136411191394RTurning Movement Data Plot
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: Sunset Ave &Main St/125th AveSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 4
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:15 AM)
Start Time
Main St Main St Sunset Ave
Eastbound Westbound Northbound
Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Int. Total
7:15 AM 0 74 55 129 11 43 54 13 8 21 204
7:30 AM 2 104 82 188 18 49 67 23 8 31 286
7:45 AM 1 64 56 121 14 58 72 28 6 34 227
8:00 AM 1 75 18 94 5 52 57 29 8 37 188
Total 4 317 211 532 48 202 250 93 30 123 905
Approach %0.8 59.6 39.7 -19.2 80.8 -75.6 24.4 --
Total %0.4 35.0 23.3 58.8 5.3 22.3 27.6 10.3 3.3 13.6 -
PHF 0.500 0.762 0.643 0.707 0.667 0.871 0.868 0.802 0.938 0.831 0.791
Lights 4 309 206 519 48 188 236 93 29 122 877
% Lights 100.0 97.5 97.6 97.6 100.0 93.1 94.4 100.0 96.7 99.2 96.9
Buses 0 0 3 3 0 1 1 0 1 1 5
% Buses 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.6 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.0 3.3 0.8 0.6
Trucks 0 8 2 10 0 13 13 0 0 0 23
% Trucks 0.0 2.5 0.9 1.9 0.0 6.4 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: Sunset Ave &Main St/125th AveSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 5
Peak Hour Data
04/03/2025 7:15 AMEnding At04/03/2025 8:15 AM
LightsBusesTrucks
Fake Approach [SB]
Out In Total
4 0 4
0 0 0
0 0 0
4 0 4
34781338Out250131236In597212574TotalMain St [WB]T202131188L480048254 122 376
3 1 4
2 0 2
259 123 382
Out In Total
Sunset Ave [NB]
L R
93 29
0 1
0 0
93 30Main St [EB]Total800423827In519310532Out2811132954004L30908317T20632211RTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:15 AM)
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: Sunset Ave &Main St/125th AveSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 6
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:15 PM)
Start Time
Main St Main St Sunset Ave
Eastbound Westbound Northbound
Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Int. Total
4:15 PM 2 93 26 121 11 117 128 46 16 62 311
4:30 PM 1 115 41 157 6 121 127 37 15 52 336
4:45 PM 2 76 34 112 15 98 113 32 11 43 268
5:00 PM 2 90 41 133 10 113 123 32 14 46 302
Total 7 374 142 523 42 449 491 147 56 203 1217
Approach %1.3 71.5 27.2 -8.6 91.4 -72.4 27.6 --
Total %0.6 30.7 11.7 43.0 3.5 36.9 40.3 12.1 4.6 16.7 -
PHF 0.875 0.813 0.866 0.833 0.700 0.928 0.959 0.799 0.875 0.819 0.906
Lights 7 372 141 520 42 440 482 147 54 201 1203
% Lights 100.0 99.5 99.3 99.4 100.0 98.0 98.2 100.0 96.4 99.0 98.8
Buses 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 2 2 5
% Buses 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 3.6 1.0 0.4
Trucks 0 1 0 1 0 8 8 0 0 0 9
% Trucks 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.8 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: Sunset Ave &Main St/125th AveSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 7
Peak Hour Data
04/03/2025 4:15 PMEnding At04/03/2025 5:15 PM
LightsBusesTrucks
Fake Approach [SB]
Out In Total
7 0 7
0 0 0
0 0 0
7 0 7
43013426Out49181482In92194908TotalMain St [WB]T44981440L420042183 201 384
1 2 3
0 0 0
184 203 387
Out In Total
Sunset Ave [NB]
L R
147 54
0 2
0 0
147 56Main St [EB]Total1107391119In52021523Out587185967007L37211374T14110142RTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:15 PM)
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Sunset Ave & Robinson DrSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 1Turning Movement DataStart TimeRobinson DrSunset AveSunset AveWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeftRightApp. TotalThruRightApp. TotalLeftThruApp. TotalInt. Total7:02 AM86142022212930667:17 AM941319221172731077:32 AM12315202222991011387:47 AM6283633916162109Hourly Total35155095910452612664208:02 AM6173313432730718:17 AM5492322553237718:32 AM5272102122022508:47 AM11112120121303155Hourly Total278358939211109120247*** BREAK ***----------3:47 PM101641012314Hourly Total1016410123144:02 PM4046577211516924:17 PM2245135453641994:32 PM24645550549541104:47 PM6064164734548101Hourly Total1462020221223141451594025:02 PM213491059248501125:17 PM213531669236381105:32 PM62843548242441005:47 PM617288363252871Hourly Total16521173392129151160393Grand Total933412756576641406687081476Approach %73.226.8-88.111.9-5.694.4--Total %6.32.38.638.35.143.42.745.348.0-Lights883312155674630406576971448% Lights94.697.195.398.497.498.3100.098.498.498.1Buses51652704417% Buses5.42.94.70.92.61.10.00.60.61.2Trucks00040407711% Trucks0.00.00.00.70.00.60.01.01.00.7
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Sunset Ave & Robinson DrSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 204/03/2025 7:02 AMEnding At04/03/2025 6:02 PMLightsBusesTrucksSunset Ave [SB]Out In Total589 697 12866 4 104 7 11599 708 1307657 404 07 0668 40T L
116
0
2
114
Out
127
0
6
121
In
243
0
8
235
Total
Robinson Dr [WB]
R
34
0
1
33
L
93
0
5
88
745 630 13759 7 167 4 11761 641 1402Out In TotalSunset Ave [NB]T R556 745 24 0565 76Fake Approach [EB]Total0000In0000Out0000Turning Movement Data Plot
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Sunset Ave & Robinson DrSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 3Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:17 AM)Start TimeRobinson DrSunset AveSunset AveWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeftRightApp. TotalThruRightApp. TotalLeftThruApp. TotalInt. Total7:17 AM941319221172731077:32 AM12315202222991011387:47 AM62836339161621098:02 AM617331343273071Total33104310881167259266425Approach %76.723.3-93.16.9-2.697.4--Total %7.82.410.125.41.927.31.660.962.6-PHF0.6880.6250.7170.7500.6670.7440.5830.6540.6580.770Lights3294110671137254261415% Lights97.090.095.398.187.597.4100.098.198.197.6Buses1120110336% Buses3.010.04.70.012.50.90.01.21.11.4Trucks0002020224% Trucks0.00.00.01.90.01.70.00.80.80.9
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Sunset Ave & Robinson DrSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 4Peak Hour Data04/03/2025 7:17 AMEnding At04/03/2025 8:17 AMLightsBusesTrucksSunset Ave [SB]Out In Total115 261 3761 3 42 2 4118 266 384254 73 02 0259 7T L
15
0
1
14
Out
43
0
2
41
In
58
0
3
55
Total
Robinson Dr [WB]
R
10
0
1
9
L
33
0
1
32
286 113 3994 1 52 2 4292 116 408Out In TotalSunset Ave [NB]T R106 70 12 0108 8Fake Approach [EB]Total0000In0000Out0000Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:17 AM)
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Sunset Ave & Robinson DrSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 5Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:32 PM)Start TimeRobinson DrSunset AveSunset AveWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeftRightApp. TotalThruRightApp. TotalLeftThruApp. TotalInt. Total4:32 PM24645550549541104:47 PM60641647345481015:02 PM213491059248501125:17 PM21353166923638110Total126181883722512178190433Approach %66.733.3-83.616.4-6.393.7--Total %2.81.44.243.48.552.02.841.143.9-PHF0.5000.3750.7500.8870.5780.8150.6000.9080.8800.967Lights126181873722412176188430% Lights100.0100.0100.099.5100.099.6100.098.998.999.3Buses0001010112% Buses0.00.00.00.50.00.40.00.60.50.5Trucks0000000111% Trucks0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.60.50.2
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Sunset Ave & Robinson DrSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 6Peak Hour Data04/03/2025 4:32 PMEnding At04/03/2025 5:32 PMLightsBusesTrucksSunset Ave [SB]Out In Total193 188 3811 1 20 1 1194 190 384176 121 01 0178 12T L
49
0
0
49
Out
18
0
0
18
In
67
0
0
67
Total
Robinson Dr [WB]
R
6
0
0
6
L
12
0
0
12
188 224 4121 1 21 0 1190 225 415Out In TotalSunset Ave [NB]T R187 371 00 0188 37Fake Approach [EB]Total0000In0000Out0000Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:32 PM)
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Sunset Rd & Century TrlSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 1Turning Movement DataStart TimeCentury TrlSunset AveSunset AveWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeftRightApp. TotalThruRightApp. TotalLeftThruApp. TotalInt. Total6:00 AM85132532834851926:15 AM931221122491951296:30 AM204242802821651672196:45 AM6285325518990153Hourly Total431457127613310393403593*** BREAK ***----------3:00 PM80882789121221193:15 PM43772779241431293:30 PM5510551469540451243:45 PM6176076715253127Hourly Total23932269353049154163499Grand Total66238939641437195475661092Approach %74.225.8-90.69.4-3.496.6--Total %6.02.18.236.33.840.01.750.151.8-Lights66198538539424185345521061% Lights100.082.695.597.295.197.094.797.697.597.2Buses0339211191024% Buses0.013.03.42.34.92.55.31.61.82.2Trucks0112020447% Trucks0.04.31.10.50.00.50.00.70.70.6
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Sunset Rd & Century TrlSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 204/03/2025 6:00 AMEnding At04/03/2025 4:00 PMLightsBusesTrucksSunset Ave [SB]Out In Total404 552 95612 10 223 4 7419 566 985534 189 14 0547 19T L
60
0
3
57
Out
89
1
3
85
In
149
1
6
142
Total
Century Trl [WB]
R
23
1
3
19
L
66
0
0
66
600 424 10249 11 204 2 6613 437 1050Out In TotalSunset Ave [NB]T R385 399 22 0396 41Fake Approach [EB]Total0000In0000Out0000Turning Movement Data Plot
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Sunset Rd & Century TrlSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 3Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (6:00 AM)Start TimeCentury TrlSunset AveSunset AveWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeftRightApp. TotalThruRightApp. TotalLeftThruApp. TotalInt. Total6:00 AM85132532834851926:15 AM931221122491951296:30 AM204242802821651672196:45 AM6285325518990153Total431457127613310393403593Approach %75.424.6-95.54.5-2.597.5--Total %7.32.49.621.41.022.41.766.368.0-PHF0.5380.7000.5940.5990.5000.6050.6250.5950.6030.677Lights431255120612610386396577% Lights100.085.796.594.5100.094.7100.098.298.397.3Buses01160605512% Buses0.07.11.84.70.04.50.01.31.22.0Trucks0111010224% Trucks0.07.11.80.80.00.80.00.50.50.7
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Sunset Rd & Century TrlSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 4Peak Hour Data04/03/2025 6:00 AMEnding At04/03/2025 7:00 AMLightsBusesTrucksSunset Ave [SB]Out In Total132 396 5287 5 122 2 4141 403 544386 105 02 0393 10T L
16
0
0
16
Out
57
1
1
55
In
73
1
1
71
Total
Century Trl [WB]
R
14
1
1
12
L
43
0
0
43
429 126 5555 6 112 1 3436 133 569Out In TotalSunset Ave [NB]T R120 66 01 0127 6Fake Approach [EB]Total0000In0000Out0000Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (6:00 AM)
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Sunset Rd & Century TrlSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 5Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (3:00 PM)Start TimeCentury TrlSunset AveSunset AveWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeftRightApp. TotalThruRightApp. TotalLeftThruApp. TotalInt. Total3:00 PM80882789121221193:15 PM43772779241431293:30 PM5510551469540451243:45 PM6176076715253127Total23932269353049154163499Approach %71.928.1-88.511.5-5.594.5--Total %4.61.86.453.97.060.91.830.932.7-PHF0.7190.4500.8000.8200.6250.8540.4500.7400.7690.967Lights23730265332988148156484% Lights100.077.893.898.594.398.088.996.195.797.0Buses02232514512% Buses0.022.26.31.15.71.611.12.63.12.4Trucks0001010223% Trucks0.00.00.00.40.00.30.01.31.20.6
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Sunset Rd & Century TrlSite Code:Start Date: 04/03/2025Page No: 6Peak Hour Data04/03/2025 3:00 PMEnding At04/03/2025 4:00 PMLightsBusesTrucksSunset Ave [SB]Out In Total272 156 4285 5 101 2 3278 163 441148 84 12 0154 9T L
44
0
3
41
Out
32
0
2
30
In
76
0
5
71
Total
Century Trl [WB]
R
9
0
2
7
L
23
0
0
23
171 298 4694 5 92 1 3177 304 481Out In TotalSunset Ave [NB]T R265 333 21 0269 35Fake Approach [EB]Total0000In0000Out0000Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (3:00 PM)
39 Northwest Main – Lino Lakes, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ June 2025
Appendix B:
SimTraffic/Rodel Reports
SimTraffic Performance Report
04/24/2025
Existing (2025) - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
2: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Robinson Drive Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)5.7 2.8 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.6 1.0
3: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Century Trail Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)7.6 3.3 0.6 0.2 0.8 1.2 1.6
4: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Lilac Street Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)6.7 1.5 2.4 0.4 0.1 1.7 2.1 2.0
5: 4th Avenue & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.8 0.3 6.3 5.3 3.4 2.2 7.4 3.5
6: 4th Avenue & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)1.5 2.8 2.3 7.6 6.0 5.8 6.9 10.4 3.3 5.1 10.5 3.4
6: 4th Avenue & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)4.3
7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)1.2 1.1 0.2 1.4 1.0 0.2 3.1 8.4 1.7 5.4 10.5 4.3
7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)3.0
SimTraffic Performance Report
04/24/2025
Existing (2025) - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
8: CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.0 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)4.0 1.9 1.3 1.0 1.0 0.1 1.0
9: CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.2 1.6 0.5 1.7 1.6 0.3 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)18.9 30.2 11.2 23.2 24.2 5.1 19.0 17.7 4.4 21.7 21.0 4.4
9: CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)19.9
Total Zone Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7
Total Del/Veh (s)260.4
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/24/2025
Existing (2025) - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 2: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Robinson Drive
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)44 5
Average Queue (ft)20 0
95th Queue (ft)40 4
Link Distance (ft)1079 1423
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Century Trail
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)65 5
Average Queue (ft)25 0
95th Queue (ft)50 6
Link Distance (ft)576 1743
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Lilac Street
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)53 27
Average Queue (ft)20 2
95th Queue (ft)41 15
Link Distance (ft)5087 1967
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/24/2025
Existing (2025) - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 5: 4th Avenue & Pine Street
Movement WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)6 29 29
Average Queue (ft)0 5 8
95th Queue (ft)4 21 28
Link Distance (ft)7093 5136 728
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: 4th Avenue & CSAH 14 (Main Street)
Movement WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)58 30 38
Average Queue (ft)4 9 16
95th Queue (ft)29 24 38
Link Distance (ft)5545 5211 5136
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)6 34 65 64
Average Queue (ft)1 5 19 31
95th Queue (ft)8 23 52 54
Link Distance (ft)5087 1167 1004 5211
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/24/2025
Existing (2025) - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5
Intersection: 8: CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) & Pine Street
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)27 21
Average Queue (ft)8 1
95th Queue (ft)24 11
Link Distance (ft)7093 1359
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9: CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) & CSAH 14 (Main Street)
Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T R L T R L T R L T R
Maximum Queue (ft)84 187 76 256 193 32 50 89 42 32 214 53
Average Queue (ft)36 83 28 92 58 6 14 22 5 5 70 12
95th Queue (ft)72 156 60 179 132 24 38 61 24 20 147 38
Link Distance (ft)5545 3209 3100 1978
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 250 250 300 200 300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)1
Queuing Penalty (veh)1
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 1
SimTraffic Performance Report
04/24/2025
Existing (2025) - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
2: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Robinson Drive Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)5.3 2.5 0.7 0.3 0.9 0.6 0.8
3: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Century Trail Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)6.1 2.7 1.0 0.7 1.0 0.8 1.1
4: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Lilac Street Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)6.4 0.8 3.7 0.9 0.4 1.8 1.6 1.7
5: 4th Avenue & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.5 4.6 4.5 3.4 0.8 2.5
6: 4th Avenue & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)5.1 3.6 3.5 8.5 7.4 7.7 10.7 7.1 4.2 8.6 7.4 3.2
6: 4th Avenue & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)5.7
7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)1.3 1.2 0.1 1.1 0.7 0.2 4.7 9.3 1.9 3.4 7.6 2.8
7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)1.9
SimTraffic Performance Report
04/24/2025
Existing (2025) - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
8: CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.4 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)10.0 0.3 1.8 1.8 1.7 0.9 0.6 1.5
9: CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.1 2.0 0.6 1.9 1.9 0.8 2.0 0.7 0.0 0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)25.8 34.0 10.4 23.0 30.7 8.5 21.4 23.7 7.6 19.6 23.7 6.4
9: CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)21.4
Total Zone Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.0
Total Del/Veh (s)134.8
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/24/2025
Existing (2025) - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 2: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Robinson Drive
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)23 20
Average Queue (ft)11 1
95th Queue (ft)29 10
Link Distance (ft)1079 1423
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Century Trail
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)44 25
Average Queue (ft)19 2
95th Queue (ft)37 12
Link Distance (ft)576 1743
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Lilac Street
Movement WB NB SB
Directions Served LR R LT
Maximum Queue (ft)61 4 35
Average Queue (ft)24 0 8
95th Queue (ft)44 3 31
Link Distance (ft)5087 1967
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)275
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/24/2025
Existing (2025) - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 5: 4th Avenue & Pine Street
Movement NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)39 40
Average Queue (ft)17 2
95th Queue (ft)39 17
Link Distance (ft)5136 728
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: 4th Avenue & CSAH 14 (Main Street)
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)85 31 42 29
Average Queue (ft)9 2 15 11
95th Queue (ft)42 15 33 32
Link Distance (ft)5120 5545 5211 5136
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)15 10 61 31
Average Queue (ft)1 0 24 15
95th Queue (ft)7 5 48 36
Link Distance (ft)5087 1167 1004 5211
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/24/2025
Existing (2025) - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5
Intersection: 8: CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) & Pine Street
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)30 37
Average Queue (ft)7 5
95th Queue (ft)23 23
Link Distance (ft)7093 1359
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9: CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) & CSAH 14 (Main Street)
Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T R L T R L T R L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 142 192 75 181 235 51 115 246 146 37 136 66
Average Queue (ft)59 78 29 73 113 15 43 90 27 12 51 13
95th Queue (ft)114 148 60 136 202 41 92 179 82 33 103 42
Link Distance (ft)5545 3209 3100 1978
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 250 250 300 200 300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)0 1
Queuing Penalty (veh)0 3
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 3
SimTraffic Performance Report
04/24/2025
No Build (2030) - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
2: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Robinson Drive Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)2.7 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.8
3: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Century Trail Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 1.6 0.1 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)2.9 0.8 0.3 0.8 0.9
5: 4th Avenue & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 1.5 0.2 3.9 5.9 1.7 2.1 7.6 3.0
6: 4th Avenue & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)3.8 2.8 2.2 4.6 3.4 2.9 6.6 7.9 3.9 6.8 10.4 3.6
6: 4th Avenue & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)3.3
7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)1.0 1.2 0.6 1.2 0.7 0.5 3.0 8.9 1.7 6.0 10.4 3.4
7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)3.0
8: CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.1 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)4.3 2.1 1.5 0.7 1.1 0.4 1.0
SimTraffic Performance Report
04/24/2025
No Build (2030) - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
Total Zone Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)28.3
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/24/2025
No Build (2030) - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 2: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Robinson Drive
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)54
Average Queue (ft)22
95th Queue (ft)42
Link Distance (ft)1079
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Century Trail
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)48
Average Queue (ft)22
95th Queue (ft)41
Link Distance (ft)576
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: 4th Avenue & Pine Street
Movement NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)29 30
Average Queue (ft)5 9
95th Queue (ft)22 30
Link Distance (ft)5142 728
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/24/2025
No Build (2030) - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 6: 4th Avenue & CSAH 14 (Main Street)
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)14 46 28 47
Average Queue (ft)0 4 8 18
95th Queue (ft)5 23 22 42
Link Distance (ft)5120 5554 5217 5142
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street
Movement WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)37 56 66
Average Queue (ft)5 16 31
95th Queue (ft)23 46 53
Link Distance (ft)1167 1004 5217
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) & Pine Street
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)34 15
Average Queue (ft)9 1
95th Queue (ft)27 8
Link Distance (ft)7093 1359
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report
04/24/2025
No Build (2030) - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
2: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Robinson Drive Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)2.7 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.7
3: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Century Trail Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)3.0 0.9 0.4 0.5 0.8
5: 4th Avenue & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.1 1.3 0.2 0.3 4.7 4.9 3.6 0.9 2.7
6: 4th Avenue & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)4.9 3.8 2.4 7.5 5.6 4.7 9.9 7.7 5.6 5.8 9.7 3.2
6: 4th Avenue & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)5.0
7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)2.7 1.3 0.3 0.9 0.8 0.4 3.4 8.9 1.8 4.2 9.8 2.6
7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)2.1
8: CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)5.6 0.6 2.1 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.3 1.2
SimTraffic Performance Report
04/24/2025
No Build (2030) - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
Total Zone Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)27.0
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/24/2025
No Build (2030) - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 2: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Robinson Drive
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)23
Average Queue (ft)11
95th Queue (ft)28
Link Distance (ft)1079
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Century Trail
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)48
Average Queue (ft)18
95th Queue (ft)39
Link Distance (ft)576
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: 4th Avenue & Pine Street
Movement NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)44 45
Average Queue (ft)21 3
95th Queue (ft)41 20
Link Distance (ft)5142 728
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/24/2025
No Build (2030) - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 6: 4th Avenue & CSAH 14 (Main Street)
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)77 55 44 30
Average Queue (ft)11 4 18 13
95th Queue (ft)46 25 34 34
Link Distance (ft)5120 5554 5217 5142
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)32 16 56 35
Average Queue (ft)3 1 26 17
95th Queue (ft)16 7 45 38
Link Distance (ft)5072 1167 1004 5217
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) & Pine Street
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)28 50
Average Queue (ft)10 6
95th Queue (ft)26 31
Link Distance (ft)7093 1359
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report
04/24/2025
No Build (2045) - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
2: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Robinson Drive Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)2.6 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.9
3: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Century Trail Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.1 1.6 0.1 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)3.5 1.0 0.2 0.8 1.1
5: 4th Avenue & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.1 0.7 0.1 4.6 5.7 3.0 2.5 7.8 3.2
6: 4th Avenue & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)3.9 3.1 2.6 5.4 4.4 3.9 9.0 8.9 5.2 6.1 10.6 4.5
6: 4th Avenue & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)4.0
7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)0.8 1.3 0.7 1.5 1.2 0.3 6.8 10.3 2.5 6.4 10.7 4.0
7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)3.3
8: CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.9 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)5.9 2.5 1.4 0.9 1.2 0.5 1.2
SimTraffic Performance Report
04/24/2025
No Build (2045) - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
Total Zone Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)31.4
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/24/2025
No Build (2045) - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 2: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Robinson Drive
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)74
Average Queue (ft)23
95th Queue (ft)49
Link Distance (ft)1079
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Century Trail
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)64
Average Queue (ft)25
95th Queue (ft)48
Link Distance (ft)576
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: 4th Avenue & Pine Street
Movement NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)28 35
Average Queue (ft)7 11
95th Queue (ft)25 34
Link Distance (ft)5142 728
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/24/2025
No Build (2045) - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 6: 4th Avenue & CSAH 14 (Main Street)
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)10 42 38 53
Average Queue (ft)1 3 11 21
95th Queue (ft)8 20 28 45
Link Distance (ft)5120 5554 5217 5142
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)10 35 75 70
Average Queue (ft)0 5 21 32
95th Queue (ft)5 24 54 55
Link Distance (ft)5072 1167 1004 5217
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) & Pine Street
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)27 33
Average Queue (ft)11 1
95th Queue (ft)27 16
Link Distance (ft)7093 1359
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report
04/24/2025
No Build (2045) - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
2: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Robinson Drive Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)2.5 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.8
3: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Century Trail Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)3.3 1.1 0.6 0.5 0.9
5: 4th Avenue & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.2 1.8 0.4 0.7 4.6 4.4 2.9 1.2 2.5
6: 4th Avenue & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)5.1 4.4 2.8 7.0 6.3 5.4 11.9 7.7 5.7 10.1 10.5 3.1
6: 4th Avenue & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)5.6
7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)1.7 1.6 0.1 1.1 0.9 0.4 4.1 9.5 2.4 4.1 9.1 3.0
7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)2.2
8: CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)6.6 0.5 2.9 2.3 1.4 1.1 0.7 1.3
SimTraffic Performance Report
04/24/2025
No Build (2045) - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
Total Zone Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)29.0
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/24/2025
No Build (2045) - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 2: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Robinson Drive
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)39
Average Queue (ft)14
95th Queue (ft)32
Link Distance (ft)1079
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Century Trail
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)40
Average Queue (ft)17
95th Queue (ft)37
Link Distance (ft)576
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: 4th Avenue & Pine Street
Movement NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)30 56
Average Queue (ft)20 5
95th Queue (ft)39 29
Link Distance (ft)5142 728
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/24/2025
No Build (2045) - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 6: 4th Avenue & CSAH 14 (Main Street)
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)56 49 57 34
Average Queue (ft)11 4 20 15
95th Queue (ft)40 24 44 37
Link Distance (ft)5120 5554 5217 5142
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)32 21 54 40
Average Queue (ft)1 1 27 19
95th Queue (ft)14 9 46 39
Link Distance (ft)5072 1167 1004 5217
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) & Pine Street
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)41 61
Average Queue (ft)10 7
95th Queue (ft)28 32
Link Distance (ft)7093 1359
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 1 (2030) - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
2: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Robinson Drive Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)3.3 1.2 0.7 0.4 1.0
3: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Century Trail Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.1 1.1 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)3.6 1.4 0.6 1.1 1.4
5: 4th Avenue & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)2.2 0.1 1.2 0.2 2.1 6.4 1.4 2.3 7.9 3.0
6: 4th Avenue & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)2.8 1.5 0.8 5.7 4.8 3.1 6.3 10.8 3.1 7.7 10.9 2.9
6: 4th Avenue & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)2.9
7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)1.8 1.4 0.6 1.6 1.2 0.5 4.8 8.2 1.8 5.3 9.8 2.9
7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)2.9
8: CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)5.6 3.6 2.1 0.9 1.7 0.2 1.4
SimTraffic Performance Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 1 (2030) - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
10: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Access A Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)3.5 1.1 0.5 1.1 1.2
11: Access B & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBT WBR NBR SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)1.9 1.3 1.4 0.7 4.5 4.1 1.8
13: Access D & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBT NBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)1.1 0.6 1.7 4.3 1.4
14: 4th Avenue & Access E Performance by movement
Movement NBT SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)1.8 0.9 1.2
15: 4th Avenue & Access F Performance by movement
Movement NBT SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)1.9 0.1 0.5
16: 4th Avenue & Access G Performance by movement
Movement NBT SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)0.0 1.2 1.0
17: Access H & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBT WBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.7 0.3
Total Zone Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)34.3
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 1 (2030) - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 2: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Robinson Drive
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)67
Average Queue (ft)28
95th Queue (ft)51
Link Distance (ft)1079
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Century Trail
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)68
Average Queue (ft)30
95th Queue (ft)53
Link Distance (ft)576
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: 4th Avenue & Pine Street
Movement NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)28 31
Average Queue (ft)5 9
95th Queue (ft)21 30
Link Distance (ft)1860 728
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 1 (2030) - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 6: 4th Avenue & CSAH 14 (Main Street)
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)15 46 52 46
Average Queue (ft)1 5 16 18
95th Queue (ft)7 27 39 43
Link Distance (ft)1790 5554 1310 1282
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)16 33 50 63
Average Queue (ft)1 5 17 34
95th Queue (ft)10 23 45 53
Link Distance (ft)5072 1167 1004 3850
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) & Pine Street
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LR LT T
Maximum Queue (ft)32 29 11
Average Queue (ft)8 2 0
95th Queue (ft)25 15 8
Link Distance (ft)7093 1359 2481
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 1 (2030) - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5
Intersection: 10: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Access A
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)61
Average Queue (ft)27
95th Queue (ft)50
Link Distance (ft)911
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 11: Access B & CSAH 14 (Main Street)
Movement NB SB
Directions Served TR TR
Maximum Queue (ft)44 47
Average Queue (ft)18 20
95th Queue (ft)43 45
Link Distance (ft)643 640
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 13: Access D & CSAH 14 (Main Street)
Movement NB
Directions Served TR
Maximum Queue (ft)43
Average Queue (ft)17
95th Queue (ft)43
Link Distance (ft)650
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 1 (2030) - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 6
Intersection: 14: 4th Avenue & Access E
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 15: 4th Avenue & Access F
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 16: 4th Avenue & Access G
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 1 (2030) - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 7
Intersection: 17: Access H & Pine Street
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 1 (2030) - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
2: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Robinson Drive Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)3.2 1.5 1.0 0.3 1.1
3: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Century Trail Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)5.0 1.8 0.9 0.6 1.4
5: 4th Avenue & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.2 2.8 3.3 1.4 1.2 1.7
6: 4th Avenue & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)4.1 2.3 0.9 5.3 3.0 1.4 19.2 20.3 8.4 17.0 15.0 6.1
6: 4th Avenue & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)3.7
7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)1.7 1.2 0.6 1.0 1.3 0.5 3.3 9.7 2.4 4.2 8.4 2.3
7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)2.2
8: CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.9 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)5.5 0.4 3.0 1.8 1.4 1.1 0.3 1.3
SimTraffic Performance Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 1 (2030) - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
10: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Access A Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)3.9 1.6 0.3 1.0 1.4
11: Access B & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBT WBR NBR SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)3.1 1.7 2.4 1.5 5.8 5.2 2.8
13: Access D & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBT NBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)1.9 1.0 2.9 5.3 2.4
14: 4th Avenue & Access E Performance by movement
Movement NBT SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)1.7 0.6 1.4
15: 4th Avenue & Access F Performance by movement
Movement NBT SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)1.5 0.0 1.1
16: 4th Avenue & Access G Performance by movement
Movement NBT SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.1
17: Access H & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBT WBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.6 0.4
Total Zone Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)63.8
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 1 (2030) - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 2: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Robinson Drive
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)40
Average Queue (ft)20
95th Queue (ft)36
Link Distance (ft)1079
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Century Trail
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)59
Average Queue (ft)26
95th Queue (ft)48
Link Distance (ft)576
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: 4th Avenue & Pine Street
Movement NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)34 57
Average Queue (ft)20 5
95th Queue (ft)39 29
Link Distance (ft)1882 728
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 1 (2030) - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 6: 4th Avenue & CSAH 14 (Main Street)
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)64 55 87 34
Average Queue (ft)13 4 31 13
95th Queue (ft)45 26 68 34
Link Distance (ft)1817 2789 1450 1292
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)30 6 48 50
Average Queue (ft)2 0 25 23
95th Queue (ft)15 5 45 44
Link Distance (ft)5072 1167 1004 3711
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) & Pine Street
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)32 40
Average Queue (ft)9 5
95th Queue (ft)27 23
Link Distance (ft)7093 1359
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 1 (2030) - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5
Intersection: 10: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Access A
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)57
Average Queue (ft)21
95th Queue (ft)48
Link Distance (ft)1094
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 11: Access B & CSAH 14 (Main Street)
Movement NB SB
Directions Served TR TR
Maximum Queue (ft)48 59
Average Queue (ft)17 18
95th Queue (ft)43 45
Link Distance (ft)643 959
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 13: Access D & CSAH 14 (Main Street)
Movement NB
Directions Served TR
Maximum Queue (ft)43
Average Queue (ft)16
95th Queue (ft)42
Link Distance (ft)702
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 1 (2030) - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 6
Intersection: 14: 4th Avenue & Access E
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 15: 4th Avenue & Access F
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 16: 4th Avenue & Access G
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 1 (2030) - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 7
Intersection: 17: Access H & Pine Street
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report
06/26/2025
Build Scenario 1 (2045) - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
2: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Robinson Drive Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)3.8 1.5 1.0 0.5 1.2
3: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Century Trail Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)4.1 1.7 0.6 1.5 1.7
5: 4th Avenue & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)2.1 1.0 1.6 1.0 3.8 5.1 2.1 2.0 8.2 2.0
6: 4th Avenue & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.3 17.0 14.6
Total Del/Veh (s)4.6 4.2 1.9 10.8 8.7 6.2 81.0 68.5 70.3 360.1 302.5 326.4
6: 4th Avenue & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)3.5
Total Del/Veh (s)84.1
7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)2.3 2.8 1.0 2.1 2.0 0.6 3.7 12.3 2.0 9.2 14.2 6.0
7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)5.0
8: CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)8.1 5.1 2.7 1.2 2.1 0.7 2.3
SimTraffic Performance Report
06/26/2025
Build Scenario 1 (2045) - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
10: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Access A Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)4.3 1.5 0.5 2.2 2.1
11: Access B & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBT WBR NBR SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 15.9 15.0 0.1 0.1 9.0
Total Del/Veh (s)3.3 2.3 22.8 27.8 6.2 95.7 16.9
13: Access D & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBT WBR NBR SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)2.4 1.5 3.4 1.7 5.6 16.1 3.4
14: 4th Avenue & Access E Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)6.5 4.2 2.4 1.9 3.0 2.3 3.6
15: 4th Avenue & Access F Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)4.7 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9
Total Del/Veh (s)151.8 120.5 3.0 2.2 141.0 116.2 99.8
16: 4th Avenue & Access G Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)6.2 4.3 1.6 0.9 1.3 0.4 2.3
17: Access H & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBT WBL WBT NBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)0.5 1.2 1.5 3.4 2.7
Total Zone Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)9.3
Total Del/Veh (s)444.9
Queuing and Blocking Report
06/26/2025
Build Scenario 1 (2045) - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 2: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Robinson Drive
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)61
Average Queue (ft)33
95th Queue (ft)56
Link Distance (ft)1079
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Century Trail
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)72
Average Queue (ft)32
95th Queue (ft)54
Link Distance (ft)576
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: 4th Avenue & Pine Street
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)4 21 58 30
Average Queue (ft)0 2 28 10
95th Queue (ft)3 12 44 31
Link Distance (ft)2985 7093 1860 728
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
06/26/2025
Build Scenario 1 (2045) - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 6: 4th Avenue & CSAH 14 (Main Street)
Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT R LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 107 20 94 347 1293
Average Queue (ft)22 1 18 119 898
95th Queue (ft)72 8 62 323 1504
Link Distance (ft)1790 5554 1310 1282
Upstream Blk Time (%)21
Queuing Penalty (veh)92
Storage Bay Dist (ft)300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)47 49 58 130
Average Queue (ft)5 9 21 56
95th Queue (ft)26 32 50 95
Link Distance (ft)5072 1167 1004 3850
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) & Pine Street
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LR LT T
Maximum Queue (ft)69 72 18
Average Queue (ft)28 7 1
95th Queue (ft)53 37 14
Link Distance (ft)7093 1359 2481
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
06/26/2025
Build Scenario 1 (2045) - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5
Intersection: 10: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Access A
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)62
Average Queue (ft)28
95th Queue (ft)54
Link Distance (ft)911
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 11: Access B & CSAH 14 (Main Street)
Movement WB NB SB
Directions Served TR TR TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 519 47 209
Average Queue (ft)155 20 52
95th Queue (ft)588 49 145
Link Distance (ft)606 643 640
Upstream Blk Time (%) 12
Queuing Penalty (veh)112
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 13: Access D & CSAH 14 (Main Street)
Movement WB NB SB
Directions Served TR TR TR
Maximum Queue (ft)23 50 102
Average Queue (ft)2 20 33
95th Queue (ft)20 46 83
Link Distance (ft)1790 650 528
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
06/26/2025
Build Scenario 1 (2045) - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 6
Intersection: 14: 4th Avenue & Access E
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)90 32
Average Queue (ft)42 4
95th Queue (ft)68 21
Link Distance (ft)798 3850
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 15: 4th Avenue & Access F
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LR LT TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 518 43 1107
Average Queue (ft)145 7 285
95th Queue (ft)441 28 1069
Link Distance (ft)628 1282 1885
Upstream Blk Time (%) 4
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 16: 4th Avenue & Access G
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)79 56
Average Queue (ft)40 7
95th Queue (ft)66 32
Link Distance (ft)1130 1885
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
06/26/2025
Build Scenario 1 (2045) - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 7
Intersection: 17: Access H & Pine Street
Movement WB NB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)11 70
Average Queue (ft)1 38
95th Queue (ft)7 60
Link Distance (ft)2985 947
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 204
SimTraffic Performance Report
04/29/2025
Build Scenario 1 (2045) MITIGATED - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
2: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Robinson Drive Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)3.9 1.4 1.1 0.9 1.4
3: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Century Trail Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.4 3.4 0.2 0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)4.5 1.5 0.3 2.0 2.0
5: 4th Avenue & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)2.5 1.2 2.5 1.3 4.2 4.8 2.3 3.3 8.4 2.3
7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)1.7 2.0 0.7 2.2 2.3 0.8 5.8 11.0 2.7 11.9 15.5 7.4
7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)5.7
8: CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)10.5 6.9 2.5 1.5 2.0 0.8 2.5
10: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Access A Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)4.0 1.4 0.5 1.6 1.6
11: Access B & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBT WBR NBR SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)0.4 0.2 0.4 0.2 3.9 4.5 0.6
SimTraffic Performance Report
04/29/2025
Build Scenario 1 (2045) MITIGATED - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
13: Access D & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBT WBR NBR SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)0.4 0.1 0.4 0.1 3.6 3.4 0.5
14: 4th Avenue & Access E Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)7.1 4.7 1.8 1.7 1.0 0.3 2.8
15: 4th Avenue & Access F Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)7.7 5.1 2.0 1.1 1.8 1.0 2.4
16: 4th Avenue & Access G Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)6.7 4.3 1.9 1.3 1.5 0.5 2.4
17: Access H & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBT WBL WBT NBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)0.4 1.3 1.0 3.5 2.8
Total Zone Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)76.0
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/29/2025
Build Scenario 1 (2045) MITIGATED - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 2: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Robinson Drive
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)62
Average Queue (ft)31
95th Queue (ft)53
Link Distance (ft)1079
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Century Trail
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)78
Average Queue (ft)32
95th Queue (ft)58
Link Distance (ft)576
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: 4th Avenue & Pine Street
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)4 42 55 30
Average Queue (ft)0 4 28 10
95th Queue (ft)3 23 45 32
Link Distance (ft)2985 7093 1860 728
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/29/2025
Build Scenario 1 (2045) MITIGATED - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)33 51 52 180
Average Queue (ft)4 10 22 62
95th Queue (ft)21 36 49 118
Link Distance (ft)2549 1167 1004 3850
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) & Pine Street
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)76 93
Average Queue (ft)31 9
95th Queue (ft)60 47
Link Distance (ft)7093 1359
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 10: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Access A
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)67
Average Queue (ft)29
95th Queue (ft)56
Link Distance (ft)911
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/29/2025
Build Scenario 1 (2045) MITIGATED - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5
Intersection: 11: Access B & CSAH 14 (Main Street)
Movement NB SB
Directions Served TR TR
Maximum Queue (ft)59 58
Average Queue (ft)18 22
95th Queue (ft)45 48
Link Distance (ft)631 628
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 13: Access D & CSAH 14 (Main Street)
Movement NB SB
Directions Served TR TR
Maximum Queue (ft)52 56
Average Queue (ft)19 27
95th Queue (ft)46 50
Link Distance (ft)638 516
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 14: 4th Avenue & Access E
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)98 26
Average Queue (ft)43 3
95th Queue (ft)76 17
Link Distance (ft)798 3850
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/29/2025
Build Scenario 1 (2045) MITIGATED - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 6
Intersection: 15: 4th Avenue & Access F
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 102 44
Average Queue (ft)40 11
95th Queue (ft)71 36
Link Distance (ft)628 948
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 16: 4th Avenue & Access G
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)80 53
Average Queue (ft)40 7
95th Queue (ft)64 31
Link Distance (ft)1130 1885
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 17: Access H & Pine Street
Movement WB NB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)12 74
Average Queue (ft)1 40
95th Queue (ft)7 65
Link Distance (ft)2985 947
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report
04/29/2025
Build Scenario 1 (2045) MITIGATED - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
2: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Robinson Drive Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)4.9 2.2 1.4 0.8 1.7
3: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Century Trail Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 1.0 3.1 0.0 0.7
Total Del/Veh (s)6.7 2.1 0.6 1.0 1.8
5: 4th Avenue & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)1.5 0.9 2.8 2.4 0.4 6.9 4.9 4.6 1.1 3.9
7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)3.7 3.1 0.8 2.3 3.0 1.1 7.9 14.2 3.6 11.3 14.3 6.2
7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)4.6
8: CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.9 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)12.5 1.4 6.1 3.3 3.3 1.6 0.7 3.0
10: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Access A Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)5.1 2.0 0.6 1.5 1.8
11: Access B & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBT WBR NBR SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)0.9 0.6 0.6 0.2 4.7 5.1 0.8
SimTraffic Performance Report
04/29/2025
Build Scenario 1 (2045) MITIGATED - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
13: Access D & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBT WBR NBR SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)0.7 0.4 1.0 0.5 3.9 4.7 0.9
14: 4th Avenue & Access E Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)7.0 3.6 3.1 3.0 1.7 0.5 2.8
15: 4th Avenue & Access F Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)12.8 4.9 3.2 3.2 1.7 0.7 3.1
16: 4th Avenue & Access G Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)8.9 3.8 3.5 3.8 1.3 0.4 3.2
17: Access H & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBT WBL WBT NBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)0.5 2.6 2.6 3.2 2.7
Total Zone Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)92.2
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/29/2025
Build Scenario 1 (2045) MITIGATED - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 2: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Robinson Drive
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)58
Average Queue (ft)25
95th Queue (ft)46
Link Distance (ft)1079
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Century Trail
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)72
Average Queue (ft)29
95th Queue (ft)56
Link Distance (ft)576
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: 4th Avenue & Pine Street
Movement WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)46 100 43
Average Queue (ft)7 46 3
95th Queue (ft)31 80 23
Link Distance (ft)7093 1882 728
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/29/2025
Build Scenario 1 (2045) MITIGATED - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)62 16 65 89
Average Queue (ft)26 2 29 47
95th Queue (ft)56 12 52 82
Link Distance (ft)2549 1167 1004 3711
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) & Pine Street
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LR LT R
Maximum Queue (ft)76 89 9
Average Queue (ft)26 23 0
95th Queue (ft)55 65 0
Link Distance (ft)7093 1359
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)325
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 10: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Access A
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)55
Average Queue (ft)22
95th Queue (ft)48
Link Distance (ft)1094
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/29/2025
Build Scenario 1 (2045) MITIGATED - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5
Intersection: 11: Access B & CSAH 14 (Main Street)
Movement NB SB
Directions Served TR TR
Maximum Queue (ft)34 49
Average Queue (ft)16 20
95th Queue (ft)40 46
Link Distance (ft)631 948
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 13: Access D & CSAH 14 (Main Street)
Movement NB SB
Directions Served TR TR
Maximum Queue (ft)41 54
Average Queue (ft)14 24
95th Queue (ft)40 49
Link Distance (ft)690 1026
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 14: 4th Avenue & Access E
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)74 56
Average Queue (ft)37 11
95th Queue (ft)62 39
Link Distance (ft)624 3711
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/29/2025
Build Scenario 1 (2045) MITIGATED - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 6
Intersection: 15: 4th Avenue & Access F
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LR LT TR
Maximum Queue (ft)81 104 9
Average Queue (ft)39 28 0
95th Queue (ft)66 74 5
Link Distance (ft)905 1068 1856
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 16: 4th Avenue & Access G
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)72 62
Average Queue (ft)37 20
95th Queue (ft)60 53
Link Distance (ft)1097 1856
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 17: Access H & Pine Street
Movement WB NB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)27 69
Average Queue (ft)2 35
95th Queue (ft)14 56
Link Distance (ft)2956 1520
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 1 (2045) - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
2: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Robinson Drive Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)4.6 2.1 1.3 0.7 1.6
3: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Century Trail Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)6.4 2.5 1.4 1.0 2.1
5: 4th Avenue & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)17.5 44.6 45.9 41.9 57.2 4.7 4.0 3.0 1.0 26.7
6: 4th Avenue & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)3.1 1.3 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.0 179.1 103.9 1011.1 919.3 804.9
Total Del/Veh (s)195.9 190.8 150.0 32.2 23.4 17.9 3558.0 3392.1 3417.9 3549.7 3368.7 3452.7
6: 4th Avenue & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)6.1
Total Del/Veh (s)312.5
7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 37.9 54.6 66.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)207.3 166.6 160.2 64.6 159.8 143.7 201.2 225.1 167.4 51.7 9.8 47.2
7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 28.9
Total Del/Veh (s)154.5
8: CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.9 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)11.4 1.3 4.3 2.8 3.0 1.4 0.7 2.6
SimTraffic Performance Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 1 (2045) - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
10: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Access A Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)4.9 2.0 0.5 1.5 1.8
11: Access B & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBT WBR NBR SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 23.7 24.9 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 13.5
Total Del/Veh (s)33.3 31.2 3.6 2.2 117.9 9.2 21.3
13: Access D & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBT WBR NBR SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)72.0 76.8 6.7 5.2 133.6 8.8 45.2
14: 4th Avenue & Access E Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 739.3 798.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 194.3
Total Del/Veh (s) 2173.4 1906.8 1927.9 1830.8 1.1 0.5 1250.6
15: 4th Avenue & Access F Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 697.2 656.8 0.0 0.0 35.8 0.0 133.6
Total Del/Veh (s) 3109.6 2806.9 1.5 1.7 2877.4 2670.4 788.8
16: 4th Avenue & Access G Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 63.9 106.5 0.0 0.0 26.7 24.0 30.1
Total Del/Veh (s)772.6 943.2 1.8 1.7 825.2 916.2 424.0
17: Access H & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBT WBL WBT NBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)0.6 1.9 1.8 3.1 2.3
Total Zone Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)49.4
Total Del/Veh (s)1431.1
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 1 (2045) - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 2: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Robinson Drive
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)51
Average Queue (ft)24
95th Queue (ft)46
Link Distance (ft)1079
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Century Trail
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)77
Average Queue (ft)29
95th Queue (ft)54
Link Distance (ft)576
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: 4th Avenue & Pine Street
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 358 284 66 62
Average Queue (ft)34 38 33 6
95th Queue (ft)211 194 51 33
Link Distance (ft)2956 7093 1882 728
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 1 (2045) - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 6: 4th Avenue & CSAH 14 (Main Street)
Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT R LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 1831 375 825 1458 1298
Average Queue (ft) 1400 190 221 1440 1292
95th Queue (ft)2353 498 607 1526 1308
Link Distance (ft)1817 2789 1450 1292
Upstream Blk Time (%) 12 92 99
Queuing Penalty (veh)118 240 316
Storage Bay Dist (ft)300
Storage Blk Time (%) 59
Queuing Penalty (veh)47
Intersection: 7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 1588 1182 543 164
Average Queue (ft)287 286 110 49
95th Queue (ft)1075 1055 363 190
Link Distance (ft)5072 1167 1004 3711
Upstream Blk Time (%)17
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) & Pine Street
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)57 101
Average Queue (ft)22 23
95th Queue (ft)44 67
Link Distance (ft)7093 1359
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 1 (2045) - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5
Intersection: 10: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Access A
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)62
Average Queue (ft)25
95th Queue (ft)51
Link Distance (ft)1094
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 11: Access B & CSAH 14 (Main Street)
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served TR TR TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 966 91 60
Average Queue (ft)302 27 23
95th Queue (ft)1000 75 54
Link Distance (ft)917 643 959
Upstream Blk Time (%) 17
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 13: Access D & CSAH 14 (Main Street)
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served TR TR TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 1391 118 57
Average Queue (ft)659 37 25
95th Queue (ft)1673 96 50
Link Distance (ft)1380 702 1038
Upstream Blk Time (%) 4
Queuing Penalty (veh)47
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 1 (2045) - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 6
Intersection: 14: 4th Avenue & Access E
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 631 3721
Average Queue (ft)495 2252
95th Queue (ft)837 4508
Link Distance (ft)624 3711
Upstream Blk Time (%) 51 31
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 90
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 15: 4th Avenue & Access F
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LR LT TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 912 5 1861
Average Queue (ft)734 0 1570
95th Queue (ft)1164 5 2388
Link Distance (ft)904 1292 1856
Upstream Blk Time (%) 47 67
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 161
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 16: 4th Avenue & Access G
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LR LT TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 1107 45 1890
Average Queue (ft)500 5 744
95th Queue (ft)1226 25 1936
Link Distance (ft)1097 1856 1882
Upstream Blk Time (%) 21 13
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 19
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 1 (2045) - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 7
Intersection: 17: Access H & Pine Street
Movement WB NB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)17 68
Average Queue (ft)1 34
95th Queue (ft)9 54
Link Distance (ft)2956 1520
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 1038
SimTraffic Performance Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 2 (2030) - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
2: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Robinson Drive Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)3.5 1.1 0.7 0.4 1.0
3: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Century Trail Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 1.1 0.1 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)3.8 1.4 0.6 1.1 1.4
5: 4th Avenue & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.0 0.6 0.2 2.0 7.1 0.9 2.4 7.6 2.5
6: 4th Avenue & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)2.6 1.8 1.4 7.0 4.4 5.0 8.1 11.9 3.4 9.0 11.4 3.6
6: 4th Avenue & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)3.1
7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)1.6 1.7 0.7 1.4 1.1 0.5 3.6 9.7 1.9 5.3 9.9 2.6
7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)3.1
8: CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)4.9 2.8 0.8 0.7 1.7 0.5 1.3
SimTraffic Performance Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 2 (2030) - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
10: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Access A Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)3.5 1.0 0.2 1.2 1.2
11: Access B & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBT WBR NBR SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)2.2 1.7 0.8 0.5 4.4 3.4 1.7
14: 4th Avenue & Access E Performance by movement
Movement NBT SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)1.9 1.1 1.4
15: 4th Avenue & Access F Performance by movement
Movement NBT SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)1.5 0.0 0.5
16: 4th Avenue & Access G Performance by movement
Movement NBT SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.7 0.5
17: Access H & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBT WBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.7 0.3
Total Zone Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)33.3
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 2 (2030) - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 2: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Robinson Drive
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)71
Average Queue (ft)29
95th Queue (ft)55
Link Distance (ft)1079
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Century Trail
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)63
Average Queue (ft)27
95th Queue (ft)52
Link Distance (ft)576
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: 4th Avenue & Pine Street
Movement NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)30 29
Average Queue (ft)7 8
95th Queue (ft)26 28
Link Distance (ft)1860 728
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 2 (2030) - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 6: 4th Avenue & CSAH 14 (Main Street)
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)28 58 66 54
Average Queue (ft)0 7 14 19
95th Queue (ft)5 34 38 43
Link Distance (ft)2506 5554 1310 1282
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)10 27 52 65
Average Queue (ft)1 4 17 33
95th Queue (ft)8 19 45 52
Link Distance (ft)5072 1167 1004 3850
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) & Pine Street
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)30 10
Average Queue (ft)9 1
95th Queue (ft)26 6
Link Distance (ft)7093 1359
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 2 (2030) - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5
Intersection: 10: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Access A
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)49
Average Queue (ft)23
95th Queue (ft)48
Link Distance (ft)911
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 11: Access B & CSAH 14 (Main Street)
Movement NB SB
Directions Served TR TR
Maximum Queue (ft)55 33
Average Queue (ft)20 14
95th Queue (ft)46 38
Link Distance (ft)643 640
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 14: 4th Avenue & Access E
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 2 (2030) - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 6
Intersection: 15: 4th Avenue & Access F
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 16: 4th Avenue & Access G
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 17: Access H & Pine Street
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 2 (2030) - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
2: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Robinson Drive Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)3.4 1.4 0.9 0.3 1.0
3: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Century Trail Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)3.9 1.6 0.8 0.6 1.3
5: 4th Avenue & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.1 1.3 0.3 0.4 2.7 3.0 1.4 1.3 1.5
6: 4th Avenue & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)4.8 2.6 1.5 5.6 3.0 1.5 17.7 18.5 6.8 15.0 19.3 5.2
6: 4th Avenue & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)3.8
7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)2.8 1.6 2.8 1.1 1.3 0.4 4.7 9.4 2.3 5.0 8.9 2.4
7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)2.3
8: CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.6 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)6.5 0.4 2.2 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.3 1.2
SimTraffic Performance Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 2 (2030) - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
10: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Access A Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)4.1 1.8 0.5 1.4 1.6
11: Access B & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBT WBR NBR SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)3.1 2.0 1.6 0.9 5.2 5.0 2.4
14: 4th Avenue & Access E Performance by movement
Movement NBT SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)1.6 0.6 1.3
15: 4th Avenue & Access F Performance by movement
Movement NBT SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)1.6 0.1 1.2
16: 4th Avenue & Access G Performance by movement
Movement NBT SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.1
17: Access H & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBT WBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.6 0.4
Total Zone Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)53.4
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 2 (2030) - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 2: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Robinson Drive
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)52
Average Queue (ft)19
95th Queue (ft)39
Link Distance (ft)1079
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Century Trail
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)49
Average Queue (ft)22
95th Queue (ft)37
Link Distance (ft)576
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: 4th Avenue & Pine Street
Movement WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)6 35 44
Average Queue (ft)0 19 4
95th Queue (ft)6 39 26
Link Distance (ft)7093 1882 728
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 2 (2030) - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 6: 4th Avenue & CSAH 14 (Main Street)
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 129 58 76 51
Average Queue (ft)17 6 30 14
95th Queue (ft)69 34 63 37
Link Distance (ft)2518 2789 1450 1292
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)35 5 51 64
Average Queue (ft)3 0 26 23
95th Queue (ft)19 0 44 51
Link Distance (ft)5072 1167 1004 3711
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) & Pine Street
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)26 43
Average Queue (ft)9 5
95th Queue (ft)25 25
Link Distance (ft)7093 1359
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 2 (2030) - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5
Intersection: 10: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Access A
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)53
Average Queue (ft)25
95th Queue (ft)49
Link Distance (ft)1094
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 11: Access B & CSAH 14 (Main Street)
Movement NB SB
Directions Served TR TR
Maximum Queue (ft)43 35
Average Queue (ft)18 15
95th Queue (ft)43 39
Link Distance (ft)643 959
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 14: 4th Avenue & Access E
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 2 (2030) - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 6
Intersection: 15: 4th Avenue & Access F
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 16: 4th Avenue & Access G
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 17: Access H & Pine Street
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 2 (2045) - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
2: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Robinson Drive Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)4.2 1.8 1.1 1.1 1.7
3: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Century Trail Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.5 3.3 0.2 0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)5.3 1.6 0.3 2.1 2.2
5: 4th Avenue & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)2.0 0.7 1.8 1.7 3.7 3.3 2.1 2.1 8.0 2.0
6: 4th Avenue & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.4 3.3
Total Del/Veh (s)5.8 4.5 2.6 7.7 3.9 1.9 114.8 88.2 81.7 223.2 218.9 222.9
6: 4th Avenue & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5
Total Del/Veh (s)50.2
7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)1.8 2.1 1.1 2.0 1.9 0.7 4.9 11.0 3.5 8.8 13.0 5.1
7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)4.0
8: CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)11.7 7.4 2.2 1.4 2.1 0.9 2.6
SimTraffic Performance Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 2 (2045) - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
10: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Access A Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)5.3 2.0 0.6 1.6 2.0
11: Access B & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBT WBR NBR SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)2.1 0.6 2.1 1.3 8.4 6.3 2.4
14: 4th Avenue & Access E Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)5.5 4.0 2.3 1.8 2.9 2.4 3.3
15: 4th Avenue & Access F Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)26.4 31.8 3.3 2.2 12.4 0.3 13.0
16: 4th Avenue & Access G Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)5.6 3.4 1.2 0.7 1.2 0.9 1.9
17: Access H & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBT WBL WBT NBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)0.4 1.4 1.6 3.1 2.4
Total Zone Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)270.3
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 2 (2045) - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 2: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Robinson Drive
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)91
Average Queue (ft)36
95th Queue (ft)68
Link Distance (ft)1079
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Century Trail
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft) 101
Average Queue (ft)37
95th Queue (ft)71
Link Distance (ft)576
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: 4th Avenue & Pine Street
Movement WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)32 55 31
Average Queue (ft)2 28 9
95th Queue (ft)15 44 30
Link Distance (ft)7093 1860 728
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 2 (2045) - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 6: 4th Avenue & CSAH 14 (Main Street)
Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT R LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)90 22 128 393 1199
Average Queue (ft)18 1 23 124 495
95th Queue (ft)66 10 80 381 1229
Link Distance (ft)2506 2789 1310 1282
Upstream Blk Time (%)5
Queuing Penalty (veh)15
Storage Bay Dist (ft)300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)45 52 61 108
Average Queue (ft)5 10 20 48
95th Queue (ft)24 36 52 84
Link Distance (ft)2549 1167 1004 3850
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) & Pine Street
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LR LT T
Maximum Queue (ft)92 60 11
Average Queue (ft)33 7 0
95th Queue (ft)69 35 8
Link Distance (ft)7093 1359 2481
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 2 (2045) - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5
Intersection: 10: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Access A
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)75
Average Queue (ft)41
95th Queue (ft)66
Link Distance (ft)911
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 11: Access B & CSAH 14 (Main Street)
Movement NB SB
Directions Served TR TR
Maximum Queue (ft)70 62
Average Queue (ft)26 27
95th Queue (ft)55 52
Link Distance (ft)643 640
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 14: 4th Avenue & Access E
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)58 10
Average Queue (ft)32 0
95th Queue (ft)52 8
Link Distance (ft)798 3850
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 2 (2045) - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 6
Intersection: 15: 4th Avenue & Access F
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LR LT TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 138 33 128
Average Queue (ft)45 4 20
95th Queue (ft)132 20 157
Link Distance (ft)628 1282 1885
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 16: 4th Avenue & Access G
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)63 34
Average Queue (ft)35 4
95th Queue (ft)55 20
Link Distance (ft)1130 1885
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 17: Access H & Pine Street
Movement WB NB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)6 62
Average Queue (ft)0 34
95th Queue (ft)4 54
Link Distance (ft)2985 947
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 15
SimTraffic Performance Report
04/29/2025
Build Scenario 2 (2045) MITIGATED - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
2: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Robinson Drive Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)4.6 1.9 1.2 1.1 1.7
3: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Century Trail Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.4 3.4 0.2 0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)5.4 1.7 0.3 2.1 2.2
5: 4th Avenue & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)1.6 0.8 2.0 1.1 4.2 4.4 2.3 2.0 8.0 2.1
7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)1.8 2.1 1.1 2.0 1.8 0.6 7.5 11.8 3.0 11.5 14.4 7.2
7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)4.8
8: CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)10.3 5.6 2.3 1.3 2.0 0.9 2.4
10: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Access A Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)5.4 2.1 0.6 1.6 2.1
11: Access B & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBT WBR NBR SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)1.6 0.5 1.7 0.3 6.1 8.2 2.0
SimTraffic Performance Report
04/29/2025
Build Scenario 2 (2045) MITIGATED - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
14: 4th Avenue & Access E Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)5.7 3.7 2.2 1.9 0.6 0.1 2.0
15: 4th Avenue & Access F Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)6.9 4.0 1.7 0.5 1.3 0.5 1.8
16: 4th Avenue & Access G Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)5.5 3.7 1.4 0.8 1.3 0.8 2.1
17: Access H & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBT WBL WBT NBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)0.5 1.5 2.2 3.1 2.5
Total Zone Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)78.2
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/29/2025
Build Scenario 2 (2045) MITIGATED - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 2: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Robinson Drive
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)82
Average Queue (ft)35
95th Queue (ft)63
Link Distance (ft)1079
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Century Trail
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)84
Average Queue (ft)37
95th Queue (ft)67
Link Distance (ft)576
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: 4th Avenue & Pine Street
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)4 28 67 30
Average Queue (ft)0 2 29 11
95th Queue (ft)3 15 50 33
Link Distance (ft)2985 7093 1860 728
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/29/2025
Build Scenario 2 (2045) MITIGATED - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)50 62 65 134
Average Queue (ft)5 12 22 59
95th Queue (ft)27 41 55 108
Link Distance (ft)2549 1167 1004 3850
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) & Pine Street
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)76 63
Average Queue (ft)30 8
95th Queue (ft)59 36
Link Distance (ft)7093 1359
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 10: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Access A
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)84
Average Queue (ft)40
95th Queue (ft)66
Link Distance (ft)911
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/29/2025
Build Scenario 2 (2045) MITIGATED - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5
Intersection: 11: Access B & CSAH 14 (Main Street)
Movement NB SB
Directions Served TR TR
Maximum Queue (ft)52 65
Average Queue (ft)22 29
95th Queue (ft)46 58
Link Distance (ft)643 640
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 14: 4th Avenue & Access E
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)58 26
Average Queue (ft)33 1
95th Queue (ft)51 9
Link Distance (ft)798 3850
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 15: 4th Avenue & Access F
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)57 42
Average Queue (ft)34 5
95th Queue (ft)52 25
Link Distance (ft)628 657
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/29/2025
Build Scenario 2 (2045) MITIGATED - AM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 6
Intersection: 16: 4th Avenue & Access G
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)70 38
Average Queue (ft)39 3
95th Queue (ft)59 19
Link Distance (ft)1130 1885
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 17: Access H & Pine Street
Movement WB NB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)6 73
Average Queue (ft)0 32
95th Queue (ft)0 56
Link Distance (ft)2985 947
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report
04/29/2025
Build Scenario 2 (2045) MITIGATED - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
2: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Robinson Drive Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)6.0 2.7 1.8 0.8 2.1
3: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Century Trail Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 1.1 3.0 0.0 0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)8.0 2.3 0.6 1.2 2.0
5: 4th Avenue & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)1.4 0.6 3.0 1.9 3.2 5.4 4.5 3.5 1.0 3.1
7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)3.7 3.2 1.8 2.3 2.3 0.9 8.2 14.1 3.3 9.5 16.3 5.0
7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)3.7
8: CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 2.0 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)10.6 0.6 3.7 3.0 3.0 1.6 0.8 2.7
10: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Access A Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)6.2 3.7 1.0 1.5 2.7
11: Access B & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBT WBR NBR SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.1 1.2 1.0 1.1 0.1 0.1 1.1
Total Del/Veh (s)3.6 1.7 4.6 2.3 14.6 13.6 4.3
SimTraffic Performance Report
04/29/2025
Build Scenario 2 (2045) MITIGATED - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
14: 4th Avenue & Access E Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)5.9 2.7 2.4 2.0 1.1 0.4 2.0
15: 4th Avenue & Access F Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)9.6 3.4 2.0 1.6 1.1 0.6 1.8
16: 4th Avenue & Access G Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)7.7 3.4 2.2 2.5 1.0 0.4 2.2
17: Access H & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBT WBL WBT NBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)0.7 2.1 1.9 2.9 2.3
Total Zone Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7
Total Del/Veh (s)114.1
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/29/2025
Build Scenario 2 (2045) MITIGATED - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 2: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Robinson Drive
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)71
Average Queue (ft)31
95th Queue (ft)59
Link Distance (ft)1079
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Century Trail
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)66
Average Queue (ft)29
95th Queue (ft)53
Link Distance (ft)576
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: 4th Avenue & Pine Street
Movement WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)38 98 47
Average Queue (ft)4 38 4
95th Queue (ft)23 65 26
Link Distance (ft)7093 1882 728
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/29/2025
Build Scenario 2 (2045) MITIGATED - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)84 34 60 80
Average Queue (ft)25 2 28 37
95th Queue (ft)62 15 52 64
Link Distance (ft)2549 1167 1004 3711
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) & Pine Street
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)64 84
Average Queue (ft)24 21
95th Queue (ft)45 57
Link Distance (ft)7093 1359
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 10: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Access A
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)80
Average Queue (ft)39
95th Queue (ft)66
Link Distance (ft)1094
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/29/2025
Build Scenario 2 (2045) MITIGATED - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5
Intersection: 11: Access B & CSAH 14 (Main Street)
Movement NB SB
Directions Served TR TR
Maximum Queue (ft)69 71
Average Queue (ft)22 27
95th Queue (ft)50 55
Link Distance (ft)643 959
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 14: 4th Avenue & Access E
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)64 26
Average Queue (ft)30 2
95th Queue (ft)54 12
Link Distance (ft)624 3711
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 15: 4th Avenue & Access F
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LR LT TR
Maximum Queue (ft)61 48 4
Average Queue (ft)28 12 0
95th Queue (ft)51 37 3
Link Distance (ft)905 737 1856
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/29/2025
Build Scenario 2 (2045) MITIGATED - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 6
Intersection: 16: 4th Avenue & Access G
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)59 59
Average Queue (ft)34 9
95th Queue (ft)54 36
Link Distance (ft)1097 1856
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 17: Access H & Pine Street
Movement WB NB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)12 61
Average Queue (ft)0 31
95th Queue (ft)6 52
Link Distance (ft)2956 1520
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 2 (2045) - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
2: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Robinson Drive Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)5.3 2.5 1.7 0.8 1.9
3: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Century Trail Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)6.7 3.5 2.2 1.1 2.6
5: 4th Avenue & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)1.3 0.9 3.0 2.7 0.8 4.5 2.8 2.5 1.7 2.6
6: 4th Avenue & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 69.1 39.5 0.0 0.0 85.8 145.0
Total Del/Veh (s)101.3 77.7 73.8 33.4 27.4 22.7 2917.1 2578.2 2757.6 2571.3 2592.7 2392.6
6: 4th Avenue & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)2.7
Total Del/Veh (s)246.9
7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)17.3 10.0 14.6 2.6 8.1 8.0 8.6 16.9 8.3 8.2 9.2 3.5
7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)9.8
8: CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.9 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)12.7 0.4 4.8 3.2 3.0 1.5 0.8 2.7
SimTraffic Performance Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 2 (2045) - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
10: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Access A Performance by movement
Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)6.3 3.4 0.9 1.5 2.5
11: Access B & CSAH 14 (Main Street) Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBT WBR NBR SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)3.9 1.6 10.0 7.5 15.2 10.4 6.6
14: 4th Avenue & Access E Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 382.9 301.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 61.9
Total Del/Veh (s) 1716.2 1954.9 1161.9 1167.2 1.2 0.8 849.8
15: 4th Avenue & Access F Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 90.6 90.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 13.0
Total Del/Veh (s) 1488.7 1480.9 1.5 1.3 1601.7 1574.2 632.3
16: 4th Avenue & Access G Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.8 0.7 0.0 0.0 3.3 5.4 1.3
Total Del/Veh (s)284.7 305.5 1.5 1.4 269.1 219.4 150.5
17: Access H & Pine Street Performance by movement
Movement EBT WBL WBT NBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)0.6 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.3
Total Zone Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)9.1
Total Del/Veh (s)1162.8
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 2 (2045) - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 2: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Robinson Drive
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)60
Average Queue (ft)27
95th Queue (ft)49
Link Distance (ft)1079
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Century Trail
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)64
Average Queue (ft)28
95th Queue (ft)51
Link Distance (ft)576
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: 4th Avenue & Pine Street
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)4 44 51 44
Average Queue (ft)0 7 29 4
95th Queue (ft)3 32 46 25
Link Distance (ft)2956 7093 1882 728
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 2 (2045) - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 6: 4th Avenue & CSAH 14 (Main Street)
Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT R LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 2122 375 914 1461 1302
Average Queue (ft)772 105 235 1425 1279
95th Queue (ft)1964 381 731 1578 1380
Link Distance (ft)3252 2789 1450 1292
Upstream Blk Time (%)86 87
Queuing Penalty (veh)201 197
Storage Bay Dist (ft)300
Storage Blk Time (%) 30
Queuing Penalty (veh)19
Intersection: 7: 4th Avenue & Lilac Street
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 298 315 72 58
Average Queue (ft)42 17 30 29
95th Queue (ft)160 159 57 52
Link Distance (ft)5072 1167 1004 3711
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) & Pine Street
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)61 94
Average Queue (ft)23 24
95th Queue (ft)48 67
Link Distance (ft)7093 1359
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 2 (2045) - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5
Intersection: 10: CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) & Access A
Movement WB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)75
Average Queue (ft)39
95th Queue (ft)64
Link Distance (ft)1094
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 11: Access B & CSAH 14 (Main Street)
Movement NB SB
Directions Served TR TR
Maximum Queue (ft)60 65
Average Queue (ft)24 28
95th Queue (ft)54 53
Link Distance (ft)643 959
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 14: 4th Avenue & Access E
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 632 3673
Average Queue (ft)408 1606
95th Queue (ft)804 3614
Link Distance (ft)624 3711
Upstream Blk Time (%) 44 5
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 10
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
04/28/2025
Build Scenario 2 (2045) - PM Peak Hour Main Street Corridor Development - Lino Lakes, MN SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 6
Intersection: 15: 4th Avenue & Access F
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LR LT TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 909 21 1862
Average Queue (ft)479 1 1183
95th Queue (ft)1012 9 2336
Link Distance (ft)904 1292 1856
Upstream Blk Time (%) 19 38
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 72
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 16: 4th Avenue & Access G
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LR LT TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 832 50 1039
Average Queue (ft)195 6 232
95th Queue (ft)637 28 848
Link Distance (ft)1097 1856 1882
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 17: Access H & Pine Street
Movement WB NB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)28 65
Average Queue (ft)1 31
95th Queue (ft)10 53
Link Distance (ft)2956 1520
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 499
Page 1 of 2Report dated 29-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & 4th Ave - 2045 Scenario 1 Mitigation
Run number 41
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 4th Ave SB None 420 462 167 988 0.4250
2 Main St EB None 761 322 560 2048 0.3716
3 4th Ave NB None 156 867 216 834 0.1871
4 Main St WB None 449 180 843 2200 0.2041
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 4th Ave SB None 6.24 6.24 3.00 A A
2 Main St EB None 3.07 3.07 2.58 A A
3 4th Ave NB None 5.20 5.20 0.89 A A
4 Main St WB None 2.23 2.23 1.00 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 29-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & 4th Ave - 2045 Scenario 1 Mitigation
Run number 41
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1786 1786
Capacity veh/hr 6070 6070
Average Delay sec/veh 3.79 3.79
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 1.88 1.88
Page 1 of 2Report dated 29-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & 4th Ave - 2045 Scenario 1 Mitigation
Run number 43
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 4th Ave SB None 322 939 507 806 0.3993
2 Main St EB None 958 219 1042 2158 0.4439
3 4th Ave NB None 261 969 208 795 0.3283
4 Main St WB None 990 456 774 1905 0.5198
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 4th Ave SB None 7.11 7.11 1.82 A A
2 Main St EB None 3.80 3.80 2.81 A A
3 4th Ave NB None 6.48 6.48 1.34 A A
4 Main St WB None 4.38 4.38 3.41 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 29-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & 4th Ave - 2045 Scenario 1 Mitigation
Run number 43
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 2531 2531
Capacity veh/hr 5664 5664
Average Delay sec/veh 4.72 4.72
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 3.32 3.32
Page 1 of 2Report dated 29-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & 4th Ave - 2045 Scenario 2 Mitigation
Run number 49
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 4th Ave SB None 293 461 122 989 0.2964
2 Main St EB None 760 217 537 2160 0.3518
3 4th Ave NB None 140 778 199 868 0.1613
4 Main St WB None 451 132 786 2251 0.2004
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 4th Ave SB None 5.03 5.03 1.58 A A
2 Main St EB None 2.79 2.79 2.27 A A
3 4th Ave NB None 4.82 4.82 0.72 A A
4 Main St WB None 2.11 2.11 0.95 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 29-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & 4th Ave - 2045 Scenario 2 Mitigation
Run number 49
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1644 1644
Capacity veh/hr 6268 6268
Average Delay sec/veh 3.17 3.17
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 1.45 1.45
Page 1 of 2Report dated 29-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & 4th Ave - 2045 Scenario 2 Mitigation
Run number 51
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 4th Ave SB None 227 965 358 797 0.2850
2 Main St EB None 842 188 1004 2191 0.3843
3 4th Ave NB None 235 848 182 841 0.2794
4 Main St WB None 993 330 753 2039 0.4869
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 4th Ave SB None 6.09 6.09 1.09 A A
2 Main St EB None 3.05 3.05 1.99 A A
3 4th Ave NB None 5.73 5.73 1.06 A A
4 Main St WB None 3.69 3.69 2.87 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 29-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & 4th Ave - 2045 Scenario 2 Mitigation
Run number 51
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 2297 2297
Capacity veh/hr 5868 5868
Average Delay sec/veh 3.90 3.90
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 2.49 2.49
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Access C - 2030 Scenario 1
Run number 12
Project: Main Street Northwest2030 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2030 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Access C SB None 137 446 43 929 0.1475
2 Main St EB None 472 127 456 1097 0.4301
3 Access C NB None 149 556 43 871 0.1711
4 Main St WB None 341 148 557 1086 0.3139
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Access C SB None 4.41 4.41 0.62 A A
2 Main St EB None 5.60 5.60 2.90 A A
3 Access C NB None 4.86 4.86 0.77 A A
4 Main St WB None 4.67 4.67 1.66 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Access C - 2030 Scenario 1
Run number 12
Project: Main Street Northwest2030 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2030 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1099 1099
Capacity veh/hr 3984 3984
Average Delay sec/veh 5.06 5.06
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 1.55 1.55
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Access C - 2030 Scenario 1
Run number 15
Project: Main Street Northwest2030 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2030 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Access C SB None 107 804 140 740 0.1446
2 Main St EB None 666 174 737 1073 0.6209
3 Access C NB None 115 700 140 795 0.1447
4 Main St WB None 760 184 631 1067 0.7121
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Access C SB None 5.51 5.51 0.47 A A
2 Main St EB None 8.28 8.28 4.30 A A
3 Access C NB None 5.13 5.13 0.46 A A
4 Main St WB None 10.71 10.71 6.37 B B
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Access C - 2030 Scenario 1
Run number 15
Project: Main Street Northwest2030 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2030 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1648 1648
Capacity veh/hr 3675 3675
Average Delay sec/veh 9.00 9.00
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 4.12 4.12
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Access C - 2030 Scenario 2
Run number 18
Project: Main Street Northwest2030 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2030 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Access C SB None 80 400 26 953 0.0839
2 Main St EB None 495 89 391 1117 0.4430
3 Access C NB None 103 545 39 877 0.1175
4 Main St WB None 342 84 564 1120 0.3053
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Access C SB None 3.99 3.99 0.32 A A
2 Main St EB None 5.62 5.62 3.05 A A
3 Access C NB None 4.52 4.52 0.49 A A
4 Main St WB None 4.46 4.46 1.56 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Access C - 2030 Scenario 2
Run number 18
Project: Main Street Northwest2030 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2030 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1020 1020
Capacity veh/hr 4068 4068
Average Delay sec/veh 5.00 5.00
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 1.42 1.42
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Access C - 2030 Scenario 2
Run number 21
Project: Main Street Northwest2030 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2030 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Access C SB None 62 778 84 754 0.0823
2 Main St EB None 615 133 707 1094 0.5620
3 Access C NB None 80 622 126 836 0.0957
4 Main St WB None 760 102 600 1111 0.6843
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Access C SB None 5.05 5.05 0.25 A A
2 Main St EB None 7.09 7.09 3.39 A A
3 Access C NB None 4.63 4.63 0.29 A A
4 Main St WB None 9.47 9.47 5.60 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Access C - 2030 Scenario 2
Run number 21
Project: Main Street Northwest2030 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2030 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1517 1517
Capacity veh/hr 3795 3795
Average Delay sec/veh 8.07 8.07
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 3.40 3.40
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Access C - 2045 Scenario 1
Run number 24
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Access C SB None 189 902 74 688 0.2746
2 Main St EB None 695 163 928 1078 0.6445
3 Access C NB None 277 789 69 748 0.3703
4 Main St WB None 670 306 760 1003 0.6680
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Access C SB None 7.31 7.31 1.73 A A
2 Main St EB None 9.80 9.80 9.07 A A
3 Access C NB None 7.82 7.82 2.76 A A
4 Main St WB None 11.93 11.93 11.56 B B
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Access C - 2045 Scenario 1
Run number 24
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1831 1831
Capacity veh/hr 3518 3518
Average Delay sec/veh 10.02 10.02
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F B B
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F B B
Total Delay veh.hrs 5.10 5.10
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Access C - 2045 Scenario 1
Run number 28
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Access C SB None 140 1118 210 574 0.2438
2 Main St EB None 1216 191 1067 1064 1.1431
3 Access C NB None 206 1058 197 606 0.3399
4 Main St WB None 1058 347 917 981 1.0781
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Access C SB None 7.98 7.98 0.86 A A
2 Main St EB None 265.63 265.63 303.66 F F
3 Access C NB None 8.64 8.64 1.37 A A
4 Main St WB None 159.55 159.55 151.37 F F
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Access C - 2045 Scenario 1
Run number 28
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 2620 2620
Capacity veh/hr 3225 3225
Average Delay sec/veh 188.82 188.82
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F F F
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F F F
Total Delay veh.hrs 137.42 137.42
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Access C - 2045 Scenario 2
Run number 31
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Access C SB None 148 695 71 797 0.1856
2 Main St EB None 699 127 716 1097 0.6369
3 Access C NB None 237 749 76 769 0.3081
4 Main St WB None 540 227 759 1045 0.5169
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Access C SB None 5.45 5.45 0.90 A A
2 Main St EB None 9.33 9.33 8.51 A A
3 Access C NB None 6.78 6.78 1.94 A A
4 Main St WB None 7.09 7.09 4.56 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Access C - 2045 Scenario 2
Run number 31
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1624 1624
Capacity veh/hr 3709 3709
Average Delay sec/veh 7.86 7.86
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 3.55 3.55
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Access C - 2045 Scenario 2
Run number 34
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Access C SB None 110 1069 218 600 0.1833
2 Main St EB None 1038 182 996 1068 0.9717
3 Access C NB None 176 974 234 650 0.2708
4 Main St WB None 1027 283 867 1015 1.0119
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Access C SB None 7.08 7.08 0.61 A A
2 Main St EB None 48.57 48.57 37.52 E E
3 Access C NB None 7.30 7.30 1.02 A A
4 Main St WB None 77.25 77.25 60.69 F F
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Access C - 2045 Scenario 2
Run number 34
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 2351 2351
Capacity veh/hr 3333 3333
Average Delay sec/veh 56.07 56.07
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F E E
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F F F
Total Delay veh.hrs 36.62 36.62
Page 1 of 2Report dated 29-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Access C (2x1) - 2045 Scenario 1
Run number 41
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Access C SB None 189 902 74 821 0.2303
2 Main St EB None 695 163 928 2218 0.3134
3 Access C NB None 277 789 69 864 0.3207
4 Main St WB None 670 306 760 2065 0.3244
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Access C SB None 5.61 5.61 1.19 A A
2 Main St EB None 2.50 2.50 1.81 A A
3 Access C NB None 6.07 6.07 1.93 A A
4 Main St WB None 2.64 2.64 1.91 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 29-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Access C (2x1) - 2045 Scenario 1
Run number 41
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1831 1831
Capacity veh/hr 5967 5967
Average Delay sec/veh 3.41 3.41
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 1.74 1.74
Page 1 of 2Report dated 29-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Access C (2x1) - 2045 Scenario 1
Run number 44
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Access C SB None 140 1191 237 710 0.1971
2 Main St EB None 1216 198 1133 2180 0.5577
3 Access C NB None 206 1195 219 709 0.2906
4 Main St WB None 1058 370 1031 1997 0.5299
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Access C SB None 6.10 6.10 0.68 A A
2 Main St EB None 4.17 4.17 3.94 A A
3 Access C NB None 6.89 6.89 1.13 A A
4 Main St WB None 4.03 4.03 3.34 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 29-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Access C (2x1) - 2045 Scenario 1
Run number 44
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 2620 2620
Capacity veh/hr 5596 5596
Average Delay sec/veh 4.43 4.43
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 3.22 3.22
Page 1 of 2Report dated 29-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Access C (2x1) - 2045 Scenario 2
Run number 50
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Access C SB None 189 766 71 872 0.2166
2 Main St EB None 699 169 786 2212 0.3161
3 Access C NB None 277 792 76 862 0.3212
4 Main St WB None 540 297 772 2075 0.2603
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Access C SB None 5.15 5.15 1.06 A A
2 Main St EB None 2.48 2.48 1.81 A A
3 Access C NB None 6.08 6.08 1.93 A A
4 Main St WB None 2.45 2.45 1.38 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 29-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Access C (2x1) - 2045 Scenario 2
Run number 50
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1705 1705
Capacity veh/hr 6021 6021
Average Delay sec/veh 3.35 3.35
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 1.59 1.59
Page 1 of 2Report dated 29-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Access C (2x1) - 2045 Scenario 2
Run number 54
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Access C SB None 140 1143 221 729 0.1921
2 Main St EB None 1038 162 1121 2219 0.4678
3 Access C NB None 206 962 238 798 0.2583
4 Main St WB None 1027 337 831 2032 0.5054
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Access C SB None 5.92 5.92 0.66 A A
2 Main St EB None 3.42 3.42 2.75 A A
3 Access C NB None 5.87 5.87 0.95 A A
4 Main St WB None 3.86 3.86 3.10 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 29-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Access C (2x1) - 2045 Scenario 2
Run number 54
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 2411 2411
Capacity veh/hr 5777 5777
Average Delay sec/veh 3.96 3.96
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 2.65 2.65
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Lake & Main - Opening Year (2030) No-Build
Run number 14
Project: Main Street Northwest2030 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2030 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Main St EB None 388 480 270 888 0.4371
2 Lake Dr NB None 224 335 533 915 0.2448
3 Main St WB None 398 257 302 988 0.4027
4 Lake Dr SB None 327 423 232 838 0.3901
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Main St EB None 6.77 6.77 2.40 A A
2 Lake Dr NB None 4.77 4.77 0.92 A A
3 Main St WB None 5.65 5.65 1.98 A A
4 Lake Dr SB None 6.15 6.15 1.80 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Lake & Main - Opening Year (2030) No-Build
Run number 14
Project: Main Street Northwest2030 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2030 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1337 1337
Capacity veh/hr 3629 3629
Average Delay sec/veh 5.95 5.95
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 2.21 2.21
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Lake & Main - Opening Year (2030) No-Build
Run number 17
Project: Main Street Northwest2030 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2030 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Main St EB None 438 395 525 958 0.4572
2 Lake Dr NB None 686 374 459 951 0.7212
3 Main St WB None 492 594 466 837 0.5879
4 Lake Dr SB None 323 597 489 851 0.3795
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Main St EB None 6.60 6.60 2.27 A A
2 Lake Dr NB None 11.96 11.96 6.50 B B
3 Main St WB None 9.57 9.57 3.76 A A
4 Lake Dr SB None 6.53 6.53 1.67 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Lake & Main - Opening Year (2030) No-Build
Run number 17
Project: Main Street Northwest2030 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2030 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1939 1939
Capacity veh/hr 3597 3597
Average Delay sec/veh 9.24 9.24
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 4.98 4.98
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Lake & Main - Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1
Run number 28
Project: Main Street Northwest2030 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2030 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Main St EB None 560 480 335 888 0.6308
2 Lake Dr NB None 267 393 647 887 0.3010
3 Main St WB None 409 329 331 951 0.4299
4 Lake Dr SB None 338 477 261 812 0.4161
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Main St EB None 10.12 10.12 5.59 B B
2 Lake Dr NB None 5.29 5.29 1.23 A A
3 Main St WB None 6.13 6.13 2.24 A A
4 Lake Dr SB None 6.60 6.60 2.02 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Lake & Main - Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1
Run number 28
Project: Main Street Northwest2030 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2030 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1574 1574
Capacity veh/hr 3538 3538
Average Delay sec/veh 7.51 7.51
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 3.28 3.28
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Lake & Main - Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1
Run number 32
Project: Main Street Northwest2030 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2030 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Main St EB None 571 395 733 958 0.5959
2 Lake Dr NB None 825 418 548 929 0.8882
3 Main St WB None 527 753 487 755 0.6980
4 Lake Dr SB None 358 770 510 760 0.4709
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Main St EB None 8.72 8.72 3.92 A A
2 Lake Dr NB None 25.27 25.27 16.68 D D
3 Main St WB None 13.98 13.98 5.99 B B
4 Lake Dr SB None 8.50 8.50 2.43 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Lake & Main - Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1
Run number 32
Project: Main Street Northwest2030 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2030 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 2281 2281
Capacity veh/hr 3402 3402
Average Delay sec/veh 15.89 15.89
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F B B
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F C C
Total Delay veh.hrs 10.07 10.07
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Lake & Main - Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2
Run number 36
Project: Main Street Northwest2030 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2030 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Main St EB None 560 480 335 888 0.6308
2 Lake Dr NB None 267 393 647 887 0.3010
3 Main St WB None 409 329 331 951 0.4299
4 Lake Dr SB None 338 477 261 812 0.4161
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Main St EB None 10.12 10.12 5.59 B B
2 Lake Dr NB None 5.29 5.29 1.23 A A
3 Main St WB None 6.13 6.13 2.24 A A
4 Lake Dr SB None 6.60 6.60 2.02 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Lake & Main - Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2
Run number 36
Project: Main Street Northwest2030 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2030 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1574 1574
Capacity veh/hr 3538 3538
Average Delay sec/veh 7.51 7.51
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 3.28 3.28
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Lake & Main - Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2
Run number 38
Project: Main Street Northwest2030 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2030 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Main St EB None 571 395 733 958 0.5959
2 Lake Dr NB None 825 418 548 929 0.8882
3 Main St WB None 527 753 487 755 0.6980
4 Lake Dr SB None 358 770 510 760 0.4709
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Main St EB None 8.72 8.72 3.92 A A
2 Lake Dr NB None 25.27 25.27 16.68 D D
3 Main St WB None 13.98 13.98 5.99 B B
4 Lake Dr SB None 8.50 8.50 2.43 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Lake & Main - Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2
Run number 38
Project: Main Street Northwest2030 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2030 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 2281 2281
Capacity veh/hr 3402 3402
Average Delay sec/veh 15.89 15.89
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F B B
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F C C
Total Delay veh.hrs 10.07 10.07
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Lake & Main - Design Year (2045) No-Build
Run number 20
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Main St EB None 464 574 323 838 0.5537
2 Lake Dr NB None 267 400 638 883 0.3022
3 Main St WB None 476 306 361 963 0.4942
4 Lake Dr SB None 391 506 276 799 0.4894
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Main St EB None 8.97 8.97 4.03 A A
2 Lake Dr NB None 5.32 5.32 1.24 A A
3 Main St WB None 6.77 6.77 2.92 A A
4 Lake Dr SB None 7.55 7.55 2.73 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Lake & Main - Design Year (2045) No-Build
Run number 20
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1598 1598
Capacity veh/hr 3484 3484
Average Delay sec/veh 7.36 7.36
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 3.27 3.27
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Lake & Main - Design Year (2045) No-Build
Run number 25
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Main St EB None 523 473 627 917 0.5701
2 Lake Dr NB None 820 447 549 914 0.8971
3 Main St WB None 590 707 557 779 0.7576
4 Lake Dr SB None 386 714 583 790 0.4888
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Main St EB None 8.59 8.59 3.55 A A
2 Lake Dr NB None 27.15 27.15 17.85 D D
3 Main St WB None 16.40 16.40 7.88 C C
4 Lake Dr SB None 8.46 8.46 2.60 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Lake & Main - Design Year (2045) No-Build
Run number 25
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 2319 2319
Capacity veh/hr 3400 3400
Average Delay sec/veh 17.12 17.12
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F B B
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F C C
Total Delay veh.hrs 11.03 11.03
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Lake & Main - Deisgn Year (2045) Scenario 1
Run number 41
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Main St EB None 829 618 456 814 1.0179
2 Lake Dr NB None 373 497 917 836 0.4461
3 Main St WB None 503 448 422 890 0.5654
4 Lake Dr SB None 451 623 329 743 0.6070
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Main St EB None 98.60 98.60 80.92 F F
2 Lake Dr NB None 6.89 6.89 2.21 A A
3 Main St WB None 8.41 8.41 3.90 A A
4 Lake Dr SB None 10.20 10.20 4.54 B B
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Lake & Main - Deisgn Year (2045) Scenario 1
Run number 41
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 2156 2156
Capacity veh/hr 3283 3283
Average Delay sec/veh 43.20 43.20
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F D D
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F E E
Total Delay veh.hrs 25.87 25.87
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Lake & Main - Deisgn Year (2045) Scenario 1
Run number 44
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Main St EB None 793 502 933 902 0.8788
2 Lake Dr NB None 1158 531 761 871 1.3295
3 Main St WB None 674 867 536 697 0.9673
4 Lake Dr SB None 469 967 566 657 0.7140
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Main St EB None 26.04 26.04 16.53 D D
2 Lake Dr NB None 546.24 546.24 597.75 F F
3 Main St WB None 57.74 57.74 28.40 F F
4 Lake Dr SB None 17.28 17.28 6.44 C C
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Lake & Main - Deisgn Year (2045) Scenario 1
Run number 44
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 3094 3094
Capacity veh/hr 3127 3127
Average Delay sec/veh 226.31 226.31
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F F F
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F F F
Total Delay veh.hrs 194.51 194.51
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Lake & Main - Deisgn Year (2045) Scenario 2
Run number 47
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Main St EB None 836 619 458 814 1.0272
2 Lake Dr NB None 375 497 921 836 0.4485
3 Main St WB None 503 451 421 888 0.5661
4 Lake Dr SB None 452 625 329 742 0.6092
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Main St EB None 105.68 105.68 86.03 F F
2 Lake Dr NB None 6.91 6.91 2.23 A A
3 Main St WB None 8.44 8.44 3.91 A A
4 Lake Dr SB None 10.27 10.27 4.58 B B
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Lake & Main - Deisgn Year (2045) Scenario 2
Run number 47
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 2166 2166
Capacity veh/hr 3281 3281
Average Delay sec/veh 46.09 46.09
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F D D
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F E E
Total Delay veh.hrs 27.73 27.73
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Lake & Main - Deisgn Year (2045) Scenario 2
Run number 50
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Main St EB None 799 503 935 902 0.8860
2 Lake Dr NB None 1160 533 766 870 1.3332
3 Main St WB None 675 867 536 696 0.9692
4 Lake Dr SB None 470 968 566 656 0.7163
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Main St EB None 27.25 27.25 17.41 D D
2 Lake Dr NB None 551.70 551.70 604.70 F F
3 Main St WB None 58.67 58.67 28.87 F F
4 Lake Dr SB None 17.42 17.42 6.51 C C
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Lake & Main - Deisgn Year (2045) Scenario 2
Run number 50
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 3104 3104
Capacity veh/hr 3125 3125
Average Delay sec/veh 228.59 228.59
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F F F
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F F F
Total Delay veh.hrs 197.09 197.09
Page 1 of 2Report dated 29-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Lake & Main - Expanded Roundabout S1
Run number 33
Project: Lino Lakes NW / Main Street Development2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Main St EB Yield 504 325 618 618 456 814 752 0.6189 0.4321
2 Lake Dr NB None 372 517 929 1251 0.2973
3 Main St WB None 503 456 433 1047 0.4806
4 Lake Dr SB None 451 623 336 825 0.5466
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Main St EB Yield 17.18 9.79 14.28 16.55 4.83 C A B
2 Lake Dr NB None 6.11 6.11 2.85 A A
3 Main St WB None 7.82 7.82 5.31 A A
4 Lake Dr SB None 9.54 9.54 6.46 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 29-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Lake & Main - Expanded Roundabout S1
Run number 33
Project: Lino Lakes NW / Main Street Development2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1830 325 2155
Capacity veh/hr 3937 752 4689
Average Delay sec/veh 10.48 9.79 10.37
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F B A B
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F B A B
Total Delay veh.hrs 5.33 0.88 6.21
Page 1 of 2Report dated 29-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Lake & Main - Expanded Roundabout S1
Run number 36
Project: Lino Lakes NW / Main Street Development2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Main St EB Yield 503 290 504 504 1047 901 829 0.5582 0.3498
2 Lake Dr NB None 1158 533 764 1315 0.8803
3 Main St WB None 674 1076 611 810 0.8317
4 Lake Dr SB None 469 1083 665 754 0.6221
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Main St EB Yield 8.52 6.61 7.82 3.39 1.50 A A A
2 Lake Dr NB None 27.65 27.65 24.68 D D
3 Main St WB None 24.79 24.79 13.53 C C
4 Lake Dr SB None 11.74 11.74 4.45 B B
Page 2 of 2Report dated 29-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Lake & Main - Expanded Roundabout S1
Run number 36
Project: Lino Lakes NW / Main Street Development2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 2804 290 3094
Capacity veh/hr 3781 829 4610
Average Delay sec/veh 20.87 6.61 19.53
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F C A B
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F C A C
Total Delay veh.hrs 16.25 0.53 16.79
Page 1 of 2Report dated 29-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Lake & Main - Expanded Roundabout S2
Run number 42
Project: Lino Lakes NW / Main Street Development2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Main St EB Yield 506 330 619 619 458 814 752 0.6218 0.4390
2 Lake Dr NB None 375 519 935 1249 0.3001
3 Main St WB None 503 459 435 1045 0.4811
4 Lake Dr SB None 452 625 337 824 0.5483
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Main St EB Yield 17.50 9.99 14.53 17.01 5.05 C A B
2 Lake Dr NB None 6.18 6.18 2.91 A A
3 Main St WB None 7.85 7.85 5.34 A A
4 Lake Dr SB None 9.60 9.60 6.53 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 29-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Lake & Main - Expanded Roundabout S2
Run number 42
Project: Lino Lakes NW / Main Street Development2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1836 330 2166
Capacity veh/hr 3933 752 4685
Average Delay sec/veh 10.60 9.99 10.51
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F B A B
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F B A B
Total Delay veh.hrs 5.40 0.92 6.32
Page 1 of 2Report dated 29-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Lake & Main - Expanded Roundabout S2
Run number 45
Project: Lino Lakes NW / Main Street Development2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Main St EB Yield 505 294 505 505 1050 901 828 0.5608 0.3549
2 Lake Dr NB None 1160 535 769 1314 0.8831
3 Main St WB None 675 1079 612 809 0.8343
4 Lake Dr SB None 470 1086 666 753 0.6244
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Main St EB Yield 8.57 6.67 7.87 3.42 1.54 A A A
2 Lake Dr NB None 28.18 28.18 25.19 D D
3 Main St WB None 25.11 25.11 13.72 D D
4 Lake Dr SB None 11.82 11.82 4.49 B B
Page 2 of 2Report dated 29-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Lake & Main - Expanded Roundabout S2
Run number 45
Project: Lino Lakes NW / Main Street Development2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 2810 294 3104
Capacity veh/hr 3776 828 4604
Average Delay sec/veh 21.18 6.67 19.81
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F C A B
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F C A C
Total Delay veh.hrs 16.53 0.54 17.08
Page 1 of 2Report dated 24-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Sunset Ave - Existing (2025) Conditions
Run number 39
Project: Lino Lakes NW / Main Street Development2025 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2025 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Sunset Ave EB None 530 50 280 1168 0.4539
2 Main St NB None 111 311 269 970 0.1145
3 Main St WB None 250 80 342 1160 0.2156
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Sunset Ave EB None 5.64 5.64 3.69 A A
2 Main St NB None 3.93 3.93 0.48 A A
3 Main St WB None 3.83 3.83 1.04 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 24-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Sunset Ave - Existing (2025) Conditions
Run number 39
Project: Lino Lakes NW / Main Street Development2025 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2025 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 891 891
Capacity veh/hr 3297 3297
Average Delay sec/veh 4.92 4.92
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 1.22 1.22
Page 1 of 2Report dated 24-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Sunset Ave - Existing (2025) Conditions
Run number 42
Project: Lino Lakes NW / Main Street Development2025 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2025 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Sunset Ave EB None 510 39 583 1173 0.4346
2 Main St NB None 193 362 187 1000 0.1930
3 Main St WB None 485 137 418 1130 0.4292
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Sunset Ave EB None 5.19 5.19 2.05 A A
2 Main St NB None 4.32 4.32 0.65 A A
3 Main St WB None 5.34 5.34 2.01 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 24-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Sunset Ave - Existing (2025) Conditions
Run number 42
Project: Lino Lakes NW / Main Street Development2025 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2025 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1188 1188
Capacity veh/hr 3304 3304
Average Delay sec/veh 5.11 5.11
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 1.69 1.69
Page 1 of 2Report dated 24-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Sunset Ave - Opening Year (2030) No-Build
Run number 49
Project: Main Street Northwest2030 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2030 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Sunset Ave EB None 564 92 298 1145 0.4927
2 Main St NB None 156 331 325 960 0.1626
3 Main St WB None 267 123 364 1136 0.2351
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Sunset Ave EB None 6.32 6.32 4.59 A A
2 Main St NB None 4.21 4.21 0.73 A A
3 Main St WB None 4.02 4.02 1.18 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 24-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Sunset Ave - Opening Year (2030) No-Build
Run number 49
Project: Main Street Northwest2030 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2030 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 987 987
Capacity veh/hr 3240 3240
Average Delay sec/veh 5.36 5.36
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 1.47 1.47
Page 1 of 2Report dated 24-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Sunset Ave - Opening Year (2030) No-Build
Run number 53
Project: Main Street Northwest2030 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2030 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Sunset Ave EB None 543 55 620 1165 0.4661
2 Main St NB None 219 385 213 988 0.2217
3 Main St WB None 516 159 445 1118 0.4614
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Sunset Ave EB None 5.52 5.52 2.32 A A
2 Main St NB None 4.53 4.53 0.77 A A
3 Main St WB None 5.70 5.70 2.28 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 24-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Sunset Ave - Opening Year (2030) No-Build
Run number 53
Project: Main Street Northwest2030 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2030 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1278 1278
Capacity veh/hr 3271 3271
Average Delay sec/veh 5.43 5.43
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 1.93 1.93
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Sunset Avenue 2030 Scenario 1
Run number 88
Project: Lino Lakes Northwest / Main Street Development2030 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2030 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Sunset Ave SB None 63 697 29 819 0.0769
2 Main St EB None 645 263 498 1051 0.6136
3 Sunset Ave NB None 296 421 485 980 0.3021
4 Main St WB None 470 257 460 1005 0.4675
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Sunset Ave SB None 4.65 4.65 0.31 A A
2 Main St EB None 9.25 9.25 7.90 A A
3 Sunset Ave NB None 5.13 5.13 1.66 A A
4 Main St WB None 6.27 6.27 3.37 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Sunset Avenue 2030 Scenario 1
Run number 88
Project: Lino Lakes Northwest / Main Street Development2030 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2030 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1474 1474
Capacity veh/hr 3855 3855
Average Delay sec/veh 7.27 7.27
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 2.98 2.98
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Sunset Avenue 2030 Scenario 1
Run number 91
Project: Lino Lakes Northwest / Main Street Development2030 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2030 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Sunset Ave SB None 49 915 84 711 0.0689
2 Main St EB None 794 189 775 1093 0.7266
3 Sunset Ave NB None 392 612 371 879 0.4462
4 Main St WB None 695 304 700 1040 0.6683
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Sunset Ave SB None 5.27 5.27 0.23 A A
2 Main St EB None 11.11 11.11 8.42 B B
3 Sunset Ave NB None 7.07 7.07 2.51 A A
4 Main St WB None 9.75 9.75 6.38 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Sunset Avenue 2030 Scenario 1
Run number 91
Project: Lino Lakes Northwest / Main Street Development2030 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2030 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1930 1930
Capacity veh/hr 3723 3723
Average Delay sec/veh 9.65 9.65
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 5.17 5.17
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Sunset Avenue 2030 Scenario 2
Run number 97
Project: Lino Lakes Northwest / Main Street Development2030 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2030 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Sunset Ave SB None 206 601 82 871 0.2364
2 Main St EB None 644 309 498 1027 0.6270
3 Sunset Ave NB None 288 466 485 956 0.3012
4 Main St WB None 402 281 473 993 0.4047
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Sunset Ave SB None 5.31 5.31 1.21 A A
2 Main St EB None 10.00 10.00 8.81 A A
3 Sunset Ave NB None 5.27 5.27 1.67 A A
4 Main St WB None 5.67 5.67 2.53 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Sunset Avenue 2030 Scenario 2
Run number 97
Project: Lino Lakes Northwest / Main Street Development2030 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2030 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1540 1540
Capacity veh/hr 3848 3848
Average Delay sec/veh 7.36 7.36
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 3.15 3.15
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Sunset Avenue 2030 Scenario 2
Run number 100
Project: Lino Lakes Northwest / Main Street Development2030 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2030 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Sunset Ave SB None 160 840 259 751 0.2131
2 Main St EB None 795 224 776 1074 0.7402
3 Sunset Ave NB None 397 648 371 859 0.4619
4 Main St WB None 685 414 631 981 0.6985
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Sunset Ave SB None 5.88 5.88 0.84 A A
2 Main St EB None 11.87 11.87 9.13 B B
3 Sunset Ave NB None 7.43 7.43 2.70 A A
4 Main St WB None 11.34 11.34 7.57 B B
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Sunset Avenue 2030 Scenario 2
Run number 100
Project: Lino Lakes Northwest / Main Street Development2030 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2030 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 2037 2037
Capacity veh/hr 3665 3665
Average Delay sec/veh 10.36 10.36
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F B B
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F B B
Total Delay veh.hrs 5.86 5.86
Page 1 of 2Report dated 24-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Sunset Ave - Design Year (2045) No-Build
Run number 56
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Sunset Ave EB None 674 95 669 1143 0.5896
2 Main St NB None 187 395 374 927 0.2017
3 Main St WB None 617 147 435 1122 0.5497
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Sunset Ave EB None 8.37 8.37 8.10 A A
2 Main St NB None 4.60 4.60 0.99 A A
3 Main St WB None 7.60 7.60 6.53 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 24-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Sunset Ave - Design Year (2045) No-Build
Run number 56
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1478 1478
Capacity veh/hr 3193 3193
Average Delay sec/veh 7.57 7.57
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 3.11 3.11
Page 1 of 2Report dated 24-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Sunset Ave - Design Year (2045) No-Build
Run number 59
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Sunset Ave EB None 648 66 741 1159 0.5590
2 Main St NB None 262 460 254 948 0.2765
3 Main St WB None 617 190 532 1101 0.5601
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Sunset Ave EB None 6.65 6.65 3.34 A A
2 Main St NB None 5.07 5.07 1.04 A A
3 Main St WB None 7.01 7.01 3.37 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 24-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Sunset Ave - Design Year (2045) No-Build
Run number 59
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1527 1527
Capacity veh/hr 3208 3208
Average Delay sec/veh 6.53 6.53
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 2.77 2.77
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Sunset Avenue 2045 Scenario 1
Run number 108
Project: Lino Lakes Northwest / Main Street Development2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Sunset Ave SB None 73 1213 33 540 0.1352
2 Main St EB None 866 437 849 956 0.9062
3 Sunset Ave NB None 407 597 701 887 0.4590
4 Main St WB None 957 315 689 976 0.9806
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Sunset Ave SB None 7.42 7.42 0.57 A A
2 Main St EB None 54.22 54.22 78.60 F F
3 Sunset Ave NB None 7.38 7.38 3.44 A A
4 Main St WB None 84.51 84.51 116.71 F F
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Sunset Avenue 2045 Scenario 1
Run number 108
Project: Lino Lakes Northwest / Main Street Development2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 2303 2303
Capacity veh/hr 3358 3358
Average Delay sec/veh 57.05 57.05
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F E E
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F F F
Total Delay veh.hrs 36.49 36.49
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Sunset Avenue 2045 Scenario 1
Run number 111
Project: Lino Lakes Northwest / Main Street Development2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Sunset Ave SB None 55 1280 83 519 0.1061
2 Main St EB None 1247 295 1040 1036 1.2039
3 Sunset Ave NB None 406 859 472 747 0.5436
4 Main St WB None 1116 350 915 1015 1.0992
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Sunset Ave SB None 7.46 7.46 0.34 A A
2 Main St EB None 320.99 320.99 403.45 F F
3 Sunset Ave NB None 9.93 9.93 3.49 A A
4 Main St WB None 176.67 176.67 189.61 F F
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Sunset Avenue 2045 Scenario 1
Run number 111
Project: Lino Lakes Northwest / Main Street Development2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 2824 2824
Capacity veh/hr 3316 3316
Average Delay sec/veh 213.13 213.13
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F F F
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F F F
Total Delay veh.hrs 167.19 167.19
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Sunset Avenue 2045 Scenario 2
Run number 114
Project: Lino Lakes Northwest / Main Street Development2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Sunset Ave SB None 327 1114 106 595 0.5496
2 Main St EB None 869 567 873 886 0.9806
3 Sunset Ave NB None 496 643 763 862 0.5755
4 Main St WB None 749 475 663 894 0.8378
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Sunset Ave SB None 16.41 16.41 8.68 C C
2 Main St EB None 119.57 119.57 129.66 F F
3 Sunset Ave NB None 9.68 9.68 5.79 A A
4 Main St WB None 31.17 31.17 45.44 D D
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Sunset Avenue 2045 Scenario 2
Run number 114
Project: Lino Lakes Northwest / Main Street Development2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 2441 2441
Capacity veh/hr 3237 3237
Average Delay sec/veh 56.30 56.30
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F E E
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F F F
Total Delay veh.hrs 38.17 38.17
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Sunset Avenue 2045 Scenario 2
Run number 118
Project: Lino Lakes Northwest / Main Street Development2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Sunset Ave SB None 242 1193 288 564 0.4289
2 Main St EB None 1251 386 1049 987 1.2671
3 Sunset Ave NB None 659 865 509 744 0.8858
4 Main St WB None 978 606 914 877 1.1155
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Sunset Ave SB None 10.55 10.55 2.21 B B
2 Main St EB None 411.32 411.32 517.18 F F
3 Sunset Ave NB None 33.04 33.04 21.65 D D
4 Main St WB None 199.92 199.92 192.23 F F
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main Street & Sunset Avenue 2045 Scenario 2
Run number 118
Project: Lino Lakes Northwest / Main Street Development2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 3130 3130
Capacity veh/hr 3172 3172
Average Delay sec/veh 234.64 234.64
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F F F
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F F F
Total Delay veh.hrs 204.00 204.00
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main & Sunset 2x1 Roundabout - Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 1
Run number 55
Project: Lino Lakes Northwest / Main Street Development2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Sunset Ave SB None 73 1238 33 720 0.1014
2 Main St EB None 866 445 867 1337 0.6477
3 Sunset Ave NB None 407 600 711 966 0.4212
4 Main St WB None 957 315 692 1554 0.6157
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Sunset Ave SB None 5.49 5.49 0.45 A A
2 Main St EB None 12.04 12.04 14.84 B B
3 Sunset Ave NB None 6.38 6.38 3.04 A A
4 Main St WB None 9.17 9.17 11.69 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main & Sunset 2x1 Roundabout - Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 1
Run number 55
Project: Lino Lakes Northwest / Main Street Development2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 2303 2303
Capacity veh/hr 4578 4578
Average Delay sec/veh 9.64 9.64
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 6.17 6.17
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main & Sunset 2x1 Roundabout - Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 1
Run number 58
Project: Lino Lakes Northwest / Main Street Development2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Sunset Ave SB None 55 1378 93 666 0.0825
2 Main St EB None 1247 315 1119 1542 0.8087
3 Sunset Ave NB None 606 1029 531 807 0.7508
4 Main St WB None 1116 356 1277 1515 0.7368
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Sunset Ave SB None 5.70 5.70 0.28 A A
2 Main St EB None 13.82 13.82 17.91 B B
3 Sunset Ave NB None 16.70 16.70 10.97 C C
4 Main St WB None 10.38 10.38 11.37 B B
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main & Sunset 2x1 Roundabout - Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 1
Run number 58
Project: Lino Lakes Northwest / Main Street Development2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 3024 3024
Capacity veh/hr 4530 4530
Average Delay sec/veh 12.98 12.98
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F B B
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F B B
Total Delay veh.hrs 10.90 10.90
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main & Sunset 2x1 Roundabout - Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 2
Run number 53
Project: Lino Lakes Northwest / Main Street Development2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Sunset Ave SB None 327 1118 109 766 0.4268
2 Main St EB None 869 568 876 1225 0.7095
3 Sunset Ave NB None 496 662 774 942 0.5265
4 Main St WB None 750 478 680 1395 0.5375
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Sunset Ave SB None 8.58 8.58 3.75 A A
2 Main St EB None 18.70 18.70 27.32 C C
3 Sunset Ave NB None 8.24 8.24 5.23 A A
4 Main St WB None 9.19 9.19 8.95 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main & Sunset 2x1 Roundabout - Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 2
Run number 53
Project: Lino Lakes Northwest / Main Street Development2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 2442 2442
Capacity veh/hr 4328 4328
Average Delay sec/veh 12.30 12.30
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F B B
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F B B
Total Delay veh.hrs 8.34 8.34
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main & Sunset 2x1 Roundabout - Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 2
Run number 50
Project: Lino Lakes Northwest / Main Street Development2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Sunset Ave SB None 242 1290 331 700 0.3456
2 Main St EB None 1252 407 1125 1453 0.8618
3 Sunset Ave NB None 659 1077 580 789 0.8356
4 Main St WB None 978 645 1088 1235 0.7921
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Sunset Ave SB None 7.54 7.54 1.67 A A
2 Main St EB None 19.81 19.81 28.17 C C
3 Sunset Ave NB None 25.05 25.05 19.18 D D
4 Main St WB None 16.52 16.52 17.54 C C
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Main & Sunset 2x1 Roundabout - Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 2
Run number 50
Project: Lino Lakes Northwest / Main Street Development2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 3131 3131
Capacity veh/hr 4177 4177
Average Delay sec/veh 18.94 18.94
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F B B
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F C C
Total Delay veh.hrs 16.47 16.47
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Sunset & Lilac - 2030 No-Build
Run number 30
Project: Lino Lakes NW/Main Street Development2030 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2030 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Sunset Ave SB None 491 44 179 1077 0.4560
2 Lilac St NB None 139 480 55 901 0.1543
3 Sunset Ave WB None 67 156 463 1081 0.0620
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Sunset Ave SB None 5.66 5.66 3.02 A A
2 Lilac St NB None 4.59 4.59 0.67 A A
3 Sunset Ave WB None 3.42 3.42 0.22 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Sunset & Lilac - 2030 No-Build
Run number 30
Project: Lino Lakes NW/Main Street Development2030 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2030 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 697 697
Capacity veh/hr 3058 3058
Average Delay sec/veh 5.23 5.23
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 1.01 1.01
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Sunset & Lilac - 2030 No-Build
Run number 35
Project: Lino Lakes NW/Main Street Development2030 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2030 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Sunset Ave SB None 260 39 378 1144 0.2273
2 Lilac St NB None 329 246 53 1033 0.3185
3 Sunset Ave WB None 100 317 258 995 0.1005
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Sunset Ave SB None 3.94 3.94 0.81 A A
2 Lilac St NB None 4.92 4.92 1.30 A A
3 Sunset Ave WB None 3.90 3.90 0.31 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Sunset & Lilac - 2030 No-Build
Run number 35
Project: Lino Lakes NW/Main Street Development2030 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2030 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 689 689
Capacity veh/hr 3172 3172
Average Delay sec/veh 4.40 4.40
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 0.84 0.84
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Sunset & Lilac - 2030 Scenario 1
Run number 44
Project: Main Street Northwest2030 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2030 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Sunset Ave SB None 667 44 273 1077 0.6195
2 Lilac St NB None 193 652 59 806 0.2394
3 Sunset Ave WB None 78 239 606 1036 0.0753
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Sunset Ave SB None 8.17 8.17 6.68 A A
2 Lilac St NB None 5.79 5.79 1.27 A A
3 Sunset Ave WB None 3.63 3.63 0.28 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Sunset & Lilac - 2030 Scenario 1
Run number 44
Project: Main Street Northwest2030 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2030 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 938 938
Capacity veh/hr 2919 2919
Average Delay sec/veh 7.31 7.31
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 1.90 1.90
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Sunset & Lilac - 2030 Scenario 1
Run number 47
Project: Main Street Northwest2030 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2030 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Sunset Ave SB None 407 39 609 1144 0.3559
2 Lilac St NB None 503 379 67 962 0.5228
3 Sunset Ave WB None 135 513 369 891 0.1516
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Sunset Ave SB None 4.69 4.69 1.53 A A
2 Lilac St NB None 7.42 7.42 3.09 A A
3 Sunset Ave WB None 4.61 4.61 0.50 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Sunset & Lilac - 2030 Scenario 1
Run number 47
Project: Main Street Northwest2030 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2030 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1045 1045
Capacity veh/hr 2996 2996
Average Delay sec/veh 6.00 6.00
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 1.74 1.74
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Sunset & Lilac - 2030 Scenario 2
Run number 50
Project: Main Street Northwest2030 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2030 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Sunset Ave SB None 667 44 273 1077 0.6195
2 Lilac St NB None 193 652 59 806 0.2394
3 Sunset Ave WB None 78 239 606 1036 0.0753
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Sunset Ave SB None 8.17 8.17 6.68 A A
2 Lilac St NB None 5.79 5.79 1.27 A A
3 Sunset Ave WB None 3.63 3.63 0.28 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Sunset & Lilac - 2030 Scenario 2
Run number 50
Project: Main Street Northwest2030 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2030 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 938 938
Capacity veh/hr 2919 2919
Average Delay sec/veh 7.31 7.31
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 1.90 1.90
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Sunset & Lilac - 2030 Scenario 2
Run number 53
Project: Main Street Northwest2030 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2030 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Sunset Ave SB None 407 39 609 1144 0.3559
2 Lilac St NB None 503 379 67 962 0.5228
3 Sunset Ave WB None 135 513 369 891 0.1516
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Sunset Ave SB None 4.69 4.69 1.53 A A
2 Lilac St NB None 7.42 7.42 3.09 A A
3 Sunset Ave WB None 4.61 4.61 0.50 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Sunset & Lilac - 2030 Scenario 2
Run number 53
Project: Main Street Northwest2030 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2030 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1045 1045
Capacity veh/hr 2996 2996
Average Delay sec/veh 6.00 6.00
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 1.74 1.74
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Sunset & Lilac - 2045 No-Build
Run number 38
Project: Lino Lakes NW/Main Street Development2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Sunset Ave SB None 312 53 407 1072 0.2910
2 Lilac St NB None 394 295 70 1002 0.3931
3 Sunset Ave WB None 80 380 309 961 0.0833
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Sunset Ave SB None 4.38 4.38 1.38 A A
2 Lilac St NB None 5.79 5.79 2.55 A A
3 Sunset Ave WB None 3.95 3.95 0.32 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Sunset & Lilac - 2045 No-Build
Run number 38
Project: Lino Lakes NW/Main Street Development2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 786 786
Capacity veh/hr 3035 3035
Average Delay sec/veh 5.05 5.05
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 1.10 1.10
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Sunset & Lilac - 2045 No-Build
Run number 41
Project: Lino Lakes NW/Main Street Development2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Sunset Ave SB None 312 46 453 1140 0.2737
2 Lilac St NB None 394 295 63 1007 0.3913
3 Sunset Ave WB None 119 380 309 962 0.1238
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Sunset Ave SB None 4.19 4.19 1.04 A A
2 Lilac St NB None 5.62 5.62 1.80 A A
3 Sunset Ave WB None 4.14 4.14 0.39 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Sunset & Lilac - 2045 No-Build
Run number 41
Project: Lino Lakes NW/Main Street Development2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 825 825
Capacity veh/hr 3108 3108
Average Delay sec/veh 4.87 4.87
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 1.12 1.12
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Sunset & Lilac - 2045 Scenario 1
Run number 68
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Sunset Ave SB None 927 126 307 1076 0.8615
2 Lilac St NB None 299 106 931 1107 0.2701
3 Sunset Ave WB None 169 264 141 1024 0.1651
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Sunset Ave SB None 30.81 30.81 54.09 D D
2 Lilac St NB None 4.29 4.29 1.30 A A
3 Sunset Ave WB None 4.07 4.07 0.69 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Sunset & Lilac - 2045 Scenario 1
Run number 68
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1395 1395
Capacity veh/hr 3207 3207
Average Delay sec/veh 21.89 21.89
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F C C
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F C C
Total Delay veh.hrs 8.48 8.48
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Sunset & Lilac - 2045 Scenario 1
Run number 71
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Sunset Ave SB None 577 100 822 1111 0.5193
2 Lilac St NB None 815 119 558 1101 0.7403
3 Sunset Ave WB None 224 698 236 792 0.2829
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Sunset Ave SB None 6.39 6.39 2.99 A A
2 Lilac St NB None 11.42 11.42 7.85 B B
3 Sunset Ave WB None 6.10 6.10 1.13 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Sunset & Lilac - 2045 Scenario 1
Run number 71
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1616 1616
Capacity veh/hr 3004 3004
Average Delay sec/veh 8.88 8.88
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 3.99 3.99
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Sunset & Lilac - 2045 Scenario 2
Run number 74
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Sunset Ave SB None 992 127 332 1075 0.9224
2 Lilac St NB None 302 165 937 1075 0.2808
3 Sunset Ave WB None 192 267 201 1022 0.1879
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Sunset Ave SB None 52.22 52.22 88.29 F F
2 Lilac St NB None 4.48 4.48 1.37 A A
3 Sunset Ave WB None 4.19 4.19 0.81 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Sunset & Lilac - 2045 Scenario 2
Run number 74
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1486 1486
Capacity veh/hr 3173 3173
Average Delay sec/veh 36.31 36.31
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F D D
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F E E
Total Delay veh.hrs 14.99 14.99
Page 1 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Sunset & Lilac - 2045 Scenario 2
Run number 77
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 Sunset Ave SB None 627 101 893 1111 0.5646
2 Lilac St NB None 819 164 564 1077 0.7605
3 Sunset Ave WB None 293 701 282 790 0.3707
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 Sunset Ave SB None 7.02 7.02 3.59 A A
2 Lilac St NB None 12.55 12.55 8.76 B B
3 Sunset Ave WB None 6.93 6.93 1.70 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 25-Apr-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Sunset & Lilac - 2045 Scenario 2
Run number 77
Project: Main Street Northwest2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1739 1739
Capacity veh/hr 2978 2978
Average Delay sec/veh 9.61 9.61
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 4.64 4.64
Northwest Main – Lino Lakes, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ June 2025 40
Appendix C:
Turn Lane Warrant Sheets
Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
INPUT
Value
55
411
56
OUTPUT
Value
18
right-turn bay for a 2-lane roadway:
Add right-turn bay.
Roadway geometry:
Variable
Variable
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road
Major-road speed, mph:
Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h:
Right-turn volume, veh/h:
Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h:
2-lane roadw ay
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600Right-Turn Volume, veh/h
Major-Road Volume (one direction), veh/h
Add right - turn bay
Access A - 2030 Scenario 1 NBR Warrant
Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
INPUT
Value
50
699
56
OUTPUT
Value
16
right-turn bay for a 2-lane roadway:
Add right-turn bay.
Roadway geometry:
Variable
Variable
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road
Major-road speed, mph:
Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h:
Right-turn volume, veh/h:
Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h:
2-lane roadw ay
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600Right-Turn Volume, veh/h
Major-Road Volume (one direction), veh/h
Add right - turn bay
Access B - 2030 Scenario 1 EBR Warrant
Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
INPUT
Value
50
737
70
OUTPUT
Value
15
right-turn bay for a 2-lane roadway:
Add right-turn bay.
Roadway geometry:
Variable
Variable
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road
Major-road speed, mph:
Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h:
Right-turn volume, veh/h:
Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h:
2-lane roadw ay
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600Right-Turn Volume, veh/h
Major-Road Volume (one direction), veh/h
Add right - turn bay
Access B - 2030 Scenario 1 WBR Warrant
Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
INPUT
Value
50
631
49
OUTPUT
Value
18
right-turn bay for a 2-lane roadway:
Add right-turn bay.
Roadway geometry:
Variable
Variable
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road
Major-road speed, mph:
Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h:
Right-turn volume, veh/h:
Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h:
2-lane roadw ay
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600Right-Turn Volume, veh/h
Major-Road Volume (one direction), veh/h
Add right - turn bay
Access D - 2030 Scenario 1 EBR Warrant
Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
INPUT
Value
50
1015
51
OUTPUT
Value
10
right-turn bay for a 2-lane roadway:
Add right-turn bay.
Roadway geometry:
Variable
Variable
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road
Major-road speed, mph:
Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h:
Right-turn volume, veh/h:
Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h:
2-lane roadw ay
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600Right-Turn Volume, veh/h
Major-Road Volume (one direction), veh/h
Add right - turn bay
Access D - 2045 Scenario 1 WBR Warrant
Figure 2 - 5. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
2-lane roadway (English)
INPUT
Value
42
26%
262
208
OUTPUT
Value
302
CALIBRATION CONSTANTS
Value
3.0
5.0
1.9
Critical headway, s:
Average time for left-turn vehicle to clear the advancing lane, s:
Limiting advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay:
Left-turn treatment NOT warranted.
Average time for making left-turn, s:
Advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Opposing volume (VO), veh/h:
Variable
Variable
Variable
85th percentile speed, mph:
Percent of left-turns in advancing volume (VA), %:
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700Opposing Volume (VO), veh/h
Advancing Volume (VA), veh/h
Left-turn treatment
warranted.
Left-turn
treatment notwarranted.
Access E - 2045 Scenario 1 NBL Warrant
Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
INPUT
Value
50
208
101
OUTPUT
Value
70
right-turn bay for a 2-lane roadway:
Add right-turn bay.
Roadway geometry:
Variable
Variable
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road
Major-road speed, mph:
Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h:
Right-turn volume, veh/h:
Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h:
2-lane roadw ay
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600Right-Turn Volume, veh/h
Major-Road Volume (one direction), veh/h
Add right - turn bay
Access E - 2045 Scenario 1 SBR Warrant
Figure 2 - 5. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
2-lane roadway (English)
INPUT
Value
45
30%
508
240
OUTPUT
Value
268
CALIBRATION CONSTANTS
Value
3.0
5.0
1.9
Advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Opposing volume (VO), veh/h:
Variable
Variable
Variable
85th percentile speed, mph:
Percent of left-turns in advancing volume (VA), %:
Critical headway, s:
Average time for left-turn vehicle to clear the advancing lane, s:
Limiting advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay:
Left-turn treatment warranted.
Average time for making left-turn, s:
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700Opposing Volume (VO), veh/h
Advancing Volume (VA), veh/h
Left-turn treatment
warranted.
Left-turn
treatment notwarranted.
Access F - 2045 Scenario 1 NBL Warrant
Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
INPUT
Value
45
240
17
OUTPUT
Value
166
right-turn bay for a 2-lane roadway:
Do NOT add right-turn bay.
Roadway geometry:
Variable
Variable
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road
Major-road speed, mph:
Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h:
Right-turn volume, veh/h:
Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h:
2-lane roadw ay
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600Right-Turn Volume, veh/h
Major-Road Volume (one direction), veh/h
Add right - turn bay
Access F - 2045 Scenario 1 SBR Warrant
Figure 2 - 5. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
2-lane roadway (English)
INPUT
Value
45
41%
367
159
OUTPUT
Value
274
CALIBRATION CONSTANTS
Value
3.0
5.0
1.9
Advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Opposing volume (VO), veh/h:
Variable
Variable
Variable
85th percentile speed, mph:
Percent of left-turns in advancing volume (VA), %:
Critical headway, s:
Average time for left-turn vehicle to clear the advancing lane, s:
Limiting advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay:
Left-turn treatment warranted.
Average time for making left-turn, s:
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700Opposing Volume (VO), veh/h
Advancing Volume (VA), veh/h
Left-turn treatment
warranted.
Left-turn
treatment notwarranted.
Access G - 2045 Scenario 1 NBL Warrant
Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
INPUT
Value
45
159
17
OUTPUT
Value
352
right-turn bay for a 2-lane roadway:
Do NOT add right-turn bay.
Roadway geometry:
Variable
Variable
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road
Major-road speed, mph:
Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h:
Right-turn volume, veh/h:
Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h:
2-lane roadw ay
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600Right-Turn Volume, veh/h
Major-Road Volume (one direction), veh/h
Add right - turn bay
Access G - 2045 Scenario 1 SBR Warrant
Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
INPUT
Value
55
416
56
OUTPUT
Value
18
right-turn bay for a 2-lane roadway:
Add right-turn bay.
Roadway geometry:
Variable
Variable
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road
Major-road speed, mph:
Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h:
Right-turn volume, veh/h:
Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h:
2-lane roadw ay
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600Right-Turn Volume, veh/h
Major-Road Volume (one direction), veh/h
Add right - turn bay
Access A - 2030 Scenario 2 NBR
Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
INPUT
Value
50
630
42
OUTPUT
Value
18
right-turn bay for a 2-lane roadway:
Add right-turn bay.
Roadway geometry:
Variable
Variable
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road
Major-road speed, mph:
Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h:
Right-turn volume, veh/h:
Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h:
2-lane roadw ay
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600Right-Turn Volume, veh/h
Major-Road Volume (one direction), veh/h
Add right - turn bay
Access B - 2030 Scenario 2 EBR
Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
INPUT
Value
50
707
42
OUTPUT
Value
16
right-turn bay for a 2-lane roadway:
Add right-turn bay.
Roadway geometry:
Variable
Variable
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road
Major-road speed, mph:
Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h:
Right-turn volume, veh/h:
Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h:
2-lane roadw ay
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600Right-Turn Volume, veh/h
Major-Road Volume (one direction), veh/h
Add right - turn bay
Access B - 2030 Scenario 2 WBR
Figure 2 - 5. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
2-lane roadway (English)
INPUT
Value
42
9%
196
182
OUTPUT
Value
477
CALIBRATION CONSTANTS
Value
3.0
5.0
1.9
Critical headway, s:
Average time for left-turn vehicle to clear the advancing lane, s:
Limiting advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay:
Left-turn treatment NOT warranted.
Average time for making left-turn, s:
Advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Opposing volume (VO), veh/h:
Variable
Variable
Variable
85th percentile speed, mph:
Percent of left-turns in advancing volume (VA), %:
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700Opposing Volume (VO), veh/h
Advancing Volume (VA), veh/h
Left-turn treatment
warranted.
Left-turn
treatment notwarranted.
Access E - 2045 Scenario 2 NBL
Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
INPUT
Value
50
182
85
OUTPUT
Value
83
right-turn bay for a 2-lane roadway:
Add right-turn bay.
Roadway geometry:
Variable
Variable
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road
Major-road speed, mph:
Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h:
Right-turn volume, veh/h:
Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h:
2-lane roadw ay
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600Right-Turn Volume, veh/h
Major-Road Volume (one direction), veh/h
Add right - turn bay
Access E - 2045 Scenario 2 SBR
Figure 2 - 5. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
2-lane roadway (English)
INPUT
Value
45
24%
358
188
OUTPUT
Value
305
CALIBRATION CONSTANTS
Value
3.0
5.0
1.9
Advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Opposing volume (VO), veh/h:
Variable
Variable
Variable
85th percentile speed, mph:
Percent of left-turns in advancing volume (VA), %:
Critical headway, s:
Average time for left-turn vehicle to clear the advancing lane, s:
Limiting advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay:
Left-turn treatment warranted.
Average time for making left-turn, s:
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700Opposing Volume (VO), veh/h
Advancing Volume (VA), veh/h
Left-turn treatment
warranted.
Left-turn
treatment notwarranted.
Access F - 2045 Scenario 2 NBL
Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
INPUT
Value
45
188
17
OUTPUT
Value
259
right-turn bay for a 2-lane roadway:
Do NOT add right-turn bay.
Roadway geometry:
Variable
Variable
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road
Major-road speed, mph:
Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h:
Right-turn volume, veh/h:
Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h:
2-lane roadw ay
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600Right-Turn Volume, veh/h
Major-Road Volume (one direction), veh/h
Add right - turn bay
Access F - 2045 Scenario 2 SBR
Figure 2 - 5. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
2-lane roadway (English)
INPUT
Value
45
42%
284
128
OUTPUT
Value
283
CALIBRATION CONSTANTS
Value
3.0
5.0
1.9
Advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Opposing volume (VO), veh/h:
Variable
Variable
Variable
85th percentile speed, mph:
Percent of left-turns in advancing volume (VA), %:
Critical headway, s:
Average time for left-turn vehicle to clear the advancing lane, s:
Limiting advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay:
Left-turn treatment warranted.
Average time for making left-turn, s:
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700Opposing Volume (VO), veh/h
Advancing Volume (VA), veh/h
Left-turn treatment
warranted.
Left-turn
treatment notwarranted.
Access G - 2045 Scenario 2 NBL
Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
INPUT
Value
45
128
17
OUTPUT
Value
524
right-turn bay for a 2-lane roadway:
Do NOT add right-turn bay.
Roadway geometry:
Variable
Variable
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road
Major-road speed, mph:
Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h:
Right-turn volume, veh/h:
Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h:
2-lane roadw ay
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600Right-Turn Volume, veh/h
Major-Road Volume (one direction), veh/h
Add right - turn bay
Access G - 2045 Scenario 2 SBR
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR July 2025
Appendix E:
Comment Responses
1
OVERVIEW
Pursuant to Minnesota Rules, part 4410.3610, subpart 5a(C), the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) shall revise the environmental analysis
document based on comments received during the comment period. The RGU shall include in the document a section specifically responding to
each timely, substantive comment received that indicates in what way the comment has been addressed.
The 30-day Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) comment period began May 27, 2025, and comments were accepted through June 26,
2025. Five comment letters were received from government agencies and 12 comment letters were received from the public. Responses to
those comments are included in the following sections, and copies of the comment letters are included in Appendix F.
AGENCY COMMENTS
Comment Response
1. Metropolitan Council
Item 6 - Project Description
The AUAR presents two scenarios for planned land use and accompanying development. Scenario
1 has an ultimate capacity of 3,400 housing units, 60,000 sq. ft. of commercial use, with intense
mixed residential and commercial arrays along Main Street. Scenario 2, the preferred scenario,
includes 3,500 housing units, 62,000 sq. ft. of commercial use, with greatest intensity shifted 1/3
mile west of the Scenario 1 concept, at Main Street & Sunset. Should future development result in
ultimate levels of Scenarios 1 or 2, the result would exceed citywide forecasts for Lino Lakes. The
AUAR area includes parts of Transportation Analysis Zones # 182 (south of Main) and 183 (north of
Main). In its 2040 Comprehensive Plan the City expected additions of 814 households, 2,120
population, and 18 jobs in these two zones during 2020-2040. Council staff may recommend a
different allocation at the time of the 2050 Plan update.
Thank you for your review.
Comment noted.
Item 7 - Climate Adaptation and Resilience
The discussion of anticipated climate trends is adequate; however, the AUAR would benefit from
considering if different scenarios merit different adaptations. The list of adaptations is well suited
to both scenarios, but the project proposer should consider how the different scenarios lend
themselves to different street patterns and how adaptations like clustering development could
reduce the impervious surfaces associated with single-family residential uses.
Comment noted. The City will
encourage developers to consider
adaptation strategies to reduce
impervious surface.
2
Comment Response
Item 9 - Permits and approvals
The City will need to amend their comprehensive plan to reflect the proposed land use changes,
development staging, and the corresponding wastewater flow projections before any MPCA
sanitary sewer extension permit applications can be recommended for approval by the Council.
This information will allow the Council time for the needed improvements, to ensure capacity is
available for growth within the AUAR project area
Comment noted.
Item 10 – Land Use
The land uses presented in Scenario 1 appear consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
Scenario 2 proposes high and medium density housing, and commercial development around Main
Street and Sunset Avenue, with low-density on the eastern side of the subject site. Any changes to
land use, density, or intensity that deviates from the adopted comprehensive plan will require a
comprehensive plan amendment process independent of the AUAR and will be subject to
additional Council review.
Comment noted.
Item 12 – Water Resources – water supply
Chloride management best practices should be considered and implemented during the winter
months to limit impacts to surrounding water bodies and wetlands.
Comment noted. The City
encourages developers to use best
practices to reduce chloride use in
snow and ice removal.
3
Comment Response
The AUAR states that the city’s current water appropriation is not sufficient to meet the additional
demand required by either scenario 1 or 2, and that additional water supply will be needed.
Before developing, the city should work with the Minnesota DNR (DNR) and surrounding
communities to assess the potential impacts of additional pumping on source water aquifers,
connected ecosystems, and surrounding wells and ensure water will be available to meet future
demands associated with this and other developments. Potential wellfield expansion in Lino Lakes
and by nearby communities could impact each other and nearby private wells. The current use of
the Prairie du Chien and Jordan aquifers as the sole source of water may need to be evaluated.
Increasing the efficiency of water use by commercial, institutional, and industrial users may help
eliminate or delay the need for additional water supply infrastructure, and lower costs for the city
utility and its rate payers. Estimated water demands for scenarios 1 and 2 are equivalent to about
36% of the city’s current water demands and 23% of demand in 2040, per the Lino Lakes 2040
Comprehensive Plan.
Comment noted.
If new wellfields are developed in the area, the city should consider the compatibility of these and
additional development scenarios with Drinking Water Supply Management Areas (DWSMAs) and
Wellhead Protection Plan goals. Any wells that are identified and abandoned during development
should be sealed according to Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) standards.
Comment noted.
Capturing and storing water to be used for residential or commercial irrigation (or other purposes)
would lessen flood risks for both development scenarios, while offsetting the demand for outdoor
water uses. Using treated source water for outdoor purposes is costly, inefficient, and generates
additional stress on sources and surrounding ecosystems during the summer months. Lessening
these stressors improves the sustainability of supply sources and water supply systems.
The City is mandated to prioritize
infiltration practices as required by
the MPCA. In cases where
infiltration is not permitted, reuse
alternatives will be considered.
The City will also recommend
planting native and drought-
tolerant species to minimize
irrigation requirements.
4
Comment Response
Much of the proposed development for scenarios 1 and 2 is in areas mapped as flood prone.
Drainage ditches, pipes, and culverts are currently used to drain and route water out of the area
for sod farming, lessening infiltration and altering near surface hydrology. However, as
development proceeds, any new infrastructure including roads, homes, business, and utilities will
contend with flood risk. The removal of drain tiles, ditches, etc. creates an opportunity for the city
to restore wetland function in the area, thereby increasing infiltration and potential aquifer
recharge and improving ground and surface water quality, with the added benefit of additional
habitat and green space. The reduction of flood risk through nature-based water management can
help to improve the longevity of developed infrastructure, with added climate adaptation and
mitigation benefits.
Comment noted.
The Anoka Co. Geologic Atlas reference on page 31 section 11 is out of date. An update to the
Anoka Co. Atlas part A was completed in 2013, with part B following in 2016. The AUAR should be
updated to reflect and consider modern mapped geologic and hydrogeologic conditions. The AUAR
should also consider water table information included in the geologic atlas’s and estimated by the
DNR in 2014. Soils in this area are either hydric or formerly hydric (drained hydric). These areas
were wetlands prior to drainage and development for commercial agricultural purposes. New
developments would contend with high water tables seasonally and during periods of increased
precipitation.
Comment noted. The updated
Anoka County Geologic Atlas was
reviewed and included in Final
AUAR.
Item 18 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The anticipated greenhouse gas emissions are reasonable and the proposed mitigation measures
are appropriate. An additional mitigation measure to consider is the orientation of new homes and
overhang designs with the sun and horizon to maximize solar energy gain during the winter and
minimize solar energy gain in the summer.
Comment noted. The City will
encourage developers to consider
home orientation and energy-
efficient design.
Item 20 – Transportation, Transit
Roadways: The AUAR accurately identifies Main Street (CSAH 14) as a principal arterial. Any
proposed additional or changed access to a principal arterial should consult the Transportation
Policy Plan (TPP) functional classification guidance before finalizing any proposed access changes
to a principal arterial Imagine 2050 TPP Functional Classification.
Comment noted.
5
Comment Response
Transit: The AUAR accurately notes that there is not any existing transit service in the area.
However, as this area develops, with the AUAR study area and neighboring developments, the city
should be considering ways in which transit services could be extended to serve this area in the
future as it develops, which could aid in mitigating future traffic impacts.
Comment noted.
Aviation: The AUAR site is not within the Anoka County-Blaine airport 3-mile influence area,
however there is a private turf air strip (Lino Air Park) located just south of the AUAR study area.
The city should consider compatibility with and potential impacts to the facility for any
development proposals within the AUAR study area.
Comment noted.
The Draft AUAR correctly states, “There is no transit service located near the study area” (page
69). Table 15 Draft Mitigation Plan includes a mitigation measure stating, “Prioritize alternative
travel modes within the AUAR study area…(e.g., buses, bicyclists, and pedestrians)” (page 80). The
authors should remove “buses” from the parenthetical list on page 80. The study area is in Transit
Market Area 5, which indicates that the level of density in the surrounding area is not well suited
for regular-route transit service. Metro Transit operates commuter express routes in the I-35W
and I-35E corridors near Lino Lakes, but there is no other existing or planned service to this study
area currently.
“Buses” was removed from the list
on pg. 80.
2. Anoka County
Item 6 - Project Description
Multiple comments.
Thank you for your review.
Comments noted and applicable
edits have been made in Final
AUAR.
Item 7 - Climate Adaptation and Resilience
Multiple comments.
Comments noted and applicable
edits have been made in Final
AUAR.
Item 8 - Cover Types
6
Comment Response
Multiple comments.
Comments noted and applicable
edits have been made in Final
AUAR.
Item 9 - Permits and approvals
Multiple comments
Comments noted and applicable
edits have been made in Final
AUAR.
Item 20- Transportation, Traffic
Table 5-3: Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 Level of Service
Speed limit varies from 55 MPH to 40 MPH between Lexington Ave. and Lake Dr.
Comment noted and speed limit
edit has been made in the Final
AUAR.
CSAH 17 (Lexington Ave) should be added to the study area as the traffic from the potential
development will likely have impacts on the CSAH 17 corridor. Specifically, the intersection of
CSAH 14 and CSAH 17.
In earlier coordination with Anoka
County staff in March 2025, it was
decided to not include Lexington
Ave as a study intersection since it
is an existing signal-controlled
intersection and a 4-lane divided
road and any traffic from this
future development will likely be
insignificant to the growth in
Blaine.
Number doesn't match Appendix value
Number has been updated to
match the appendix value in the
TIA.
7.6 s delay should be LOS A The LOS has been updated in the
TIA and AUAR.
Verify values shown in Table match those provided in appendix B Values have been verified in the
TIA.
7
Comment Response
Do these accesses meet Anoka County intersection spacing guidelines?
Access locations shown are
preliminary and subject to change.
Because Main Street is a Principal
Arterial, the proposed access
locations do not conform to the
County’s Access Spacing
Guidelines but are generally
consistent with the existing access
conditions along Main Street. The
final locations of access points will
be coordinated with the county.
Check LOS grades
Checks were performed on all
tables. Some corrections were
made to reported LOS and delay.
Note that worst movement delay
is reported at side street stop
controlled intersections instead of
overall delay.
Does expanding Main St. to 4 lanes significantly improve operations for NB side street approach?
Yes, congestion and lack of gaps
along Main Street is anticipated to
represent an issue for right turning
vehicles if Main Street were to
remain a two-lane road under
buildout conditions. Expanding
Main Street to four-lanes removes
this issue.
Where is info for Main St & Access D? Added results for Main Street &
Access D to the table.
8
Comment Response
Does school traffic not cause issues for Scenario 1?
School traffic does cause delays
under Scenario 1 conditions.
These delays are worse under
Scenario 2 conditions because the
development is more
concentrated on the west side of
the site under Scenario 2 and
Sunset Avenue sees higher traffic
levels as a result.
7.4 Scenario 2 Conditions Capacity Analysis Summary
Scenario 2? Corrected to say Scenario 2.
3. City of Blaine
Location of commercial land use is proposed to abut the Lino Lakes/Blaine city boundary. The City
of Blaine has identified low-density residential land use for the parcel abutting Lino Lakes. If
commercial land use is proposed, the city of Blaine would encourage certain zoning requirements
for the commercial development to address compatibility between single family and commercial
land uses.
Thank you for your review and
comment noted. The City will
require future developers to
include tools such as buffering
and/or screening between new
developments and adjacent, less
dense areas in their development
plans
The AUAR identifies proposed bike and pedestrian trails from Sunset Avenue to Lexington Avenue,
which is in Blaine. While we understand the need for such trails, this would require capital
planning by the city as a cost-share for installation of the trails is likely required from Anoka
County.
Comment noted.
The roundabout at Sunset and Main Street is designed to service parcels on the north side of Main
Street for both Blaine and Lino Lakes. It should be noted that the city of Blaine discourages cross-
jurisdictional road connections of city streets. Design of future roads from the roundabout should
be discussed with the City of Blaine to encourage traffic and access compatibility between
development in each city.
Comment noted.
9
Comment Response
The well map on pages 39/40 should identify all private wells abutting the subject site, not just
within 150’.
The well buffer has been updated
in the Final AUAR.
4. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Wastewater
A figure should be provided that shows the location of the major sewer system features in the
project area that are described in the draft AUAR. Thank you for your review. Figure
has been added in the Final AUAR.
Watershed
With this development, there will be an increase in impervious area. Design considerations should
be taken to reduce salt usage which could lead to a chloride impairment for nearby resources.
Comment noted. The City
encourages developers to use best
practices to reduce chloride use in
snow and ice removal.
Planning to store snow in areas that won’t increase icy areas as the pile melts and planting trees in
strategic places will be beneficial. The goal is to develop with winter maintenance in mind and use
less salt.
Comment noted. The City will
encourage developers to keep
winter maintenance in mind as
site planning advances.
There is a ditch in the Southeast corner of the project area that has had high chloride samples
collected. While not impaired, being proactive may help keep it off of the impaired waters list for
chlorides. Comment noted.
5. Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD)
District encourages early coordination on permitting matters, including a pre-application meeting
between RCWD, developers, and Lino Lakes. Thank you for your review.
Comment noted.
The Water Appropriation Permit Program is managed by Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (DNR). The District would, however, review a copy of the dewatering plan for discharges
into Anoka County Ditch (ACD) 10-22-32. Comment noted.
Other designations, Page 28
10
Comment Response
This section references RCWD floodplain mapping. The District recently (2025) updated floodplain
polygons using recent Anoka County LiDAR reflecting significant changes to region conveyance
systems. A figure similar to Figure 11: FEMA 100-year Floodplain utilizing updated RCWD data
could be included.
Comment noted. The figure in the
Final AUAR has been updated with
RCWD floodplain data.
Stormwater – Existing Conditions, Page 44
Rice Creek Watershed District completed floodplain modeling and mapping in 2022 that shows
similar, albeit less, floodplain areas within the study area.” 2022 floodplain mapping is referenced
on pages 18 and 44.
Comment noted. The text has
been updated to 2025.
Water Appropriation – Dewatering and Estimated Water Supply, Page 48
The District will review a copy of the dewatering plan for discharges into ACD 10-22-32. Comment noted.
The District understands the City’s current water production capacity is not sufficient to serve the
entire study area. Its DNR appropriation permit will need to be amended prior to full build out of
the study area to allow for two additional wells. The District encourages thoughtful consideration
with selection of drilling locations.
Comment noted.
Modification of Anoka County Ditch 10-22-32
Early coordination with the 103E public drainage authority (RCWD) for any modifications to the
drainage system is encouraged. Comment noted.
The system may be relocated as necessary (p. 46), without decreasing its capacity, through the
statutory petition process to the 103E public drainage authority (RCWD), approved by RCWD
through Rule I, consistent with 103E. Comment noted.
RCWD requires 20 feet (also referenced on p. 46) from top of bank to either side for a buffer to
complete required maintenance.
Ditch and buffer requirements
have been added to the final
AUAR.
The ditch must remain open and trees or other structures are prohibited in the maintenance
corridor may not obstruct access.
Ditch and buffer requirements
have been added to the final
AUAR.
11
Comment Response
Item 8 – Cover Types
The District supports efforts to infiltrate and filter stormwater and mitigate runoff. Above and
beyond basic requirements including implementation of BMP’s such as Iron Enhanced Sand Filter
(IESF) to address dissolved phosphorus, and stormwater re-use systems for reducing volume are
encouraged where applicable.
Comment noted. The City will
encourage developers to consider
BMP’s such as Iron Enhanced Sand
Filter.
After Construction, Page 45
The paragraph regarding RCWD Rule C: Stormwater Management identifies that the Rice Creek
Watershed Rules were most recently updated on 1/1/2021. This date should be corrected to
1/1/2025.
Date correction made in the Final
AUAR.
Floodplains, Page 45
Numbered item 4 should identify that drainage/flowage easements need to be provided only if
required by the land use authority. Easement language has been
added to the Final AUAR.
Continuing onto page 46, “Areas that are covered by Rule E are also subject to Rule F: Wetland
Alteration, as applicable.” As applicable has been added to
this statement in the Final AUAR.
Water Resources, Page 76
In the Floodplains row, please identify that RCWD approvals relate specifically to RCWD’s 100-year
floodplains and not FEMA. Note has been added to the
Mitigation Plan in the Final AUAR.
Both Development Scenarios include lands within the floodplain, RCWD rules require all proposed
development to quantify impacts to floodplain and address, mitigate, according to rule. Comment noted.
Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources, Page 77/78
12
Comment Response
Include language that permits are required from the DNR for the taking of an endangered or
threatened species (Minnesota Statutes section 84.0895 and Minnesota Rules parts 6212.1800-
2100).
The need for a take permit is
dependent on survey results as
well as site design. Once the
survey is conducted, the presence
or absence of state-listed species
will be identified, and specific
avoidance and mitigation
measures will be required only if
state-listed species are discovered.
If required avoidance and
minimization measures are not
feasible with the proposed
project, then a take permit would
be required.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Comment Response
1.Daryl Wangert
Natural integration, open housing without interest in income, race, religion, or
political affiliations. A reasonable density with disclosure as to effects of building
on low fema flood plain. Cracked foundation and soft saggy backyard possible over
time, reduced value over time due to floods. Certainly disclose the possibility of
flood insurance requirements!
The developer would be required by the
city/watershed to do floodplain mitigation and
revise the floodplain boundary (LOMR submittal
to FEMA) so flood insurance will not be required.
Everything must be elevated above the flood
plain boundary and any changes to the boundary
must be submitted to FEMA to update the flood
insurance maps within 6 months of construction
completion.
13
Comment Response
2. Sam Bennett
I was the one who suggested bringing the park in towards the high density and
commercial areas. This was intended to make the park more accessible to those
most likely to use it and drive mutually beneficial activities most simply, being able
to buy lunch and enjoy the playground. Instead the high density was stretched out
to the park. Which does make it more accessible to many users it does not close
the gap between the commercials and park space and now a much higher
percentage of single family lots are adjacent to the density. Overall, I don't see
enough benefit for option 2.1 over 2.0. it feels like a hybrid of "islands of density"
that was first to be eliminated.
Comment noted. The scope of the AUAR did not
evaluate changing the location of the land uses in
the two scenarios. As site development advances,
specific residential and commercial land use
boundaries should be generally
followed and considered somewhat flexible in
order to accommodate natural features, land
assembly and other physical issues.
My primary concern with option 2.1 is that drives the most impactful development
into the center where it cannot be avoided. It would be more practical to keep
that more compact so the back half can have reduced impacts. The park should be
the center of this higher density area and please design the park to be adjacent to
the commercial and higher density areas. That way it can be accessed by the most
people and events benefit small businesses. This is a great opportunity to close the
street and have a block party, holiday stroll, or Blue Heron Days but that's not
nearly as beneficial if the green space and commercial spaces are so divorced.
Comment noted.
3. Christina Narwid
With the additional development in the NW Main corridor, I worry about the traffic
going to Centennial Middle School and High School. There is a plan in place to
make Sunset Avenue safer, but I would love to see the Sunset bridge over 35W
have a pedestrian/bike lane. That is the main route from this neighborhood to the
schools so there are many kids riding their bikes to get to those locations. It is
already unsafe and there will be even more traffic with the increased density.
Comment noted. The City will coordinate with
the County for consideration.
4. Sue Bass
14
Comment Response
If you put the street through from Main Street to Century Trail and Robinson Dr
you are going to create a freeway along Robinson Drive as most people, instead of
going to the traffic circle at Main and Sunset are going to cut down Century Trail
and turn on Robinson. Robinson at that point is a straight shot/short cut to Sunset.
It is going to create horrible traffic for people living on or near Robinson. People
will not use Century Trail because it winds so much. There needs to be some way
to funnel the traffic away from Robinson. PLEASE!
A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was completed as
part of the AUAR to study projected future traffic
trip generation (see Appendix D). A site-specific
traffic impact analysis will also be required for
proposed development projects within the AUAR
area to determine the appropriate mitigation
measures that may be required.
Robinson Drive is identified as a collector street
in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. As a collector
street, it is intended to handle a higher volume of
traffic; however, Sunset Avenue and Main Street
allow for a much quicker drive than
neighborhood streets, and the roundabout at
Main Street & Sunset Avenue sees low levels of
delay currently and minimal delay expected in
the future. Cutting through the neighborhood is
estimated to take at least 10-20 seconds longer
than the alternative roads. Additionally, cutting
through the neighborhoods from Main Street
onto Sunset Avenue will not be possible due to
planned right-in/right-out restrictions along
Sunset Avenue at Robinson Drive and Century
Trail. Overall, it is not anticipated that a
significant number of vehicles would cut through
the neighborhood.
5. James Bosak
Both scenarios appear to show an extension of 121st that would run along the
north side of my property at 7798 Sunset and connect to Robinson Drive. I cannot
imagine what value such a road might have since it essentially parallels Sunset.
There is no plan currently to extend 121st Avenue
to Robinson Drive. The road network shown on
the scenario figures was only a concept to give a
15
Comment Response
What it would do for me personally is completely destroy the value of my
property, at least to me. Please let me know as soon as possible if this is a serious
possibility so that I can start looking for another place to live. If that road is built
neither of the scenarios will make any difference to me since I would not be living
in Lino Lakes anymore.
sense of how the infrastructure could be laid out
to coincide with the changes in land use;
however, future developers would propose
specific road networks for City review and would
need to align with the access points shown in the
Traffic Impact Analysis (see Appendix D of the
AUAR).
I am not sure what more feedback on this issue will achieve, guessing it’s probably
just a mandatory part of the whole AUAR process and will not have any impact
whatsoever on what is eventually allowed to go forward. I would hope that by now
the wishes of the residents living in close proximity to the proposed development
area are fairly well known, i.e. “Slow the Grow”. Simply put those wishes are; the
lowest possible housing density and the highest possible green natural space
possible. At 3400 or 3500 units neither of the scenarios presented come close to
achieving this, at least in my view. Dividing the 962 acres by 3450 units gives about
only .28 acres per unit. But it is really even lower than this since at significant
portion of the 962 acres are already fully developed (not sure why they were even
included in the study). I would be interested to know what the process and criteria
were that determined what the appropriate density should be. If this was
explained in the AUAR report I must have missed it. There must have been some
consistent considerations since both scenarios come up with almost the same
overall density.
Comment noted. The City underwent a multi-
phased engagement process to determine the
scenarios to evaluate in the AUAR. More
information about the process can be found on
the project website here:
https://mappingnwmain.com/process and
engagement summaries of the feedback we
collected can be found here:
https://mappingnwmain.com/resources
The intent of this process was to gather
community feedback on the scenarios and
establish development criteria for future projects
in this area, without impacting citywide sewered
residential average densities of 3-5 units per acre
as required by the Metropolitan Council. Scenario
1 is based on the City's existing 2040
Comprehensive Plan, aiming to maintain
consistent housing units and densities across
scenarios in line with City-wide density
requirements.
In order for the density proposed to be achieved it looks to me like it will be at a
very high cost since according to the map presented in the AUAR about half of the
acres are in the FEMA flood zones. An awful lot of dirt will have to be moved
Any proposed floodplain alterations by future
developers will require the submittal of an
appropriate Letter of Map Change to FEMA and
16
Comment Response
around. Oh well, I’m sure some developer will be allowed to give it a try, hopefully
not one convicted of theft by swindle. For what it’s worth, between the two
scenarios presented, this resident votes for scenario 1.
the applicable City of Lino Lakes and RCWD
approvals will need to be obtained. To the extent
possible, existing soils will be used for future
development. Please see item 12 for additional
floodplain mitigation strategies.
6. William Grant
Sunset is a short street that is already problematic to turn left out of the
neighborhood in the morning. Putting high density all centered on Sunset will
make a problem worse. The higher density should be farther East closer to the
major roadways. That is Scenario 1.
A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was completed as
part of the AUAR and based on projected trip
generation, the area's transportation network is
expected to support development within the
study area with mitigation (see Appendix D).
7. James Kukkonen
As a current resident of Century Trail I would prefer a scenario with low density
development. My concerns would include the increased traffic, use of local
resources and added pressure on local schools. I am not against growth but I do
believe we need to consider the effects of increasing too much in a small area
Appropriate improvements to infrastructure will
be required by future developers to support
development in a sustainable way. See the
Mitigation Plan section in the AUAR for a full list
of next steps required. The City has met with
both the Centennial and Forest Lake School
Districts through this process, and district
leadership had no concerns about how the
development scenarios would affect enrollment,
operations or funding. Furthermore, the
proposed development growth aligns with the
projected growth of both school districts.
8. Teresa O'Connell
Water and lighting are my concerns. Water this area I believe was tiled for farming
so with that in mind keeping the water on this site with slow release into the soil or
sewer system is important. Whatever system is used plan ahead on making
maintenance of these water areas easily accessible. Decided in advance before
Comment noted. The City will encourage future
developers to consider the climate adaptions and
sustainability measures identified in Section 7
and 18 of the AUAR.
17
Comment Response
sales happen to the future landowners who will be responsible for cost and
maintenance of the water devices. If a retention pond is put in, I believe they need
to be cleaned out between 15 to 20 years after being built. The developer could
choose to build each lot with a rain garden in and that also has to be maintained
and cleaned out, yearly would be good. There are many options for controlling
water but currently from what I have observed this is not being planned during the
development of the land. Lighting since this area already has development around
it on the South, North and East side maintaining lighting as close to what is in the
surrounding area is important. Dark sky cities are becoming more and more
popular and since full build out is not planned for another 30 years. Talk with the
10- and 13-year-olds over at Lino Lakes Stem school and get them involved I
suspect they have dreams of what the future will look like. They will be the ones
living there but at the same time the current neighbors' needs should be met.
35 W which is very close to this site sees more traffic than Main St, Sunset and 4th
streets see on a daily basis and there are no streetlights between Lexington and
going north to Lake dr. on 35 W.
Stormwater BMPs will be required to adhere to
both City and RCWD standards for development
and long-term maintenance. These will be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis for each
location as it is developed.
9. Kevin and Tammy Dunrud
Our first priority is to leave Carl Street alone. There are many pedestrians and
bicyclists that use this road along with the residential homes that would be highly
impacted if this were to connect to other roadways as part of the development-too
much traffic. This is a street we call home and it has been here for a lot longer
than a new development. We will already have a very different quality of life with
the development across the street. It would be great to keep one thing the same.
A Traffic Impact Analysis was conducted for both
land use scenarios (see Appendix D of the AUAR).
A connection between Carl Street to Century Trail
is not necessary from a traffic operations
perspective. Please see the mitigation plan of the
AUAR for a full list of traffic mitigation strategies.
Additional road infrastructure improvements
within the AUAR study area will be evaluated as
development occurs on the site.
As we are an existing neighborhood on the southside of Carl Street, we would like
to ask that the development put in trees at the far south end of the quadrant along
Carl Street to provide a noise and view buffer of the development. Again, this
The City will encourage developers to consider
tools such as clustering, vegetation buffers, and
screening to mitigate potential land use conflicts.
18
Comment Response
development will affect our quality of life, and trees would be a good faith effort
on the developers' part to show they want to do well with existing neighborhoods.
As there will need to be a new water treatment plant built for this development as
well as new roads and roundabouts, we are very concerned how this will impact
our taxes. Our taxes took a big jump this year and we don't feel we should be
taxed for these services as we will not benefit at all from the water and roads.
The City is constructing a water treatment plant
for manganese removal which will be placed in
service in the fall of 2026 and will provide
adequate treatment capacity for this area. No
additional water treatment plants are anticipated
for this area. The Water Treatment Plant is
funded by users of the municipal water system.
Finally, we are concerned about traffic on 4th Ave. Many people walk along this
road and there is an airstrip that also ends at 4th and there are no sidewalks
planned.
As development occurs along 4th Avenue, the City
will consider trails and/or sidewalks along 4th
Avenue.
We realized we forgot to add one item to our list of comments. We are also
concerned about the water table with the sod farm being a floodplain and how
that might impact our property. We have a wood foundation and have had
absolutely no water problems. We would like to keep it that way.
Future development will require the construction
of local water quality basins and larger detention
areas to provide compensatory storage for
floodplain mitigation. See the mitigation plan in
the AUAR for full list of floodplain mitigation
strategies.
10. Kristen Iverson
My concern is the negative impact of traffic, high density and commercial buildings
this will have on our natural environment and ecosystem in the study area. I live on
Carl Street, a few feet from the study area. This is a rural area, with large lots and
open green areas. We have Blanding turtles that nest every year in our yards and
surrounding areas. We have 4 sets of Sandhill Cranes that breed and make their
home here on Carl Street. We also have Bald Eagles, owls, waterfowl, pheasants,
turkeys, deer and bear. Seven miles north is Carlos Avery Wildlife Management
Area. This is an important wildlife refuge of marshlands, lakes and swamps which
provide habitat for the migratory Sandhill cranes and Eagles, in addition to habitat
for the Blanding turtles, deer, waterfowl and upland birds. This is a protected
ecosystem that needs to be protected, including the surrounding land south of
Creation of greenways and/or interconnecting
wildlife corridors and buffers will be incorporated
as development plans advance. Native habitat
and wetland buffers will enhance biodiversity and
improve the environmental functionality of the
study area. See the mitigation plan of the Final
AUAR which has been updated with the DNR’s
mitigation strategies for protected species.
19
Comment Response
Carlos Avery in which we live and reside in. We cannot allow high density homes
and apartment buildings, in addition to commercial areas to destroy this
ecosystem. Migratory birds aloft at night migrate through our area, with stops to
Carlos Avery Wildlife Refuge. It is important to eliminate outdoor lighting and
parking lot lighting as much as possible, and to reduce the amount of reflective
windows to help birds get safely to their destinations.
In summary, Lino Lakes needs to locate commercial and high density areas to Lake
Drive and to nearby areas near Interstate 35. Let’s make that area the “downtown”
area. The area in this NW quadrant, near Carlos Avery, is a precious ecosystem. We
must make sure that as much natural habitat is saved.
Comment noted.
11. Betsy Garcia
It is my understanding the Lino Lakes Flood Plain Administrator is responsible for
assuring compliance with FEMA guidelines & local ordinances regarding any
development of land on the current Robinson Sod Farm.
Because my property abuts this sod farm just to the east, I want to assure the
proposed mitigation interventions will protect my land from any flooding.
Additionally, what communication will be provided identifying the specific
interventions, and to whom would I report any negative sequelae related to
flooding that could possibly occur as a result of the interventions in the future?
Future design of the study area and associated
stormwater management facilities will be
completed to reduce the risk of flooding in the
AUAR study area. Buildings will be set at
elevations to maintain clearance above 100-year
flood elevations, which would also result in re-
mapping the floodplain and obtaining approval
from FEMA for the changes. Infiltration areas
may be used and would improve water quality
and stormwater runoff in the project vicinity.
Additional stormwater and floodplain mitigation
items are detailed in section 12 of the Final
AUAR.
I am concerned regarding contaminated soil on the sod farm which already has or
will occur during mitigation secondary to fertilizers, pesticides and other chemicals.
These have been used for years on the sod farm, and would like to know what EPA
approved testing or other methods will be done to determine levels of toxic
pollutants, harmful particulates or emissions from the helicopter crash, farm
vehicles and machinery. Would the testing include Nitrogen Oxides,
The AUAR’s purpose is to focus on the
environmental impacts of the proposed
development. The existing condition of the
property as a sod farm is in compliance with
the MN Department of Agriculture guidelines and
regulations. The MN Department of
20
Comment Response
Hydrocarbons, Greenhouse gases, ammonia and other identified agriculturally
related particles that contain substances linked to respiratory or potentially cancer
related harm to humans and wildlife. How will these findings be proactively
communicated to residents?
Agriculture would be the regulatory agency to
contact for this information. In addition, future
developer will need to complete a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) that will
document site contamination and next steps. If
contaminated soils are present that do not meet
residential reuse requirements they will be
hauled offsite and disposed of per MPCA
guidelines. Dust BMPs will be in place during
construction to minimize the potential for dust.
Lastly, it would have been beneficial and prudent for our Lino Lakes residents to
receive a synopsis of your very well organized and extensive findings in layman's
terms, including avoidance of professional jargon. We are far from experts in your
field and in conversations with neighbors who read or tried to read the AUAR
report, it was impossible for them to understand or interpret findings, especially
technical data reports. Thus, it was not possible to reply to a report when you
don't understand it in the first place.
Comment noted. If you would like to meet to
discuss the project, please reach out to us at:
mappingnwmain@linolakes.us
12. John Grattan
I would prefer scenario 2, but there is still way too much high density housing in
every option. Comment noted
Lino Lakes Main Street - AUAR July 2025
Appendix F:
Comments
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
June 26, 2025 Michael Grochala, Community Development Director City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 RE: City of Lino Lakes – Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) – Lino Lakes Main Street Metropolitan Council Review File No. 23082-1 Metropolitan Council District No. 11 Dear Michael Grochala: The AUAR study area encompasses approximately 962 acres located in the City’s northwest, bisected by Main
Street and between Pine Street and Carl Street. The AUAR proposes two scenarios. Scenario 1 is the city’s existing 2040 Comprehensive Plan which focuses higher-density and commercial development along both sides of Main Street, with lower-density residential development to the north and south. Scenario 2 centralizes higher- and medium-density housing and commercial development near the Lino Lakes/Blaine border around the Main Street and Sunset Avenue, with low-density prioritized on the eastern side of the study area Metropolitan Council staff completed its review of the Lino Lakes Main Street AUAR to determine its accuracy and completeness in
addressing regional concerns. Staff conclude that the AUAR is complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns and does not raise major issues of consistency with Council policies. However, staff offers the following comments for your consideration: Item 6 - Project Description, Forecasts (Todd Graham, 651-602-1322) The AUAR presents two scenarios for planned land use and accompanying development. Scenario 1 has
an ultimate capacity of 3,400 housing units, 60,000 sq. ft. of commercial use, with intense mixed residential and commercial arrays along Main Street. Scenario 2, the preferred scenario, includes 3,500 housing units, 62,000 sq. ft. of commercial use, with greatest intensity shifted 1/3 mile west of the Scenario 1 concept, at Main Street & Sunset. Should future development result in ultimate levels of Scenarios 1 or 2, the result
would exceed citywide forecasts for Lino Lakes. The AUAR area includes parts of Transportation Analysis Zones # 182 (south of Main) and 183 (north of Main). In its 2040 Comprehensive Plan the City expected additions of 814 households, 2,120 population, and 18 jobs in these two zones during 2020-2040. Council staff may recommend a different allocation at the time of the 2050 Plan update.
Item 7 – Climate Adaptation and Resilience (Shawn James, 651-602-1233)
The discussion of anticipated climate trends is adequate; however, the AUAR would benefit from considering if different scenarios merit different adaptations. The list of adaptations is well suited to both scenarios, but the project proposer should consider how the different scenarios lend themselves to different street patterns and how adaptations like clustering development could reduce the impervious surfaces
associated with single-family residential uses. Item 9- Permits and Approvals, Wastewater (Roger Janzig, 651-602-1119) The City will need to amend their comprehensive plan to reflect the proposed land use changes,
development staging, and the corresponding wastewater flow projections before any MPCA sanitary sewer extension permit applications can be recommended for approval by the Council. This information will allow
the Council time for the needed improvements, to ensure capacity is available for growth within the AUAR project area.
Page - 2 | June 26, 2025 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Item 10 - Land Use (Emma Dvorak, 651-602-1399) The land uses presented in Scenario 1 appear consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Scenario 2 proposes high and medium density housing, and commercial development around Main Street and Sunset Avenue, with low-density on the eastern side of the subject site. Any changes to land use, density, or intensity that deviates from the adopted comprehensive plan will require a comprehensive plan amendment process independent of the AUAR and will be subject to additional Council review. Item 12 - Water Resources, Surface Water (Maureen Hoffman, 651-602-8026) Chloride management best practices should be considered and implemented during the winter months to limit impacts to surrounding water bodies and wetlands. Item 12 - Water Resources, Water Supply (John Clark, 651-602-1452) The AUAR states that the city’s current water appropriation is not sufficient to meet the additional demand required by either scenario 1 or 2, and that additional water supply will be needed. Before developing, the city should work with the Minnesota DNR (DNR) and surrounding communities to assess the potential impacts of additional pumping on source water aquifers, connected ecosystems, and surrounding wells and ensure water will be available to meet future demands associated with this and other developments. Potential wellfield expansion in Lino Lakes and by nearby communities could impact each other and nearby private wells. The current use of the Prairie du Chien and Jordan aquifers as the sole source of water may need to be evaluated. Increasing the efficiency of water use by commercial, institutional, and industrial users may help eliminate or delay the need for additional water supply infrastructure, and lower costs for the city utility and its rate payers. Estimated water demands for scenarios 1 and 2 are equivalent to about 36% of the city’s current water demands and 23% of demand in 2040, per the Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan. If new wellfields are developed in the area, the city should consider the compatibility of these and additional development scenarios with Drinking Water Supply Management Areas (DWSMAs) and Wellhead Protection Plan goals. Any wells that are identified and abandoned during development should be sealed according to Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) standards. Capturing and storing water to be used for residential or commercial irrigation (or other purposes) would lessen flood risks for both development scenarios, while offsetting the demand for outdoor water uses. Using treated source water for outdoor purposes is costly, inefficient, and generates additional stress on sources and surrounding ecosystems during the summer months. Lessening these stressors improves the sustainability of supply sources and water supply systems. Much of the proposed development for scenarios 1 and 2 is in areas mapped as flood prone. Drainage ditches, pipes, and culverts are currently used to drain and route water out of the area for sod farming, lessening infiltration and altering near surface hydrology. However, as development proceeds, any new infrastructure including roads, homes, business, and utilities will contend with flood risk. The removal of drain tiles, ditches, etc. creates an opportunity for the city to restore wetland function in the area, thereby increasing infiltration and potential aquifer recharge and improving ground and surface water quality, with the added benefit of additional habitat and green space. The reduction of flood risk through nature-based water management can help to improve the longevity of developed infrastructure, with added climate adaptation and mitigation benefits. The Anoka Co. Geologic Atlas reference on page 31 section 11 is out of date. An update to the Anoka Co. Atlas part A was completed in 2013, with part B following in 2016. The AUAR should be updated to reflect and consider modern mapped geologic and hydrogeologic conditions. The AUAR should also consider water table information included in the geologic atlas’s and estimated by the DNR in 2014. Soils in this area are either hydric or formerly hydric (drained hydric). These areas were wetlands prior to drainage and development for commercial agricultural purposes. New developments would contend with high water tables seasonally and during periods of increased precipitation. Item 18 - Greenhouse Gas (GHG) (Shawn James, 651-602-1233) The anticipated greenhouse gas emissions are reasonable and the proposed mitigation measures are appropriate. An additional mitigation measure to consider is the orientation of new homes and overhang
Page - 3 | June 26, 2025 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
designs with the sun and horizon to maximize solar energy gain during the winter and minimize solar energy gain in the summer. Item 20 - Transportation, Transit (Joe Widing, 651-602-1822) Roadways: The AUAR accurately identifies Main Street (CSAH 14) as a principal arterial. Any proposed additional or changed access to a principal arterial should consult the Transportation Policy Plan (TPP) functional classification guidance before finalizing any proposed access changes to a principal arterial- Imagine 2050 TPP Functional Classification. Transit: The AUAR accurately notes that there is not any existing transit service in the area. However, as this area develops, with the AUAR study area and neighboring developments, the city should be considering ways in which transit services could be extended to serve this area in the future as it develops, which could aid in mitigating future traffic impacts. Aviation: The AUAR site is not within the Anoka County-Blaine airport 3-mile influence area, however there is a private turf air strip (Lino Air Park) located just south of the AUAR study area. The city should consider compatibility with and potential impacts to the facility for any development proposals within the AUAR study area. Item 20 - Transportation, Transit (Barrett Clausen, 612-349-7596) The Draft AUAR correctly states, “There is no transit service located near the study area” (page 69). Table 15 Draft Mitigation Plan includes a mitigation measure stating, “Prioritize alternative travel modes within the AUAR study area…(e.g., buses, bicyclists, and pedestrians)” (page 80). The authors should remove “buses” from the parenthetical list on page 80. The study area is in Transit Market Area 5, which indicates that the level of density in the surrounding area is not well suited for regular-route transit service. Metro Transit operates commuter express routes in the I-35W and I-35E corridors near Lino Lakes, but there is no other existing or planned service to this study area currently. The Council will not take formal action on the AUAR. 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 Gail Cederberg, Metropolitan Council District No. 11 Judy Sventek, Water Resources Manager Emma Dvorak, Sector Representative/Principal Reviewer Reviews Coordinator
N:\CommDev\LPA\Communities\Lino Lakes\Letters\Lino Lakes 2025 Lino Lakes Main Street AUAR Ok With Comments 23082-1.docx
June 18, 2025
VIA EMAIL
Michael Grochala
City of Lino Lakes
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014
mgrochala@linolakes.us
RE: Lino Lakes Main Street – Alternative Urban Areawide Review
Dear: Michael Grochala
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Alternative Urban Areawide Review
(AUAR) for the Lino Lakes Main Street project (Project) located in Anoka County, Minnesota. The Project
consists of 316 tax parcels on approximately 962 acres in the city of Lino Lakes, Anoka County,
Minnesota. The study area is bounded by Pine Street NE to the north, Sunset Avenue (CSAH 53) to the
west, Century Trail and Carl Street to the south, and 4th Avenue to the east. Main Street (CSAH 14) is an
east-west road that bisects the study area. The surrounding area generally consists of private residences
ranging from medium-density housing to farmsteads. The study area is currently used for residential and
agricultural (sod) purposes. 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.
Wastewater
• A figure should be provided that shows the location of the major sewer system features in the
project area that are described in the draft AUAR.
Watershed
• With this development, there will be an increase in impervious area. Design considerations
should be taken to reduce salt usage which could lead to a chloride impairment for nearby
resources.
• Planning to store snow in areas that won’t increase icy areas as the pile melts and planting
trees in strategic places will be beneficial.
• The goal is to develop with winter maintenance in mind and use less salt.
• There is a ditch in the Southeast corner of the project area that has had high chloride
samples collected. While not impaired, being proactive may help keep it off of the impaired
waters list for chlorides.
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
Michael Grochala
Page 2
June 18, 2025
concerning our review of this AUAR, 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
Attachment
cc: Dan Card, MPCA
Melinda Neville, MPCA
Nicole Peterson, MPCA
Lauren Dickerson, MPCA
Innocent Eyoh, MPCA
Deepa deAlwis, MPCA
David Sahli, MPCA
Julie Henderson, MPCA
Amy Timm, MPCA
4325 Pheasant Ridge Drive NE #611 | Blaine, MN 55449 | T: 763-398-3070 | F: 763-398-3088 | www.ricecreek.org
BOARD OF
MANAGERS
Jess Robertson Steven P. Wagamon Michael J. Bradley Marcie Weinandt John J. Waller
Anoka County Anoka County Ramsey County Ramsey County Washington County
June 26, 2025
City of Lino Lakes
Michael Grochala, Community Development Director
Re: Lino Lakes Main Street Draft AUAR May 2025
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the Lino Lakes Main Street Draft AUAR. Rice Creek
Watershed District (RCWD) has reviewed the draft plan and affirms many sections of the plan and
highlights a few sections for further consideration.
• With regards to RCWD, permitting requirements lists erosion control, stormwater management,
floodplain management, public drainage system rules, and wetlands for regulatory compliance.
o The District encourages early coordination on permitting matters including a pre-
application meeting between RCWD, developers, and Lino Lakes.
o The Water Appropriation Permit Program is managed by Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources (DNR). The District would, however, review a copy of the dewatering
plan for discharges into Anoka County Ditch (ACD) 10-22-32.
• Other designations, Page 28
o This section references RCWD floodplain mapping. The District recently (2025) updated
floodplain polygons using recent Anoka County LiDAR reflecting significant changes to
region conveyance systems. A figure similar to Figure 11: FEMA 100-year Floodplain
utilizing updated RCWD data could be included.
• Stormwater – Existing Conditions, Page 44
o “Rice Creek Watershed District completed floodplain modeling and mapping in 2022 that
shows similar, albeit less, floodplain areas within the study area.” 2022 floodplain
mapping is referenced on pages 18 and 44.
• See the previous comment regarding recent updates to floodplain polygons.
• Water Appropriation – Dewatering and Estimated Water Supply, Page 48
o The District will review a copy of the dewatering plan for discharges into ACD 10-22-32.
o The District understands the City’s current water production capacity is not sufficient to
serve the entire study area. Its DNR appropriation permit will need to be amended prior
to full build out of the study area to allow for two additional wells. The District encourages
thoughtful consideration with selection of drilling locations.
• RCWD supports efforts to protect wellhead protection areas through its
regulatory program and is willing to collaborate on stormwater reuse projects.
2
• Stormwater Section, Page 43
o Modification of Anoka County Ditch 10-22-32
• Early coordination with the 103E public drainage authority (RCWD) for any
modifications to the drainage system is encouraged.
• The system may be relocated as necessary (p. 46), without decreasing its capacity,
through the statutory petition process to the 103E public drainage authority
(RCWD), approved by RCWD through Rule I, consistent with 103E.
• RCWD requires 20 feet (also referenced on p. 46) from top of bank to either side
for a buffer to complete required maintenance.
• The ditch must remain open and trees or other structures are prohibited in the
maintenance corridor may not obstruct access.
• Section 8 Cover Types, Page 19
o “Infiltration systems, tree trenches and tree boxes, wetlands, green roofs, and permeable
pavements could be constructed as part of future development plans.”
• The District supports efforts to infiltrate and filter stormwater and mitigate
runoff. Above and beyond basic requirements including implementation of BMP’s
such as Iron Enhanced Sand Filter (IESF) to address dissolved phosphorus, and
stormwater re-use systems for reducing volume are encouraged where
applicable.
• After Construction, Page 45
o The paragraph regarding RCWD Rule C: Stormwater Management identifies that the
Rice Creek Watershed Rules were most recently updated on 1/1/2021. This date should
be corrected to 1/1/2025.
• Floodplains, Page 45
o Numbered item 4 should identify that drainage/flowage easements need to be provided
only if required by the land use authority.
o Continuing onto page 46, “Areas that are covered by Rule E are also subject to Rule F:
Wetland Alteration, as applicable.”
• Water Resources, Page 76
o In the Floodplains row, please identify that RCWD approvals relate specifically to
RCWD’s 100-year floodplains and not FEMA.
• Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources, Page 77/78
o Include language that permits are required from the DNR for the taking of an endangered
or threatened species (Minnesota Statutes section 84.0895 and Minnesota Rules parts
6212.1800-2100).
• Both Development Scenarios include lands within the floodplain, RCWD rules require all proposed
development to quantify impacts to floodplain and address, mitigate, according to rule.
Date Submitted: 5/27/2025
Name: Daryl Wangert
Subject: Housing
Comment: Natural integration, open housing without interest in income, race, religion, or political
affiliations. A reasonable density with disclosure as to effects of building on low fema flood plain.
Cracked foundation and soft saggy backyard possible over time, reduced value over time due to floods.
Certainly disclose the possibility of flood insurance requirements!
Address: 7868 Century Trail, Lino Lakes, MN 55014
Date Submitted: 05/27/2025
Name: Sam Bennett
Subject: 2.1 Thoughts
Comment: I was the one who suggested bringing the park in towards the high density and commercial
areas. This was intended to make the park more accessible to those most likely to use it and drive
mutually beneficial activities most simply, being able to buy lunch and enjoy the playground.
Instead the high density was stretched out to the park. Which does make it more accessible to many users
it does not close the gap between the commercials and park space and now a much higher percentage of
single family lots are adjacent to the density.
Overall, I don't see enough benefit for option 2.1 over 2.0. it feels like a hybrid of "islands of density" that
was first to be eliminated.
Address: 6841 Lakeview Dr, Lino Lakes, MN 55014
Date Submitted: 05/28/2025
Name: Christina Narwid
Subject: 35W and Sunset Bridge
Comment: With the additional development in the NW Main corridor, I worry about the traffic going to
Centennial Middle School and High School. There is a plan in place to make Sunset Avenue safer, but I
would love to see the Sunset bridge over 35W have a pedestrian/bike lane. That is the main route from
this neighborhood to the schools so there are many kids riding their bikes to get to those locations. It is
already unsafe and there will be even more traffic with the increased density.
Address: 7768 Pinto Lane, Lino Lakes, MN 55014, United States
Date Submitted: 05/28/2025
Name: Sue Bass
Subject: Robinson Drive
Comment: If you put the street through from Main Street to Century Trail and Robinson Dr you are
going to create a freeway along Robinson Drive as most people, instead of going to the traffic circle at
Main and Sunset are going to cut down Century Trail and turn on Robinson. Robinson at that point is a
straight shot/short cut to Sunset. It is going to create horrible traffic for people living on or near Robinson.
People will not use Century Trail because it winds so much. There needs to be some way to funnel the
traffic away from Robinson. PLEASE!
Address: 197 Shetland Ln, Lino Lakes, MN 55014, United States
Date Submitted: 05/28/2025
Name: James Bosak
Subject: Both Scenarios
Comment: Both scenarios appear to show an extension of 121st that would run along the north side of
my property at 7798 Sunset and connect to Robinson Drive. I cannot imagine what value such a road
might have since it essentially parallels Sunset. What it would do for me personally is completely destroy
the value of my property, at least to me. Please let me know as soon as possible if this is a serious
possibility so that I can start looking for another place to live. If that road is built neither of the scenarios
will make any difference to me since I would not be living in Lino Lakes anymore.
Address: 7798 SUNSET AVE, LINO LAKES, MN 55014, United States
Date Submitted: 06/03/2025
Name: James Bosak
Subject: feedback
Comment: I am not sure what more feedback on this issue will achieve, guessing it’s probably just a
mandatory part of the whole AUAR process and will not have any impact whatsoever on what is
eventually allowed to go forward. I would hope that by now the wishes of the residents living in close
proximity to the proposed development area are fairly well known, i.e. “Slow the Grow”. Simply put
those wishes are; the lowest possible housing density and the highest possible green natural space
possible. At 3400 or 3500 units neither of the scenarios presented come close to achieving this, at least in
my view. Dividing the 962 acres by 3450 units gives about only .28 acres per unit. But it is really even
lower than this since at significant portion of the 962 acres are already fully developed (not sure why they
were even included in the study). I would be interested to know what the process and criteria were that
determined what the appropriate density should be. If this was explained in the AUAR report I must have
missed it. There must have been some consistent considerations since both scenarios come up with
almost the same overall density. In order for the density proposed to be achieved it looks to me like it will
be at a very high cost since according to the map presented in the AUAR about half of the acres are in the
FEMA flood zones. An awful lot of dirt will have to be moved around. Oh well, I’m sure some
developer will be allowed to give it a try, hopefully not one convicted of theft by swindle. For what it’s
worth, between the two scenarios presented, this resident votes for scenario 1.
Address: 7798 SUNSET AVE, LINO LAKES, MN 55014, United States
Date Submitted: 05/28/2025
Name: William Grant
Subject: Prefer Scenario 1
Comment: Sunset is a short street that is already problematic to turn left out of the neighborhood in the
morning. Putting high density all centered on Sunset will make a problem worse. The higher density
should be farther East closer to the major roadways. That is Scenario 1.
Address: 102 Century Trail, Lino Lakes, MN 55014, United States
Date Submitted: 05/30/2025
Name: James Kukkonen
Subject: Main Development
Comment: As a current resident of Century Trail I would prefer a scenario with low density
development. My concerns would include the increased traffic, use of local resources and added pressure
on local schools. I am not against growth but I do believe we need to consider the effects of increasing
too much in a small area.
Address: 7824 Century Trail, Circle Pines, MN 55014, United States
Date Submitted: 06/03/2025
Name: Teresa O’Connell
Subject: AUAR project main street
Comment: Water and lighting are my concerns. Water this area I believe was tiled for farming so with
that in mind keeping the water on this site with slow release into the soil or sewer system is important.
Whatever system is used plan ahead on making maintenance of these water areas easily accessible.
Decided in advance before sales happen to the future landowners who will be responsible for cost and
maintenance of the water devices. If a retention pond is put in, I believe they need to be cleaned out
between 15 to 20 years after being built. The developer could choose to build each lot with a rain garden
in and that also has to be maintained and cleaned out, yearly would be good. There are many options for
controlling water but currently from what I have observed this is not being planned during the
development of the land.
Lighting since this area already has development around it on the South, North and East side maintaining
lighting as close to what is in the surrounding area is important. Dark sky cities are becoming more and
more popular and since full build out is not planned for another 30 years. Talk with the 10- and 13-year-
olds over at Lino Lakes Stem school and get them involved I suspect they have dreams of what the future
will look like. They will be the ones living there but at the same time the current neighbors' needs should
be met.
35 W which is very close to this site sees more traffic than Main St, Sunset and 4th streets see on a daily
basis and there are no streetlights between Lexington and going north to Lake dr. on 35 W.
Address: 1000 Main St., Lino Lakes, MN 55014, United States
Date Submitted: 06/25/2025
Name: Kevin and Tammy Danrud
Subject: AUAR Comments
Comment: First, thank you for allowing public input into this process. After reviewing the AUAR, we
are in favor of Scenario 2. However, we still have comments, questions and concerns over this scenario.
1. Our first priority is to leave Carl Street alone. There are many pedestrians and bicyclists that use this
road along with the residential homes that would be highly impacted if this were to connect to other
roadways as part of the development-too much traffic. This is a street we call home and it has been here
for a lot longer than a new development. We will already have a very different quality of life with the
development across the street. It would be great to keep one thing the same.
2. As we are an existing neighborhood on the southside of Carl Street, we would like to ask that the
development put in trees at the far south end of the quadrant along Carl Street to provide a noise and view
buffer of the development. Again, this development will affect our quality of life, and trees would be a
good faith effort on the developers' part to show they want to do well with existing neighborhoods.
3. As there will need to be a new water treatment plant built for this development as well as new roads
and roundabouts, we are very concerned how this will impact our taxes. Our taxes took a big jump this
year and we don't feel we should be taxed for these services as we will not benefit at all from the water
and roads.
4. Finally, we are concerned about traffic on 4th Ave. Many people walk along this road and there is an
airstrip that also ends at 4th and there are no sidewalks planned.
Address: 314 Carl Street, Lino Lakes, MN 55014
Date Submitted: 06/25/2025
Name: Kristen Iverson
Subject: AUAR Response
Comment: Hello,
I have a few concerns I would like to address in response to the AUAR study.
My concern is the negative impact this will have on traffic, and on our natural environment and
ecosystems in the study area and surrounding areas. I live on Carl Street, very close to the study area. This
is a rural area with larger lot sizes and open green areas.
We have Blanding Turtles that nest every year in our yards and surrounding areas. We currently have four
sets of Sandhill Cranes that breed and make their home here on Carl Street. We also have Bald Eagles,
numerous Owls, waterfowl, pheasants, turkey, deer and bear. Roughly seven miles north is Carlos Avery
Wildlife Management Area. This is an important wildlife refuge that contains marshland, lakes and
swamps that provides habitat for migratory birds and other wildlife species. This ecosystem needs to be
protected, including the land south of Carlos Avery in which we live and reside in. Many of these animals
live amongst us on Carl Street and in the surrounding forest areas and open fields near us.
We cannot allow high density homes and apartment building high rises, in addition to commercial
buildings, in this area because it will destroy this ecosystem. Migratory birds aloft at night migrate
through our area on Carl Street and surrounding neighborhoods, with stops to Carlos Avery Wildlife
Refuge.
It is important to eliminate outdoor lighting and parking lot lighting as much as possible, and to help
reduce the amount of reflective glass on windows to help get the birds safely to their destinations.
In summary, Lino Lakes needs to locate their commercial and high density developments to areas by Lake
Drive and Interstate 35. Let’s make the Lake Drive area the new “downtown” area, and let’s not ruin
peaceful residential neighborhoods with abundant wildlife with close proximity to Carlos Avery Wildlife
Management Area. This is a precious ecosystem with natural habitat that has to be saved and protected.
Thank you for your time.
Address: 352 Carl St, Lino Lakes, MN 55014, United States
Date Submitted: 06/26/2025
Name: Betsy Garcia
Subject: Soil Contamination and Floodplains
Comment: Thank you for compiling the AUAR report.
1) It is my understanding the Lino Lakes Flood Plain Administrator is responsible
for assuring compliance with FEMA guidelines & local ordinances regarding any development of land on
the current Robinson Sod Farm.
Because my property abuts this sod farm just to the east, I want to assure the proposed mitigation
interventions will protect my land from any flooding. Additionally, what communication will be
provided identifying the specific interventions, and to whom would I report any negative sequelae related
to flooding that could possibly occur as a result of the interventions in the future?
2) i am concerned regarding contaminated soil on the sod farm which already has or will occur during
mitigation secondary to fertilizers, pesticides and other chemicals. These have been used for years on the
sod farm, and would like to know what EPA approved testing or other methods will be done to determine
levels of toxic pollutants, harmful particulates or emissions from the helicopter crash, farm vehicles and
machinery. Would the testing include Nitrogen Oxides, Hydrocarbons, Greenhouse gases, ammonia and
other identified agriculturally related particles that contain substances linked to respiratory or potentially
cancer related harm to humans and wildlife. How will these findings be proactively communicated to
residents?
Lastly, it would have been beneficial and prudent for our Lino Lakes residents to receive a synopsis of
your very well organized and extensive findings in layman's terms, including avoidance of professional
jargon. We are far from experts in your field and in conversations with neighbors who read or tried to read
the AUAR report, it was impossible for them to understand or interpret findings, especially technical data
reports. Thus, it was not possible to reply to a report when you don't understand it in the first place. .
Address: N/A
Date Submitted: 05/28/2025
Name: John Grattan
Subject: Housing Density
Comment: I would prefer scenario 2, but there is still way too much high density housing in every
option.
Address: N/A
1
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD
AGENDA ITEM 6B
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Tom Hoffman, Environmental Coordinator
MEETING DATE: July 30, 2025
REQUEST: Storm Water Pond Pilot Project
BACKGROUND
City staff has received feedback from concerned residents regarding the aesthetic
quality of storm pond RLA-010-B located in Birchwood Acres Park. This pond treats
stormwater runoff from nearly 70 properties located primarily on Hawthorn Road and
Lonesome Pine Trail in the Park Grove development.
Communication has gone back several years to deal with concerns of vegetation, smell,
and stormwater management.
Staff reported to the Environmental Board twice in spring of 2025 over the possibility of
allowing private treatment of city stormwater ponds.
Recommendation at the time was to not allow private treatments and look into other
opportunities and options and potential pilot projects.
DISCUSSION
Staff is looking for direction on how to proceed with potential future concerns primarily
about stormwater pond aesthetics and not function. A pilot program could be looked
into for implementation in certain situations. Additional language in city ordinance could
be updated to provide clear instruction on allowed uses and impacts.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is looking for direction from the Environmental Board on recommendations for
potential stormwater treatment pilot program.