HomeMy WebLinkAbout#04 - RFP for LandSTAFF REPORT
DATE: March 7, 2023
CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM: Request for Proposals for Purchase of City Land
TO: Mayor and Council
SUBMITTED BY: Kristina Handt, City Administrator
BACKGROUND:
In 2019 as part of the settlement of the City’s lawsuit against 3M related to PFAS contamination and the
impact on the city water system, the City received about 180 acres from 3M in lieu of $1.8 million. The
180 acres are located along Ideal Ave near the public works facility and extends both north and south of
CSAH 14. The land is an asset of the city water fund since the lawsuit damages were in the city water fund.
The City Council’s intention has been to sell the land for development. In 2019, the city received a grant
from the Washington County Community Development Authority (CDA) to explore concepts for
development of the land and what the cost would be to make it shovel ready. That study completed by
HKGI and Focus engineering was shared with the Council in February and June 2020 at work sessions as
well as the planning commission in 2020.
In 2020, the cities of Oakdale and Lake Elmo agreed to work together to bring sewer to the 180 acres from
the lift station on Helmo Ave and Stillwater Blvd. Formal agreements were approved in 2021 and
construction was underway in 2022. The City of Lake Elmo has completed the extension of the sewer main
up Ideal Ave to approximately 31st St. (just south of the railroad tracks). The City of Oakdale is expected
to have the lift station upgrade complete and operational by summer 2023. Approximately $700,000 of
Lake Elmo’s ARPA funds have be spent on this project in 2022.
The city issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the land south of CSAH 14 in 2021 and entered into a
purchase agreement in June 2021, which was terminated in 2022. In 2021, the Met Council approved an
amendment to the comprehensive plan to guide the land south of CSAH 14 to Business Park (77 acres). In
April 2022, the city council adopted an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the entire 180
acres. The Council also approved a comprehensive plan amendment for the northern portion of the property
consistent with the preferred alternative which includes additional land for the public works facility to
expand (4 acres), a park (8 acres), commercial along CSAH 14 (4.7 acres), low density residential (LDR)
along the north of the parcel (14 acres) and the remaining area of the parcel as Business Park (72 acres).
The Met Council approved this new guidance in January 2023.
The city has continued to receive numerous inquiries from individuals and organizations expressing interest
in purchasing and/or developing some or all of the 180 acres. The next step in the process to sell and develop
the land is to issue another RFP.
ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL:
Should the City issue an RFP? Are there any changes Council would like to make to the RFP?
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
A draft RFP is included in your packet. It has been reviewed by the city attorney as well since the work
session and updated accordingly.
Key parts of the proposal include not only the price but also how the applicant would develop the property,
when it would be developed, what the increased tax value would be and the number of jobs created. Staff
is suggesting a minimum purchase price of $125,000/acre based upon previous offers and to also set realistic
expectations for proposers. Once the proposals are received, staff would review them for completeness and
forward to the EDA for review and recommendation. Then a Council selection would be anticipated in late
May or early June. Offers are required to be valid for 90 days from the submittal deadline in order to
accommodate this schedule. Once a purchase agreement is signed, then the closing must occur within 180
days.
FISCAL IMPACT:
At an estimated 426 RECs (from 2020 study) for all 180 acres, there would be $1,704,000 each in WAC,
SAC, and connection charges collected at development.
In addition, whatever sale price (minimally $9 million) is received for the property would be allocated to
the water fund since the land is an asset of that fund. Legal fees and closing costs related to the sale would
also come out of the water fund.
Overall, it is expected that the tax value increase combined with fees and sale price will exceed the costs
associated with sale and sewer service. It is likely the water fund (and general fund through tax value
increase) will benefit substantially. Since ARPA funds were used for the sewer extension, the sewer fund
will see an increase from the SAC and connection fees without the offset of the cost of extending the main.
Sewer fund expenses will increase with the city paying the City of Oakdale annually based upon usage.
This increased expense will be partially offset by the sewer fees the City of Lake Elmo will collect from
the new users on the property.
OPTIONS:
1) Approve the issuance of the RFP
2) Amend the RFP and then approve the issuance
3) Do not issue an RFP for the sale of the land at this time.
RECOMMENDATION:
If removed from the consent agenda:
“Motion to issue the Request for Proposals for the Sale of City Land.”
ATTACHMENT:
• Request for Proposals for Purchase of City Land
• Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, May 2019
• AUAR
LA515-1-859254.v2
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)
FOR
THE PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO
MARCH 8, 2023
THE PROPERTY IS COMMONLY
KNOWN AS:
FORMER 3M LAND on IDEAL AVE, LAKE ELMO,
MN
All proposals and other communications must be addressed and
returned to:
City of Lake Elmo
Attn: City Administrator
3800 Laverne Ave N
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
PROPOSALS MUST BE RECEIVED NO LATER THAN 3:00 PM LOCAL TIME
ON THURSDAY, APRIL 13, 2023
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
1
LA515-1-859254.v2
FOR
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
I. PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
The City of Lake Elmo, Lake Elmo, Minnesota (the “City”) will accept proposals for the purchase of
parcels of City owned property known as the former 3M land. There are two purchase options,
Option One and Option Two.
Option One
The property is located east of Ideal Ave and South of CSAH 14, a portion of Tax Parcel ID
16.029.21.24.0002 . The property for sale is approximately 75 acres with 55 acres being south of
CSAH 14 and north of the railroad tracks and 20 acres being south of the railroad tracks.
Option Two
The Option Two includes all of the property described in Option One above and the additional
property located east of Ideal Avenue and North of CSAH 14, PID 16.029.21.24.0002 and PID
16.029.21.23.0003, minus 4 acres for Public Works.
Responses to this Request for Proposals (“RFP”) must state which options the respondent is
proposing for (i.e., Option One or Option Two or if the respondent is willing to be considered for
both options). Proposals must be in writing.
II. PROPERTY INFORMATION
The property that is a part of Option One is approximately 75 acres and is bisected by the Union
Pacific Railroad line. The respondent will be required to apply to the City for a rezoning of the
Property so that it is consistent with the Business Park guiding in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan
during the development process. The respondent will be responsible for seeking any land use or
other governmental approvals necessary for its intended use of the Property at its own expense.
Municipal water is currently available to the site. Municipal sanitary sewer lines have been brought
to the site and are expected to be operational in the Summer of 2023 through a partnership with
the City of Oakdale. A future land use map is attached as Exhibit 5.
Option Two includes all of Option One property and the property approximately 100 acres north of
CSAH 14, which is guided for Business Park, Commercial, Low Density Residential and Park. The
City Council adopted an AUAR in April 2022 (copy attached as Exhibit 4) and the Metropolitan
Council approved the new guidance in January 2023. The residential portion of the property cannot
be developed until 2027 per an agreement between the City of Lake Elmo and City of Oakdale.
The additional property that is part of Option Two cannot be developed independently of the Option
One Property due to the location of municipal sewer at Ideal Ave and 31st St, which would need to
be extended north to serve property on the north side of CSAH 14. Similar to Option One, the
respondent will be responsible for applying for a rezoning during the development process as well
as any land use or other governmental approvals necessary for its intended use, including but not
limited to, all approvals and dedications required by the City’s zoning and subdivision regulations.
2
LA515-1-859254.v2
All of the property is currently vacant and has been agricultural for many years. The property was
last actively farmed in 2021. A Phase 1 Environmental Assessment was completed in May 2019.
A copy is included as Exhibit 3.
A listing of the permitted and conditional uses for properties that are zoned as Business Park in the
City is attached to this Request for Proposals as Exhibit 2. Contact the Lake Elmo Planning
Department for uses in other districts under Option Two.
III. CONDITIONS GOVERNING THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY
A. Offer
All respondents must complete and submit the Offer to Purchase form (attached as Exhibit
1) to the City indicating the amount being offered for the Property. The offer must not be
subject to any type of financing contingency. All offers submitted to the City in response
to this RFP shall remain valid for 90 days from the submittal deadline set forth in this RFP.
This time period may be extended by mutual agreement of the City and any of the
proposer(s). The Property is being sold by the City “AS IS.”
B. Purchase Price
The minimum purchase price for the Property is $125,000 per acre. The purchase price
must be paid in full to the City either by wire transfer or by certified check at closing.
C. Closing Fees and Costs
The successful respondent will be solely responsible for paying all closing fees and costs,
including, but not limited to, a survey, if desired by respondent, any tests desired by
respondent, title commitment fees, title search and examination fees, any title insurance
premiums or the cost of any endorsements, closing fees charged by the closing company,
any brokers’ fees or commissions, respondent’s attorneys’ fees, the state deed tax, the
cost of recording the deed, and any escrow fees. The City will be responsible for the cost
of making title to the Property marketable and the City’s attorneys’ fees.
D. Commission
The City agrees and acknowledges that it has not engaged the services of any agent or
broker for the sale of the Property. In the event that the successful respondent has engaged
an agent or broker, the respondent will be solely responsible for the payment of said agent
or broker, and said fees must not be deducted from the purchase price.
E. Earnest Money Deposit
Within five business days after all parties signing a purchase agreement, the successful
respondent will be required to deposit 10 percent of the purchase price, as earnest money,
with a title company who will hold the earnest money in escrow. The earnest money will
be applied to the purchase price and will be refundable except in the event of a breach of
the purchase agreement by the respondent.
3
LA515-1-859254.v2
F. Proposal Submission
To be considered, a sealed written proposal must be submitted by the respondent to the
City either by mail or by personal delivery no later than 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 13,
2023. No proposals submitted by electronic mail or facsimile will be accepted. The outside
of the envelope must be marked “PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY RFP” and delivered
to:
City of Lake Elmo
Attn: City Administrator
3800 Laverne Ave N
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
All submissions are subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes
Chapter 13. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.591, subdivision 3 (b), data
submitted in response to a request for proposals by a government entity are private or
nonpublic until the time and date specified in the solicitation that proposals are due, at
which time the name of the responder becomes public. All other data in a responder’s
proposal are private or nonpublic data until completion of the evaluation process.
“Completion of the evaluation process” means that the City has completed negotiating the
purchase agreement with the selected respondent. After the City has completed the
evaluation process, all remaining data submitted by all responders are public with the
exception of trade secret data as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.37. If all
proposals are rejected prior to completion of the evaluation process, all data, other than
the names of the responders, remain private or nonpublic until a resolicitation of the request
for proposals results in the completion of the evaluation process or a determination is made
to abandon the sale. If a resolicitation of proposals does not occur within one year of the
proposal opening date, the remaining data become public.
H. Provision of Contact Information
Those interested in submitting a proposal are encouraged to provide contact information
to Kristina Handt, City Administrator at: khandt@lakelemo.org. This will allow the City to
contact interested parties in the event that there are any addenda or changes to this RFP.
Individuals who do not submit contact information to the City shall be solely responsible for
independently verifying if any addenda or other changes have been issued for this RFP by
contacting the City in writing prior to the submission deadline.
I. Selection
The City will select the proposal that is in the best interests of the City and will support the
best use of the Property in the City’s sole discretion. The sale of the Property is subject to
the approval of a purchase agreement between the successful respondent and the City
Council. The City reserves the right to negotiate with respondents and to reject any and all
offers.
4
LA515-1-859254.v2
J. Schedule
March 8, 2023 Request for Proposals Issued
April 13, 2023, 3:00 p.m. Proposals due
May 2023(estimate) Economic Development Authority Review of
Proposals and Recommendation to the City
Council
June 6 or 20, 2023(estimate) City Council Selection
K. Questions
All questions or requests for clarification should be submitted in writing via email to
khandt@lakeelmo.org. The City shall not be responsible for the delay in the transmission
of any request for clarification or other communication. The City will make all questions and
answers available to all interested parties.
L. Conflict of Interest
Any respondent who has a conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest shall disclose
the same in its offer. The City will review any potential conflicts of interest in its evaluation
of the proposals.
IV. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
A. Required Content
At a minimum, the following information must be included in all proposals:
1. Cover Letter
The respondent must submit a cover letter committing the respondent to
purchasing the Property on the terms and conditions set forth in this RFP and
providing information regarding the respondent’s intended use of the Property.
2. Offer to Purchase
The respondent must complete the Offer to Purchase Property form as is with no
changes or alterations (attached as Exhibit 1).
In addition to purchase price, all proposals must include information related to:
a. How the property is intended to be developed?
b. When does the respondent intend to develop the property?
c. How much will the proposed development increase the taxable value of the
property?
d. How many jobs (both permanent and construction jobs) will be created by the
5
LA515-1-859254.v2
proposed development? What are the anticipated wages/salaries of those
jobs?
V. EVALUATION CRITERIA
The City reserves the right to contact some or all of the respondents to clarify non-material aspects
of their offers. In evaluating the proposals, the City’s selection will be based upon those factors
deemed necessary to promote the best interests and welfare of the City, the neighborhood, and
the community, including, but not limited to, the best use of the Property, change in tax valuation,
and quantity/quality of jobs created.
VI. REJECTION OF PROPOSALS
A. Selection does not Guarantee a Purchase Agreement
This RFP shall not create any legal obligation of the City to evaluate any proposal that is
submitted or to enter into any purchase agreement with a respondent who submits a
proposal except on terms and conditions that the City deems, in its sole and absolute
discretion, to be satisfactory and desirable. All proposals should contain an affirmative
statement regarding whether there is any “conflict of interest” with the City, its elected and
appointed officials, and the respondent.
The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals received and the right to waive
non-material formalities and technicalities according to the best interests of the City. The
City reserves the right to select a respondent or multiple respondents for the purchase of
the Property. The City is not obligated to select the proposal with the highest offering price,
as it is considering other factors that are outlined in this RFP in addition to price.
By submitting a proposal, the Respondent acknowledges its understanding of the
requirements of this RFP and agrees to be bound to the same when negotiating the
purchase agreement, if its proposal is selected by the City.
B. No Liability for Expenses or Costs
The City is not responsible for expenses or costs incurred by respondents in connection
with this RFP process and submitting a proposal. This includes, but is not limited to, costs
associated with preparing the proposal and of participating in any site visits, oral
presentations, or negotiations.
VII. SELECTION
A. Completion
The Respondent’s proposal must be complete in order to be considered by the City for
selection. Proposals will be reviewed by the City Administrator for completeness in
addressing the five criteria listed in the submission requirements set forth in Section IV
(A)(1) of this RFP and Exhibit 1.
6
LA515-1-859254.v2
The Lake Elmo Economic Development Authority will review all complete proposals and
make a recommendation to the City Council as to which proposal should be selected.
B. Purchase Agreement
The selected proposer will be required to enter into a purchase agreement with the City for
the purchase of the Property. The purchase agreement is subject to the approval of the
City Council.
7
LA515-1-859254.v2
EXHIBIT 1: OFFER TO PURCHASE REAL PROPERTY
SUBMITTAL: To ensure proper identification and handling, submit your offer in a sealed envelope. This
Offer must be submitted by 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 13, 2023 to:
City of Lake Elmo
Attn: City Administrator
3800 Laverne Ave N.
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Timely delivery of the offer is the sole responsibility of the Respondent. The offer must be submitted by
personal delivery or mail. Late offers will not be accepted. All offers shall remain valid for a period of 90
days from the RFP submittal date. The time period may be extended by mutual agreement of the City and
the proposer.
TO: City of Lake Elmo
Attn: City Administrator
3800 Laverne Ave N.
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
_______________________________________, herein called the “Buyer,” hereby offer and agree to
purchase the Property known as the former 3M land located east of Ideal Ave and South of CSAH 14,
Check Option Proposing on:
___________ Option One, a portion of Tax Parcel ID 16.029.21.24.0002 (the “Property”) approximately 75
acres in size from the City of Lake Elmo (“City”).
____________ Option 2, includes all of the property described in Option One and a portion of Tax Parcel
16.029.21.24.0002 and Tax Parcel 16.029.21.23.0003, which totals approximately 176 acres from the City
of Lake Elmo (“City”).
Circle One:
If proposing for Option 2 and the City decides to only consider proposals for Option One, Proposer IS
WILLING or IS NOT WILLING (circle one) to be considered for Option One.
8
LA515-1-859254.v2
subject to the terms and conditions contained in this Offer and the City’s Request for Proposals dated March
8, 2023 at the price set forth below:
$__________________
The proposed use of the property will be: ___________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
How is the property intended to be developed? _______________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
When do you intend to develop the property? _______________________________________________
How much will the proposed development increase the taxable value of the property? _______________
____________________________________________________________________________________
How many jobs (both permanent and temporary construction jobs) will be created by the proposed
development?
Temporary Construction Jobs: ____________________
Permanent Jobs: ___________________
Anticipated Annual Salaries/Wages of Jobs:___________________________
I understand that possession of the Property will be granted upon closing. Transfer of the Property will be
by quit claim deed.
I also understand that closing shall be within 180 days of approval of a purchase agreement by the City
Council, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. This purchase is subject to approval by the City Council
and the City reserves the right to reject any and all offers.
I am aware/not aware of any potential conflict of interest with respect to my purchase of the Property. If
there is a potential conflict of interest, please state the potential conflict of interest here:
_________________________________________________________________________________.
I understand and agree to the terms set forth in this offer and also in the City’s Request for Proposals.
Date:_____________________ By: ____________________________
Its: ____________________________
9
LA515-1-859254.v2
EXHIBIT 2 – City of Lake Elmo Zoning Regulations for Business Park
Zoning District: BP Business Park/Light Manufacturing District. The purpose of the BP District is to provide
areas for attractive, high quality business park development primarily for office, high quality manufacturing
and assembly, and non-retail uses in developments which provide a harmonious transition to residential
development and neighborhoods by: 1) Conducting all business activities and essentially all storage inside
buildings; 2) Consisting of high quality and attractive buildings which blend in with the environment; 3)
providing open space, quality landscaping and berming; 4) including berming and buffering of parking,
loading docks and other similar functions; and 5) protecting and enhancing the natural environment; and 6)
providing users with an attractive working environment that is unique in the eastern metropolitan area with
immediate access to I94.
Permitted Uses:
1. Business Services
2. Business Center
3. Offices
4. Communication Services
5. Educational Services
6. Financial Institution
7. Parks and Open Areas
8. Wayside Stand
Accessory Uses:
1. Parking Facility
2. Solar Equipment
3. Other Structures typically incidental and clearly subordinate to permitted uses
Conditional Uses, Not Inclusive: (all conditional uses require a conditional use permit that must be
reviewed and approved by the City Council and reviewed by the Planning Commission)
1. Colleges and Universities
2. Community Service
3. Day Care Center
4. Schools, public and private
5. Local Transit
6. Public Assembly
7. Lodging
8. Medical Facility
9. Transportation Services
10. Veterinary Services
11. Standard Restaurant
12. Fast Food Restaurant
13. General Retail Sales
14. Adult indoor recreation/entertainment
15. Indoor athletic facility
16. Light Industrial
17. Non-production industrial
10
LA515-1-859254.v2
18. Motor Freight and Warehousing
19. Research and Testing
20. Broadcasting and Communications
21. Wind Generator
Further information on setbacks and other regulatory requirements may be found on the City’s website
www.lakeelmo.org, Planning and Zoning, Municipal Code Sec. 154.550-154.555 (Article XIV) or by
contacting the Planning Department at 651-747-3912.
11
LA515-1-859254.v2
EXHIBIT 3 – Phase 1 Environmental Assessment by Barr Engineering May 2019
[to be added]
12
LA515-1-859254.v2
EXHIBIT 4 – 2022 AUAR
[to be added]
13
LA515-1-859254.v2
EXHIBIT 5-Future Land Use Map of Area
4300 MarketPointe Drive, Suite 200
Minneapolis, MN 55435
952.832.2600
www.barr.com
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
PIN #1602921240002
Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Prepared for
3M
May 2019
BARR ENGINEERING CO. Page i
\\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\82\23821219 3M Lake Elmo Phase
Is\WorkFiles\1602921240002\PHIESA_Report_1602921240002_v2.docx
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
PIN #1602921240002
Lake Elmo, Minnesota
May 2019
Contents
1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Scope of Services ............................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.3 Significant Assumptions ............................................................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Limitations, Exceptions, and Data Gaps ................................................................................................................. 2
1.5 Special Terms and Conditions ................................................................................................................................... 3
1.6 User Reliance .................................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.0 Site Description .................................................................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Location and Legal Description ................................................................................................................................. 4
2.2 Property Setting and Land Use ................................................................................................................................. 4
2.3 User-Provided Information ......................................................................................................................................... 4
3.0 Findings and Opinions ....................................................................................................................................................... 5
3.1 Definitions .......................................................................................................................................................................... 5
3.2 Findings and Opinions .................................................................................................................................................. 6
4.0 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................................................ 8
4.1 Deviations .......................................................................................................................................................................... 8
5.0 References .............................................................................................................................................................................. 9
6.0 Signature and Qualifications of Environmental Professional ...........................................................................11
BARR ENGINEERING CO. Page ii
List of Tables
Table 1 Property and Adjoining Property Regulatory Status
Table 2 Surrounding Area Regulatory Status
List of Figures
Figure 1 Property Location Map
Figure 2 Property Layout Map
List of Appendices
Appendix A Phase I Documentation
Appendix B Property Inspection Photographs
Appendix C Historical Documentation
Appendix D Regulatory Records Documentation
Appendix E Previous Investigations of Property
Appendix F Interview Documentation
Appendix G Qualifications
BARR ENGINEERING CO. Page 1
1.0 Introduction
Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) was retained by 3M to complete a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
(Assessment) of a property owned by 3M and used for agriculture. The property is located in the W ½,
Section 16, T29N, R21W, near Lake Elmo, Washington County, Minnesota (Property). The Property consists
of PIN #1602921240002. The Property location is shown on Figure 1.
This report summarizes the findings, opinions, and conclusions of the Assessment. Detailed descriptions
of the Property setting, utility information, land-use history, regulatory history, and current Property
conditions and features are presented in the Phase I documentation in Appendix A. Informational
resources are described in Section 5 of this report and are assigned unique reference numbers, which are
used throughout the report and Appendix A.
Barr has performed this Assessment in conformance with ASTM, International (ASTM) Practice E 1527-13
(Practice). No intentional deviations from the Practice were made in performing this Assessment except as
described in Section 1.4. In following the Practice, this Assessment also complies with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 312 Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries;
Final Rule.
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of the Assessment is to identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs) in connection
with the Property as defined by the Practice and discussed in the findings and opinions section of the
report, and to assess the property for 3M Real Estate.
1.2 Scope of Services
The Assessment involved completion of the following five components described in Section 7 of the
Practice: records review, site reconnaissance, interviews, reporting, and file reviews. The following tasks
were completed during the Assessment. The details of each task are described below and in Appendix A.
Records Review
• A Regulatory Database Report was obtained and federal, state, and readily available tribal records
databases were reviewed.
• USGS topographic maps were reviewed and used to determine physical setting information.
• Land title information provided by the User was reviewed.
• Discretionary physical setting sources including Minnesota Department of Health well and boring
records for wells in the Property vicinity and published geological reports were reviewed and used
to determine physical setting information.
• Historical aerial photographs; historical topographic maps; reverse city directories; and zoning
and tax assessor’s records were reviewed for the Property and surrounding land.
• A fire insurance map search was conducted and no fire insurance maps were available for the
Property.
• One previous Phase I ESA relevant to a portion of the Property was reviewed.
BARR ENGINEERING CO. Page 2
• The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) What’s in My Neighborhood (WIMN) and
Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Cleanups in My Community were reviewed to
supplement regulatory data.
Site Reconnaissance
• A visual inspection was conducted of the building interiors and exterior features on the Property.
Current conditions with respect to land use; chemical and waste storage, use, and disposal; facility
operations and equipment; utilities; and evidence of potential releases of petroleum products or
hazardous substances were documented, if observed. Evidence of historical uses or conditions, if
encountered, was also documented. Current land-use and occupants of neighboring properties
were documented during the site visit.
Interviews
• Interviews were conducted with the Property representative and the City of Lake Elmo public
works department.
Evaluation and Report Preparation
• This report was prepared to document the resources used during completion of the Assessment
and to describe the findings, opinions, and conclusions of the Assessment.
File Review
• The Property was not identified on any of the standard environmental record sources, so a file
review for the Property was not conducted.
• Adjoining properties were identified on multiple standard environmental record sources. A file
review for one adjoining property was conducted.
1.3 Significant Assumptions
No significant assumptions were made to complete the Assessment.
1.4 Limitations, Exceptions, and Data Gaps
The following limitations and exceptions are associated with this Assessment:
• Gaps of greater than five years in historical documentation are present, and are summarized in
the following table.
Date Range Property Changes
Prior to 1936 Historical documentation was not readily ascertainable; therefore, changes in general Property land-uses are unknown.
1936-1946, 1953-1964, 1966-1974, 1978-1984, 1997-2006
Gaps greater than five years in historical documentation are present; however, general Property land-uses did not change during the time periods.
BARR ENGINEERING CO. Page 3
• Representative portions of the Property were observed by driving and by foot during the site visit,
and some portions of the property were not directly visited beyond viewing from a distance due
to the large parcel size.
• The above limitations are not considered significant data gaps that affect the ability of the EP to
identify RECs on the Property.
1.5 Special Terms and Conditions
The Assessment was conducted in accordance with an Agreement between Barr and 3M.
The scope of the Assessment did not involve the collection and analysis of any type of sample. The
Assessment did not involve completion of any surveys or the offering of any opinions or advice with
respect to structural engineering matters, asbestos-containing materials, radon, lead-based paint, lead in
drinking water, wetlands, compliance with environmental regulations, cultural and historic resources,
industrial hygiene, health and safety, ecological resources, endangered species, indoor air quality ,
biological agents, mold, or other conditions that are beyond the scope of the Practice.
Barr has performed its work in a manner consistent with the care and skill ordinarily exercised by
members of the environmental profession under similar budget and time constraints. Within this context,
Barr assumes responsibility for its own observations, along with its interpretation of the information
gathered. No other warranty is made or intended.
Because Barr was not retained to verify information, Barr assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of
information that it obtained from other sources including, without limitation, regulatory and government
agencies, persons interviewed about the Property, and vendors of public data. Performance of the Practice
is intended to reduce, but will not eliminate uncertainty regarding the presence of recognized
environmental conditions on the Property. To the extent that Barr does not identify recognized
environmental conditions on the Property, Barr's opinions in the report are not representations that the
Property is free of such conditions. Under no circumstances can Barr represent or warrant that releases of
hazardous substances or petroleum products do not exist on the Property.
1.6 User Reliance
The Assessment has been prepared for the exclusive use of 3M, herein referred to as the “User”. No others
may rely on the Assessment without obtaining a formal authorization in the form of a reliance letter from
Barr. Barr will provide reliance letters for additional parties only if authorized by the User.
BARR ENGINEERING CO. Page 4
2.0 Site Description
2.1 Location and Legal Description
The property is located in the W ½, Section 16, T29, R21, near Lake Elmo, Washington County, Minnesota
(Property). The Property consists of PIN #1602921240002. The Property is approximately 3,500 feet by
2,600 feet and 172.61 acres in size. The Property boundaries are shown on Figure 2.
2.2 Property Setting and Land Use
Topography of the Property is hilly north of 34th Street and slopes downward to a drainage ditch running
west to east through the Property. South of 34th Street the Property slopes downwards to the southeast
(Ref. 5b). Shallow groundwater flow direction at the Property is reportedly to be to the south/southeast
based on the Washington County Geologic Atlas (Ref. 2a), although the flow direction of the shallow
groundwater is believed to be influenced by local discharge/recharge points, the presence of confining
layers, and groundwater withdrawals and land use in nearby areas (Ref. 5f). Regional groundwater flow in
the St. Peter sandstone and the Prairie du Chien group, is generally to the southwest (Ref. 5f).
The Property is currently used for agriculture and is zoned Rural Residential (Ref. 5e). No buildings are
located on the Property (Refs. 1a, 5b). The Property is not connected to water or sewer (Ref. 4c).
Historically the Property has been used for agricultural activities (Ref. 1a). No historical buildings were
identified on the Property (Ref. 1a).
The current use of adjoining properties includes residential, agricultural, and commercial (Ref. 5b). The
past use of adjoining properties includes agricultural and residential (Ref. 1a).
Additional descriptions of the Property setting and land-use are presented in Appendix A.
2.3 User-Provided Information
As detailed in Section 6 of the Practice, the User has responsibilities associated with identifying possible
recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Property. Barr provided a User Questionnaire
to facilitate gathering information required by the Practice. The completed User Questionnaire is included
in Appendix F.
The User has no knowledge of any environmental liens or activity and use limitations against the Property,
nor any specialized knowledge or experience that is material to identifying recognized environmental
conditions in connection with the Property. Since no sale is pending or imminent, no information was
provided to the environmental professional regarding the relationship between a potential purchase price
and fair market value. Property valuation is not part of the scope of this Assessment. The User did not
report conditions indicative of releases or threatened releases, any obvious indicators that point to the
presence or likely presence of contamination at the Property, or specialized knowledge about the
Property related to the items listed in Section 6 of the Practice (Ref. 4b, Appendix F).
BARR ENGINEERING CO. Page 5
3.0 Findings and Opinions
This section summarizes observations regarding the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum
products on the Property (findings) and discusses the basis for concluding if a finding is or is not a
recognized environmental condition.
3.1 Definitions
Finding – For the purpose of this Assessment, a finding is an observation regarding the presence of
hazardous substances or petroleum products on the Property which may be considered a recognized
environmental condition, a historical recognized environmental condition, or de minimis condition.
Recognized environmental condition (REC) - A REC is defined by the Practice as “the presence or likely
presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to release to
the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions
that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. De minims conditions are not
recognized environmental conditions.”
Historical recognized environmental condition (HREC) - An HREC is defined by the Practice as “a past
release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with the
property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or meeting
unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the property to any
required controls (for example, property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls,
or engineering controls). Before calling the past release a historical recognized environmental condition,
the environmental professional must determine whether the past release is a recognized environmental
condition at the time the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is conducted (for example, if there has
been a change in the regulatory criteria). If the EP considers the past release to be a recognized
environmental condition at the time the Phase I ESA is conducted, the condition shall be included in the
conclusions section of the report as a recognized environmental condition.”
Controlled recognized environmental condition (CREC) – A CREC is defined by the Practice as “a recognized
environmental condition resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products
that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority (for example, as
evidenced by the issuance of a no further action letter or equivalent, or meeting risk-based criteria
established by regulatory authority), with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain
in place subject to the implementation of required controls (for example, property use restrictions, activity
and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls). A condition considered by the
environmental professional to be a controlled recognized environmental condition shall be listed in the
findings section of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment report, and as a recognized environmental
condition in the conclusions section of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment report.”
De minimis conditions – As defined by the Practice, conditions determined to be “de minimis” generally do
not present a threat to human health or the environment and generally would not be subject of an
BARR ENGINEERING CO. Page 6
enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies. De minimis
conditions are not considered RECs.
3.2 Findings and Opinions
Barr has identified the following findings and developed the following opinions regarding these findings,
as summarized in the following table.
Finding ID # Description of Finding Opinion with Respect to Finding (REC, CREC, HREC, de minimis)
Finding #1 Groundwater PFAS Impacts in the East Metro Area: Nearby Superfund sites have been identified by the state as contributing sources of widespread PFAS contamination in groundwater, including the Washington County Landfill, located approximately 3,000 feet northeast of the Property, and the Oakdale Dump site, located 3,600 feet west of the
Property. Both sites are estimated to be side-gradient of the
Property for shallow groundwater, and the Washington
County Landfill site may be upgradient of the Property for groundwater in bedrock. Drinking water advisories have been issued for private wells southeast of the Property. No wells are currently present on the Property. The Minnesota Department of Health has designated a Special Well Construction Area in this part of Lake Elmo that includes the
Property, which restricts well construction in some cases and
requires PFAS sampling of new wells in other cases in order
to prevent exposure to PFAS. City water is available near the Property. Additionally, the state is currently implementing area-wide investigations and remedial efforts to address PFAS in the East Metro Area.
The PFAS in groundwater is a regional concern and institutional controls are in place to address PFAS in Lake Elmo groundwater, therefore this finding is not considered a REC.
Finding #2 Miscellaneous Debris: Occasional areas of miscellaneous, inert debris were observed dispersed across the site. Observed materials included wood, metal fragments, plastic and glass shards, a small ash pile, and a stack of cinder blocks.
Based on the quantity and nature of the debris, this finding is considered a de minimis condition and is not a REC.
Finding #3 Past Agricultural Use: The Property has been used for agriculture since at least 1936 and there is potential for agricultural chemicals to have been used at the Property.
Because it is assumed that agricultural chemicals were applied using industry standard application
rates, and no evidence of inappropriate agricultural chemical applications was identified, this finding is not a REC.
Finding #4 Adjoining LUST Site: One closed LUST site was reported at an east-adjoining, down-gradient parcel. Soil and groundwater contamination was reported and delineated in the regulatory records.
Based on the downgradient location of the LUST site, this finding is not a REC.
BARR ENGINEERING CO. Page 7
Finding ID # Description of Finding Opinion with Respect to Finding (REC, CREC, HREC, de minimis)
Finding #5 Pipelines: Two pipelines were documented on the Property. One natural gas pipeline was identified running east to west along the railroad. A petroleum pipeline was identified crossing the Property from northwest to southeast.
There are no regulatory listings indicating a release from these pipelines, and there was no staining,
stressed vegetation, or other
indications of a release observed during the site visit. Therefore, this finding is not a REC.
Finding #6 Railroad: The Property includes two parcels that are separated by an active railroad that is present on an adjoining property (see Figure 2). The railroad tracks, ballast bedding,
and adjoining ground appeared in good condition and no staining or evidence of a release was observed. There are no regulatory reports of a release related to this railroad property
Railroads can be sources of impacts to shallow soils; however, based on the lack of staining or other evidence of
releases, this finding is not considered a REC.
BARR ENGINEERING CO. Page 8
4.0 Conclusions
We have performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with the scope and
limitations of ASTM Practice E 1527-13 of PIN #1602921240002, the Property. Any exceptions to, or
deletions from, this Practice are described in Section 1.4 of this report. This assessment has revealed no
evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Property.
4.1 Deviations
There were no deletions, deviations from, or additions to the Practice associated with the Assessment
other than the limitations and exceptions listed in Section 1.4.
BARR ENGINEERING CO. Page 9
5.0 References
The following resources are numbered for use as references.
Ref # Resource Years Covered or Item Date
Standard Historical Resources
1a Aerial Photographs 2017, 2013, 2010, 2006, 1997, 1991, 1987, 1984, 1978, 1974, 1966, 1964, 1953, 1947, 1936
3 Fire Insurance Maps Not Available
1c Property Tax Files Not Reviewed
1d Recorded Land Title Records ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance, First American Title Insurance Company
File No: NCS-957660-MPLS
Certificate of Title No. 61999
1e USGS Topographic Maps 2013, 1993, 1980, 1972, 1967, 1950, 1949, 1946
1f Local Street Directories 2014, 2010, 2005, 2000, 1995, 1992, 1987, 1982, 1977 Building \ Department Records Not Reviewed
1g Zoning/Land Use Records Not Reviewed Other Historical Sources Not Reviewed Prior Assessments Not Reviewed
Discretionary and Non-Standard Physical Setting Sources
2a Berg, J.A., 2019, Groundwater Atlas of Washington County, Minnesota: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, County Atlas Series C-39, Part B, Report and
Plates 7–9.
2019
2b Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil
Survey. Available online at
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/
Accessed April 29, 2019
2c Published Geologic Report – Bedrock Geology
Julia Steenberg and Andrew Retzler. 2016. Geologic Atlas
of Washington County, Minnesota (Atlas C-39 Part A,
Plate 2). University of Minnesota, Minnesota Geological
Survey.
https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/178852
Accessed April 29, 2019
Standard Environmental Record Sources
3a EDR Report (Appendix D) April 24, 2019
3b What’s in My Neighborhood? 4/24/2019. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 4/24/2019.
<http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/data/wimn-
whats-in-my-neighborhood/whats-in-my-
neighborhood.html>
April 24, 2019
3c Cleanups in My Community. 4/24/2019. Environmental
Protection Agency. 4/24/2019
April 24, 2019
BARR ENGINEERING CO. Page 10
Ref # Resource Years Covered or Item Date
https://www.epa.gov/cleanups/cleanups-my-community
Interviews
4a Property Owner/Key Site Manager:
Jim Kotsmith, Manager, Corporate Environmental Programs, 651-737-3635
April 29, 2019
4b User Representative:
Jim Kotsmith, Manager, Corporate Environmental Programs, 651-737-3635
April 29, 2019
4c Public Works/City Engineering:
Kristina Handt, City Administrator, City of Lake Elmo, 651-747-3905
April 29, 2019
Supplemental Resources
5a Minnesota Department of Health
County Well Index
April 26, 2019
5b Site Visit
Emily Cook, Environmental Engineer, 952-832-2648
April 29, 2019
5c Previous Investigation:
Natural Resource Group, Inc., 2008. Phase I Site Assessment, Lake Elmo, MN.
June 8, 2005
5d File Review:
Oakwood Animal Hospital Leak Site #19750
May 1, 2019
5e Lake Elmo Zoning Map. Available online at http://www.lakeelmo.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/NewZoning3.25.2019.pdf
Accessed May 1, 2019
5f Minnesota Department of Health Notice of Designation of Special Well Construction Area, Lake Elmo-Oakdale, Washington County, Minnesota. Available online at
https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/water/docs/wells/swbca/lakeelmomemo.pdf
March 8, 2017
5g Minnesota 3M PFC Settlement, East Metro Study Area. Available online at https://3msettlement.state.mn.us/ Accessed April 30, 2019
BARR ENGINEERING CO. Page 11
6.0 Signature and Qualifications of
Environmental Professional
I declare that, to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of Environmental
Professional as defined in §312.10 of 40 CFR 312. I have the specific qualifications based on education,
training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the subject property. I
have developed and performed the all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and
practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312.
Barr performed this Assessment in conformance with the ASTM, International (ASTM) Practice E 1527-13.
Special terms, conditions, limitations, and exceptions that apply to the Assessment are described
throughout this Report and in the Appendices.
May 8, 2019
Jennifer Brekken, Environmental Professional (Date)
Qualifications of the Environmental Professional are summarized in Appendix G.
Figures
Ideal Ave NStillwater Blvd N
HenslowAveN31stStN
Hilo Ave N42nd StN
27th St N
HelmoAveNInwood Ave NImperialAveN LakeJane TrN
34th St N
32ndStN
34thSt
26th St N
39thStN
38thStN
40th St N
456713
45676
456714 5
OAKDALE
LAKE ELMO
Beutel's
Pond Lake
Crombie
Pond Lake
PROPERTY LOCATION MAP
Parcel ID 1602921240002
Lake Elmo, MN
FIGURE 1Barr footer: 4/30/2019 12:05 PM 4/30/2019 12:09 PM File: I:\Projects\23\82\1219\Maps\Reports\Phase I ESA\Phase I Report - 1602921240002.aprx Layout: Figure 1 - Property Location User: kac20 1,000 2,000
Feet
!;NProperty Boundary (Approximate)
Municipal Boundary
Property
Location
Imagery Source: MnGeo WMS (Twin Cities 2016)
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Pond
Storm Sewer Inlet
General Utilities Location
Culvert
Electrical Transmission Tower
Hydrant
PondAbove Ground
Equipment for
Gas Pipeline
Electrical Equipment and
Utilities in Railroad Property
Finding #5 - Pipeline
Finding #4 -
Adjoining
LUST Site
Finding #6 - Railroad
Finding #5 - Pipeline
Gas Pipeline Marker
Gas Pipeline Marker
34th St N
Stillwater Blvd N
456714
456713
45676
5
PROPERTY LAYOUT MAP
Parcel ID 1602921240002
Lake Elmo, MN
FIGURE 2Barr footer: 5/1/2019 3:58 PM 5/1/2019 4:02 PM File: I:\Projects\23\82\1219\Maps\Reports\Phase I ESA\Phase I Report - 1602921240002.aprx Layout: Figure 2 - Property Layout User: kac20 250 500
Feet
!;N
Property Boundary (Approximate)
Natural Gas Pipeline (Approximate)
Petroleum Pipeline (Approximate)
! !Overhead Electrical Line
Drainage Ditch
Debris
Railroad
Imagery Source: NearMap (April 19, 2019)
Finding #1 - Groundwater PFAS Impacts
in the East Metro Area
Finding #2 - Miscellaneous Debris
Finding #3 - Past Agricultural Use
Appendices
Appendix A
Phase I Documentation
BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY Page A-1
\\barr.com \projects\Mpls\23 MN\82\23821219 3M Lake Elmo Phase Is\WorkFiles\1602921240002\Appendix
A\PHIESA_Appendix A_1602921240002.docx
Appendix A Phase I Environmental Site Asses sment Documentation PIN #1602921240002 Lake Elmo, Minnesota May 2019 I. General Property Information
Property location map is shown on Figure 1. Property layout with existing and former features is
shown on Figure 2 .
Property name: PIN #1602921240002
County: Washington
Township : 29N Range: 21W Section: W 1/2
Property size : 172.61 acres
Current Property owner and year of purchase: 3M has owned the Property since 1966.
Current Occupant(s): None
Current Property use : Agriculture
II. Physical Setting
Surface elevation : Approximately 985 feet above mean sea level (MSL; Ref. 1e).
Topographic conditions of Property : The Property is hilly north of 34 th Street and slopes downward
to a drainage ditch running west to east through the Property. South of 34 th Street the Property
slopes downwards to the southeast (Ref. 5b).
Stratigraphy (soils and upper bedrock units): Soils at the Property consist mainly of well -drained
Santiago silt loam with six to 15 percent slopes, well -drained Antigo silt loam with two to six percent
slopes, and well-drained Antigo silt loam with six to 15 percent slopes (Ref. 2b ). A log from a water
supply well that was sealed on a nearby Property in 2007 indicates alluvial deposits overlying
Platteville Limestone, located 25 feet below ground surface (bgs). The well extended into the
underlying St. Peter Sandstone (Ref. 5a).
Nearest surface water body (name and distance): A pond is located on the east side of the
Property south of 34th Street North (Ref. 1a, 5a). Several other nearby surface water features are
present in various directions.
BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY Page A-2
\\barr.com \projects\Mpls\23 MN\82\23821219 3M Lake Elmo Phase Is\WorkFiles\1602921240002\Appendix
A\PHIESA_Appendix A_1602921240002.docx
Anticipated groundwater depth/flow direction: The anticipated groundwater depth/flow direction
is based on the log for the sealed well (Ref. 5a), Washington County Geologic Atlas (Ref. 2a), and
information from MDH’s 2007 Memo outlining a designation special well construction area (Ref. 5 f).
Shallow groundwater at the Property likely occurs in the alluvium present from 0 to 25 feet bgs, and
the groundwater in the St. Peter Sandstone is approximately 60 feet bgs. The shallow groundwater
reportedly flows to the south /southeast (Ref. 2a), although the flow direction of the shallow
groundwater is believed to be influenced by local discharge/recharge points, the presence of
confining layers, and groundwater withdrawals and land use in nearby areas . Groundwater levels and
flow directions are also influenced by recharge from losing streams and by natural discharge to local
lakes and streams.
Regional groundwater flow in the St. Peter sandstone and the Prairie du Chien group, is generally to
the southwest.
III. Municipal Information & Utility Service to Property
The locations of Property utilities (wells, septic systems, sewer lines ) are shown on Figure 2.
Water Supply
Municipal water supply and intake location(s): The City of Lake Elmo’s water supply comes from
the Prairie du Chein and Jordan aquifers (Ref. 4c).
Property potable/process water suppl y: The Property is not connected to municipal water (Ref. 4c).
Have other potable water supplies serviced the Property? If yes, describe : No. (Ref. 4a)
Sanitary Service
Type of sanitary service for the Property : The Property is not connected to sanitary service (Ref.
4c).
Have other methods of sanitary service been used at the Property? No. (Ref. 4a)
Evidence of current onsite septic systems or drain fields: No evidence of septic systems or drain
fields were observed (Ref. 5b).
Stormwater Management
Is the Property serviced by storm water drains, storm sewers, ponds or drainage ditches? No.
(Ref. 4a). A storm sewer intake and manhole were observed on the access road to the Public Works
facility. Culverts and ditches were also observed in the field on the Property (Ref. 5a).
Do any neighboring properties discharge to the Property? Stormwater discharges to the Property
from a culvert located on the west site of the Property near the access road to the Public Works
facility. The origin of the stormwater is unknown (Ref. 5b).
BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY Page A-3
\\barr.com \projects\Mpls\23 MN\82\23821219 3M Lake Elmo Phase Is\WorkFiles\1602921240002\Appendix
A\PHIESA_Appendix A_1602921240002.docx
Property Zoning
The Property is zoned Rural Residential (Ref. 5e).
IV. Current Property Use
Current Property Waste Management
Waste is not currently generated at the Property (Ref. 5 b).
V. Property, Adjoining, and Surrounding Area Regulatory Status
Regulatory database summary and supporting information is in EDR Report located in Appendix D.
Only information generated through searches of databases required by ASTM 1527-13 and within the
appropriate minimum search distances were reviewed.
Property and Adjoining Property Regulatory Status
Table 1
ASTM List Address
Listing
Status
Potential or
Documented Release
to Environment
Was a Regulatory
File Review
Completed?
RCRA NONGEN/NLR,
FINDS, ECHO
Hilpisch Chiropractic
Clinic, 8603 34th Street
N (East Adjoining)
Active Downgradient. No
evidence of release to
the environment.
No, site is
downgradient of
Property.
WIMN, LUST, RCRA-
CESQG, SRS, VAPOR
Oakwood Animal
Hospital, 8611 N 34th
St (East Adjoining)
Closed Downgradient. Closed
LUST site, with noted
groundwater
contamination.
Yes
RCRA-CESQG, WIMN,
TIER 2, UST, NPDES
Lake Elmo Public
Works, 3445 Ideal Ave
N (West Adjoining)
Active Tier 2 facility listing,
small quantity
hazardous waste
generator
No, there is no listing
associated with a
release to the
environment.
RCRA-CESQG CVS Pharmacy 17218,
7900 32nd St N (West
Adjoining)
Active RCRA Generator. No
evidence of release to
environment.
No, there is no listing
associated with a
release to the
environment.
RCRA-LQG, WIMN,
MANIFEST, TIER 2
Target Store T2135,
7900 32nd St N (West
Adjoining)
Active RCRA Generator. No
evidence of release to
environment.
No, there is no listing
associated with a
release to the
environment.
WIMN, MANIFEST,
FINDS, RCRA
NONGEN/NLR, ECHO,
RCRA-CESQG
Myron’s Service
Center/Central
Sweeping, 3240 Ideal
Ave N (West Adjoining)
Active Auto shop and RCRA
Generator. No
evidence of release to
environment.
No, there is no listing
associated with a
release to the
environment.
BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY Page A-4
\\barr.com \projects\Mpls\23 MN\82\23821219 3M Lake Elmo Phase Is\WorkFiles\1602921240002\Appendix
A\PHIESA_Appendix A_1602921240002.docx
Abbreviations:
RCRA NonGEn/NLR – RCRA Non-Generator
FINDS – Facility Index System/Facility Registry System
ECHO – Enforcement & Compliance History Information
WIMN – What’s in my Neighborhood?
LUST – Leak Sites
RCRA-CESQG – RCRA Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator
SRS – Site Remediation Section Database
VAPOR – Vapor Intrusion
TIER 2 – Tier 2 Facility Listing
UST – Underground Storage Tanks
NPDES – Wastewater Permits Listing
RCRA-LQG – RCRA Large Quantity Generators
MANIFEST – Hazardous Waste Manifest Data
File review results are summarized in Section VI. Justification for not completing a file review, if
applicable, is provided above.
Surrounding Area Regulatory Status
The following table provides a summary of those database listing that the environmental professional
has identified as potentially upgradient. Downgradient and/or side gradient listing are also included
if the environmental professional has determined that the nature of the listing (e.g., Superfund site,
chlorinated solvent release, landfill, etc.) should be evaluated for their potential to impact the
Property.
Table 2
Name Address ASTM Listing(s)
Distance &
Direction
From Property Comments
Do issues related
to the listing
indicate the
potential for
impacts to soil,
groundwater or
vapor at the
Property?
Washington
County
Sanitary
Landfill
4029
Jamaca
Ave N
WIMN, SRS,
SWF/LF, INST
CONTROL, SHWS,
LCP, NPDES, ROD,
US ENG
CONTROLS,
DELISTED NPL, CDC
HAZDAT, SEMS,
MN LS, MN DEL
PLP, FINANCIAL
ASSURANNCE
Approximately
0.5 mi. NW,
Upgradient
Potential
contributor to the
East Metro PFAS
impacts.
Yes, potential for
contributing PFAS
impacts to area
groundwater (Ref.
5f).
BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY Page A-5
\\barr.com \projects\Mpls\23 MN\82\23821219 3M Lake Elmo Phase Is\WorkFiles\1602921240002\Appendix
A\PHIESA_Appendix A_1602921240002.docx
Name Address ASTM Listing(s)
Distance &
Direction
From Property Comments
Do issues related
to the listing
indicate the
potential for
impacts to soil,
groundwater or
vapor at the
Property?
Oakdale
Dump
N Hadley
Ave & N
Granada
Ave,
Oakdale,
MN
NPL, SEMS, US ENG
CONTROLS, ROD,
PRP, ICIS
0.69 mi. W,
Sidegradient
Potential
contributor to the
East Metro PFAS
impacts.
Yes, potential for
contributing PFAS
impacts to area
groundwater (Ref.
5f).
3M Company
Residence
7990 40th
St. N,
Oakdale,
MN
WIMN 0.307 mi. NW,
Upgradient
Inactive hazardous
waste permit.
No, no evidence
of potential for
impacts to the
Property.
McDonald’s
Oakdale
Unknown WIMN 0.182 mi.
WSW,
Sidegradient
Inactive
Construction
stormwater permit
No, no evidence
of a release or
potential impacts
to the Property.
Carlson
Residence
8251 Deer
Pond Ct.
N, Lake
Elmo, MN
LUST, SRS, VAPOR,
WIMN
0.44 mi. N,
Upgradient
LUST, SRS, and
VAPOR listing
related to a fuel oil
release. No
groundwater
contamination
reported, and the
LUST was closed in
March 2018
No, no
groundwater
contamination
reported from the
LUST site. Release
is located greater
than 250 feet
from Property.
Slumberland
Inc.
1
Imitation
Place,
Oakdale,
MN
MANIFEST, WIMN 0.45 mi. W,
Sidegradient
Hazardous waste
generator and
industrial
stormwater permit.
No, no evidence
of potential for
impacts to the
Property.
Tribal Sites
As part of the EDR Report, locations of Native American reservations equal to or greater than 640
acres in size within the search area are reported. No reservations meeting this size criterion were
identified within 1 mile of the Property (Ref. 3a) The local government official was not aware of any
Native American reservations within one mile of the Property (Ref. 4c).
Orphan Site Summary
None identified (Ref. 3a).
BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY Page A-6
\\barr.com \projects\Mpls\23 MN\82\23821219 3M Lake Elmo Phase Is\WorkFiles\1602921240002\Appendix
A\PHIESA_Appendix A_1602921240002.docx
VI. Report and File Review Summary
Previous Environmental Investigations/Remedial Actions of the Property
Relevant portions of previous investigation reports completed for the Property are reproduced in
Appendix E. The following table gives a general summary of the each known previous investigation’s
scope, conclusions, and recommendat ions. Each investiga tion is described according to its specific
reference number, as denoted in the Information Resources section of the Assessment report.
Ref. # Investigation Summary Findings
5c A Draft Phase I ESA was completed in 2008 by Natural
Resources Group, Inc. for a portion of the Property. No
figures were included to confirm the portion of the
Property included in the ESA.
No RECs identified. Possible historical
use of agricultural chemicals at the
Site constitutes a de minimis
condition.
Property File Review Summary
The Property was not identified in a standard database; no file review was completed.
Property Historical Releases
No chemical or petroleum releases were reported for the Property. No remedial actions or
environmental violations have occurred on the Property (Ref. 4b).
Environmental Liens
No environmental liens were identified for the Property (Ref . 4b).
Activity Use Limitations
No institutional or engineering controls were identified for the Property (Ref . 4b). MDH has outlined a
special well construction area to reduce exposure risk for PFAS in groundwater (Ref. 5f).
Proceedings Involving the Property
No pending, threatened, or p ast litigation, a dministrative proceedings, or government notices
relevant to hazardous substances or petroleum products were identified (Ref. 4b).
Adjoining Property File Review Summary
Relevant portions of the regulatory file reviewed for the adjoining properties are reproduced in
Appendix E. The following table gives a general summary from each regulatory file reviewed .
BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY Page A-7
\\barr.com \projects\Mpls\23 MN\82\23821219 3M Lake Elmo Phase Is\WorkFiles\1602921240002\Appendix
A\PHIESA_Appendix A_1602921240002.docx
Ref.
#
Adjoining
Property Name
and Direction
ASTM
Listing File Review Summary
5d Oakdale Animal
Hospital, East
Adjoining,
Downgradient
LUST
Site
#19750
Two steel fuel oil tanks were identified on the P roperty. A Limited
Phase II Investigation was conducted to identify groundwater, soil,
and vapor impact extents. Soil impacts were delineated , primarily
isolated to the area around the south tank, extending 8 -21 feet
below ground surface. Perched groundwat er DRO impacts were
observed in the vicinity of the south tank ; permanent groundwater,
located approximately 20 feet below the soil impacts, was not
sampled. The soil vapor sample concentrations did not exceeded
the 10X Intrusion Screening Level s. Soil and groundwater
contamination was delineated and confined to the property. The
leak site was closed in December 2015.
VII. Property and Nearby Property Land -Use History
Property Land-use History
Original Property development (year/use): Records show that the Property was developed for
agriculture since at least 1936 (Ref. 1a).
Chronology of Past Property use/ownership : The Property has been owned by 3M since 19 66.
Historical Property Structures
There were no historic structures identified on the Property (Ref. 1a).
Demolition Debris: Not applicable.
Current Property Structures , Renovations , and Additions
No structures are present on the Property (Refs. 1a, 5b).
Renovation Debris: Not applicable.
Building Additions : Not applicable.
Nearby Property Land -Use History
North Historical Use: Agricultural (Ref. 1a)
Current Use: Residential (Ref. 5b)
South Historical Use: Agricultural (Ref. 1a)
Current Use: Residential, vacant parcel (Ref. 5b)
BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY Page A-8
\\barr.com \projects\Mpls\23 MN\82\23821219 3M Lake Elmo Phase Is\WorkFiles\1602921240002\Appendix
A\PHIESA_Appendix A_1602921240002.docx
East Historical Use: Agricultural (Ref. 1a)
Current Use: Residential, commercial (Advanced Auto Transport, Inc., Animal Inn pet Resort
& Spa, Integrated Life Counseling Center; Ref. 5b)
West Historical Use: Idea Avenue N, agricultural (Ref. 1a)
Current Use: Ideal Avenue N, r esidential, commercial, agricultural (Ref. 5b)
General type of current or past uses in the surrounding areas : The surrounding area has been
used for agricultural purposes since at least 1936. Residences were developed to the north of the
Property in the early 1950s, to the west and southeast in the early 1960s, and to the south in the late
1990s (Ref. 1a).
Historical releases associated with adjacent properties or communit ies: Nearby Superfund sites
are being assessed as potential contributing factors to the area wide PFAS contamination, including
the Washington County Landfill, located northeast of the Property, and the Oakdale Dump site,
located west of the Property. The state has on-going investigations and remedial actions to address
the groundwater impacts in the East Metro Area (Ref. 5g). MDH has outlined a special well
construction area to reduce exposure risk for PFAS in groundwater (Ref. 5f).
VIII. Site Reconnaissance
The objective of the site reconnaissance i s to obtain information indicating the likelihood of
identifying recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property (ASTM 1527 -13
Sec 9.1). Existing Property features are shown in the Property layout on Figure 2. Photographs
obtained during the Property inspection are in Appendix B.
Date of inspection : April 29, 2019
Name of individual conducting site visit : Emily Cook, Barr Engineering Co.
Weather information : 45 degrees Fahrenheit, cloudy
Interior Observations
No structures present on the Property.
Features of Current Property Structure(s)
No structures present on the Property .
Unoccupied occupant spaces : No unoccupied occupant spaces on the Property.
Exterior Observations
Methodology used to observe the Property : The Property was observed on foot. Due to the large
area of the Property, representative areas of the Property were observed.
BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY Page A-9
\\barr.com \projects\Mpls\23 MN\82\23821219 3M Lake Elmo Phase Is\WorkFiles\1602921240002\Appendix
A\PHIESA_Appendix A_1602921240002.docx
Access to the Property (vehicular access and restrictions to public access ): Access to the Property
was from public roads.
Periphery of the Property (roads, streets , and parking facilities, etc.): The Property is bordered to
the north by residential properties, to the east by residential and commercial properties, to the south
by a railroad and a vacant property, and to the east by Ideal Avenu e and residential, commercial , and
agricultural use.
Ground surface cover (paved, gravel, grass): The ground surface cover at the Property is primarily
agricultural fields with residual crop coverage. There are wooded and grassy areas along the
perimeter of the fields.
Visible evidence of filling, excavation, or burned areas: A small berm was observed at the
drainage ditch in the northern portion of the Property. Small piles of burned debris were observed in
the wooded area in the NE corner of the Proper ty.
Visible evidence of vegetative stress: None observed.
Pits, ponds, lagoons, and standing surface water : A pond is located on the east edge of the
Property, immediately north of the railroad. Standing water was observed behind the berm and in the
drainage ditch in the northern portion of the Property. A stormwater pond is located at the entrance
of the Public Works access road.
Stained soil or pavement : None observed.
Wastewater, stormwater, and other visible liquid discharge points into a pipe, pond, ditch,
stream adjoining property or the Property: Stormwater discharge was observed from the culvert
located at the west edge of the Property near the Public Works access road into the drainage ditch.
Indications of past uses of the Property likely to involve the use, treatment, storage, disposal
or generation of hazardous substances or petroleum product s: None observed.
Nonpotable/process wells : None observed.
Pipelines across or into Property : A gas pipeline runs through the Property along Ideal Avenue at
the west Property boundary. Markers, pipeline access points, and above ground pipeline features
were observed. A petroleum pipeline runs through the Property from the NE corner to the SE corner
of the Property. Pipeline markers were observed at multiple locations on the Property.
Rail lines: A rail line runs east -west through the Property
Transformers: A transformer tower was observed in the northern portion of the Property.
Outdoor Chemical Storage Areas /Drums: None observed.
BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY Page A-10
\\barr.com \projects\Mpls\23 MN\82\23821219 3M Lake Elmo Phase Is\WorkFiles\1602921240002\Appendix
A\PHIESA_Appendix A_1602921240002.docx
Underground Utility Locations : Underground utilities, including gas, fiber optic and electric, are
generally located on the west edge of the parcel, along Ideal Ave. Water utilities and a hydrant are
located on the south side of 34 th St, across from Public Works.
Odors: None observed.
Evidence of Use, Production or Disposal of Controlled Substances (as defined by 21 CFR Part
802): None observed.
VIII. Interior and Exterior USTs and ASTs
None observed.
IX. Interviews
The objective of interviews is to obtain information indicating recognized environmental condition in
connection with the property (ASTM 1527 -13 Sec 10.1). Especially relevant information from the
interviews (Refs. 4a, 4b, 4c) is included and documented throughout the Assessment report and
Appendix A.
Appendix B
Property Inspection Photographs
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!P
5
45676
456713
456713
456714
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2019-04-30 12:55 File: I:\Projects\23\82\1219\Maps\Reports\Phase I ESA\Photo_Log\Property Inspection Photographs - 1602921240002.mxd User: jjl2
!(!P
Date: 4/29/2019Comment: Petroleum pipeline markers tothe north of property on residential street
Map 1 of 22PROPERTY INSPECTIONPHOTOGRAPHSParcel ID 1602921240002Lake Elmo, MN
Imagery: NearMap (April 19, 2019)
;N
!P Photo Indicator
!(Photo Location
Site Boundary
0 25 50
Feet
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!P
5
45676
456713
456713
456714
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2019-04-30 12:55 File: I:\Projects\23\82\1219\Maps\Reports\Phase I ESA\Photo_Log\Property Inspection Photographs - 1602921240002.mxd User: jjl2
!(!P
Date: 4/29/2019Comment: NE edge of property, woodedarea, debris, small piles of burned material
Map 2 of 22PROPERTY INSPECTIONPHOTOGRAPHSParcel ID 1602921240002Lake Elmo, MN
Imagery: NearMap (April 19, 2019)
;N
!P Photo Indicator
!(Photo Location
Site Boundary
0 25 50
Feet
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!P
5
45676
456713
456713
456714
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2019-04-30 12:55 File: I:\Projects\23\82\1219\Maps\Reports\Phase I ESA\Photo_Log\Property Inspection Photographs - 1602921240002.mxd User: jjl2
!(!P
Date: 4/29/2019Comment: NE corner of property, woodedarea, cinder block pile, wood debris
Map 3 of 22PROPERTY INSPECTIONPHOTOGRAPHSParcel ID 1602921240002Lake Elmo, MN
Imagery: NearMap (April 19, 2019)
;N
!P Photo Indicator
!(Photo Location
Site Boundary
0 25 50
Feet
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!P
5
45676
456713
456713
456714
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2019-04-30 12:55 File: I:\Projects\23\82\1219\Maps\Reports\Phase I ESA\Photo_Log\Property Inspection Photographs - 1602921240002.mxd User: jjl2
!(!P
Date: 4/29/2019Comment: DebrisMap 4 of 22PROPERTY INSPECTIONPHOTOGRAPHSParcel ID 1602921240002Lake Elmo, MN
Imagery: NearMap (April 19, 2019)
;N
!P Photo Indicator
!(Photo Location
Site Boundary
0 25 50
Feet
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!P
5
45676
456713
456713
456714
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2019-04-30 12:55 File: I:\Projects\23\82\1219\Maps\Reports\Phase I ESA\Photo_Log\Property Inspection Photographs - 1602921240002.mxd User: jjl2
!(!P
Date: 4/29/2019Comment: Transmission tower, overheadlines run to the south and to the east,debris at base (planting pots, empty paintcan, fry cooker)
Map 5 of 22PROPERTY INSPECTIONPHOTOGRAPHSParcel ID 1602921240002Lake Elmo, MN
Imagery: NearMap (April 19, 2019)
;N
!P Photo Indicator
!(Photo Location
Site Boundary
0 25 50
Feet
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!P
5
45676
456713
456713
456714
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2019-04-30 12:55 File: I:\Projects\23\82\1219\Maps\Reports\Phase I ESA\Photo_Log\Property Inspection Photographs - 1602921240002.mxd User: jjl2
!(!P
Date: 4/29/2019Comment: Culvert, drainage ditch flowingeast
Map 6 of 22PROPERTY INSPECTIONPHOTOGRAPHSParcel ID 1602921240002Lake Elmo, MN
Imagery: NearMap (April 19, 2019)
;N
!P Photo Indicator
!(Photo Location
Site Boundary
0 25 50
Feet
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!P
5
45676
456713
456713
456714
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2019-04-30 12:55 File: I:\Projects\23\82\1219\Maps\Reports\Phase I ESA\Photo_Log\Property Inspection Photographs - 1602921240002.mxd User: jjl2
!(!P
Date: 4/29/2019Comment: Low spot/ swamp, surroundedby berm
Map 7 of 22PROPERTY INSPECTIONPHOTOGRAPHSParcel ID 1602921240002Lake Elmo, MN
Imagery: NearMap (April 19, 2019)
;N
!P Photo Indicator
!(Photo Location
Site Boundary
0 25 50
Feet
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!P
5
45676
456713
456713
456714
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2019-04-30 12:55 File: I:\Projects\23\82\1219\Maps\Reports\Phase I ESA\Photo_Log\Property Inspection Photographs - 1602921240002.mxd User: jjl2
!(
!(
!P
Date: 4/29/2019Comment: Culvert, drainage ditchMap 8 of 22PROPERTY INSPECTIONPHOTOGRAPHSParcel ID 1602921240002Lake Elmo, MN
Imagery: NearMap (April 19, 2019)
;N
!P Photo Indicator
!(Photo Location
Site Boundary
0 25 50
Feet
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!P
5
45676
456713
456713
456714
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2019-04-30 12:55 File: I:\Projects\23\82\1219\Maps\Reports\Phase I ESA\Photo_Log\Property Inspection Photographs - 1602921240002.mxd User: jjl2
!(
!(!P456713
Date: 4/29/2019Comment: Utilities along Ideal Ave andpublic works roadway (gas pipeline flags,fiber optics marker, electrical, sanitarysewer)
Map 9 of 22PROPERTY INSPECTIONPHOTOGRAPHSParcel ID 1602921240002Lake Elmo, MN
Imagery: NearMap (April 19, 2019)
;N
!P Photo Indicator
!(Photo Location
Site Boundary
0 25 50
Feet
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!P 5
45676
456713
456713
456714
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2019-04-30 12:55 File: I:\Projects\23\82\1219\Maps\Reports\Phase I ESA\Photo_Log\Property Inspection Photographs - 1602921240002.mxd User: jjl2
!(!P
Date: 4/29/2019Comment: Petroleum pipeline markersnear property boundary, north of 34th
Map 10 of 22PROPERTY INSPECTIONPHOTOGRAPHSParcel ID 1602921240002Lake Elmo, MN
Imagery: NearMap (April 19, 2019)
;N
!P Photo Indicator
!(Photo Location
Site Boundary
0 25 50
Feet
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!P 5
45676
456713
456713
456714
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2019-04-30 12:55 File: I:\Projects\23\82\1219\Maps\Reports\Phase I ESA\Photo_Log\Property Inspection Photographs - 1602921240002.mxd User: jjl2
!(!P456714
Date: 4/29/2019Comment: Petroleum pipeline markersnear property boundary, south of 34th
Map 11 of 22PROPERTY INSPECTIONPHOTOGRAPHSParcel ID 1602921240002Lake Elmo, MN
Imagery: NearMap (April 19, 2019)
;N
!P Photo Indicator
!(Photo Location
Site Boundary
0 25 50
Feet
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!P
5
45676
456713
456713
456714
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2019-04-30 12:55 File: I:\Projects\23\82\1219\Maps\Reports\Phase I ESA\Photo_Log\Property Inspection Photographs - 1602921240002.mxd User: jjl2
!(!P
Date: 4/29/2019Comment: Wood and debris pile on eastproperty edge
Map 12 of 22PROPERTY INSPECTIONPHOTOGRAPHSParcel ID 1602921240002Lake Elmo, MN
Imagery: NearMap (April 19, 2019)
;N
!P Photo Indicator
!(Photo Location
Site Boundary
0 25 50
Feet
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!P
5
45676
456713
456713
456714
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2019-04-30 12:55 File: I:\Projects\23\82\1219\Maps\Reports\Phase I ESA\Photo_Log\Property Inspection Photographs - 1602921240002.mxd User: jjl2
!(!P
Date: 4/29/2019Comment: Petroleum pipeline markerMap 13 of 22PROPERTY INSPECTIONPHOTOGRAPHSParcel ID 1602921240002Lake Elmo, MN
Imagery: NearMap (April 19, 2019)
;N
!P Photo Indicator
!(Photo Location
Site Boundary
0 25 50
Feet
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!P
5
45676
456713
456713
456714
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2019-04-30 12:55 File: I:\Projects\23\82\1219\Maps\Reports\Phase I ESA\Photo_Log\Property Inspection Photographs - 1602921240002.mxd User: jjl2
!(!P
Date: 4/29/2019Comment: Low spot, ponded water,petroleum pipeline continues to railroadto the south
Map 14 of 22PROPERTY INSPECTIONPHOTOGRAPHSParcel ID 1602921240002Lake Elmo, MN
Imagery: NearMap (April 19, 2019)
;N
!P Photo Indicator
!(Photo Location
Site Boundary
0 25 50
Feet
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!P 5
45676
456713
456713
456714
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2019-04-30 12:55 File: I:\Projects\23\82\1219\Maps\Reports\Phase I ESA\Photo_Log\Property Inspection Photographs - 1602921240002.mxd User: jjl2
!(!P
Date: 4/29/2019Comment: Water utility, hydrant and gatevalve markers near property boundaryalong 34th
Map 15 of 22PROPERTY INSPECTIONPHOTOGRAPHSParcel ID 1602921240002Lake Elmo, MN
Imagery: NearMap (April 19, 2019)
;N
!P Photo Indicator
!(Photo Location
Site Boundary
0 25 50
Feet
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!P
5
45676
456713
456713
456714
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2019-04-30 12:55 File: I:\Projects\23\82\1219\Maps\Reports\Phase I ESA\Photo_Log\Property Inspection Photographs - 1602921240002.mxd User: jjl2
!(!P456713
Date: 4/29/2019Comment: Property at corner of Ideal Aveand 34th, views south and east, typicalagricultural use on property
Map 16 of 22PROPERTY INSPECTIONPHOTOGRAPHSParcel ID 1602921240002Lake Elmo, MN
Imagery: NearMap (April 19, 2019)
;N
!P Photo Indicator
!(Photo Location
Site Boundary
0 25 50
Feet
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!P
5
45676
456713
456713
456714
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2019-04-30 12:55 File: I:\Projects\23\82\1219\Maps\Reports\Phase I ESA\Photo_Log\Property Inspection Photographs - 1602921240002.mxd User: jjl2
!(
!(
!P456713
Date: 4/29/2019Comment: Gas pipeline above groundequipment
Map 17 of 22PROPERTY INSPECTIONPHOTOGRAPHSParcel ID 1602921240002Lake Elmo, MN
Imagery: NearMap (April 19, 2019)
;N
!P Photo Indicator
!(Photo Location
Site Boundary
0 25 50
Feet
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!P
5
45676
456713
456713
456714
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2019-04-30 12:55 File: I:\Projects\23\82\1219\Maps\Reports\Phase I ESA\Photo_Log\Property Inspection Photographs - 1602921240002.mxd User: jjl2
!(
!(!P456713
Date: 4/29/2019Comment: Railroad and above groundequipment between south and middlesections of property
Map 18 of 22PROPERTY INSPECTIONPHOTOGRAPHSParcel ID 1602921240002Lake Elmo, MN
Imagery: NearMap (April 19, 2019)
;N
!P Photo Indicator
!(Photo Location
Site Boundary
0 25 50
Feet
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!P
5
45676
456713
456713
456714
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2019-04-30 12:55 File: I:\Projects\23\82\1219\Maps\Reports\Phase I ESA\Photo_Log\Property Inspection Photographs - 1602921240002.mxd User: jjl2
!(!P
Date: 4/29/2019Comment: Railroad tracks throughproperty, tracks run east-west
Map 19 of 22PROPERTY INSPECTIONPHOTOGRAPHSParcel ID 1602921240002Lake Elmo, MN
Imagery: NearMap (April 19, 2019)
;N
!P Photo Indicator
!(Photo Location
Site Boundary
0 25 50
Feet
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!P
5
45676
456713
456713
456714
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2019-04-30 12:55 File: I:\Projects\23\82\1219\Maps\Reports\Phase I ESA\Photo_Log\Property Inspection Photographs - 1602921240002.mxd User: jjl2
!(!P
Date: 4/29/2019Comment: Watering tankMap 20 of 22PROPERTY INSPECTIONPHOTOGRAPHSParcel ID 1602921240002Lake Elmo, MN
Imagery: NearMap (April 19, 2019)
;N
!P Photo Indicator
!(Photo Location
Site Boundary
0 25 50
Feet
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!P
5
45676
456713
456713
456714
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2019-04-30 12:55 File: I:\Projects\23\82\1219\Maps\Reports\Phase I ESA\Photo_Log\Property Inspection Photographs - 1602921240002.mxd User: jjl2
!(!P
Date: 4/29/2019Comment: Hunting blind and feeders infield
Map 21 of 22PROPERTY INSPECTIONPHOTOGRAPHSParcel ID 1602921240002Lake Elmo, MN
Imagery: NearMap (April 19, 2019)
;N
!P Photo Indicator
!(Photo Location
Site Boundary
0 25 50
Feet
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!P
5
45676
456713
456713
456714
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2019-04-30 12:55 File: I:\Projects\23\82\1219\Maps\Reports\Phase I ESA\Photo_Log\Property Inspection Photographs - 1602921240002.mxd User: jjl2
!(!P456713
Date: 4/29/2019Comment: Gas pipeline accessMap 22 of 22PROPERTY INSPECTIONPHOTOGRAPHSParcel ID 1602921240002Lake Elmo, MN
Imagery: NearMap (April 19, 2019)
;N
!P Photo Indicator
!(Photo Location
Site Boundary
0 25 50
Feet
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
Cyphers Logistic Park
FINAL Alternative Urban Areawide Review
March 2022
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR i March 2022
Table of Contents
1. Project Title ................................................................................................................................................................. 1
2. Proposer....................................................................................................................................................................... 1 3. RGU ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1
4. Reason for EAW Preparation ................................................................................................................................. 2 5. Project Location ......................................................................................................................................................... 2
6. Project Description ................................................................................................................................................... 5 7. Cover Types ..............................................................................................................................................................12 8. Permits and Approvals Required ........................................................................................................................14
9. Land Use ....................................................................................................................................................................15 10. Geology, Soils, and Topography/Land Forms.................................................................................................24
11. Water Resources......................................................................................................................................................28 12. Solid Wastes, Hazardous Wastes, and Storage Tanks ..................................................................................42
13. Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources ..................................................46 14. Historic Properties...................................................................................................................................................49
15. Visual...........................................................................................................................................................................49 16. Air .................................................................................................................................................................................50
17. Noise ...........................................................................................................................................................................51 18. Transportation..........................................................................................................................................................52 19. Cumulative Potential Effects ................................................................................................................................59
20. Other Potential Environmental Impacts ...........................................................................................................60 Mitigation Plan ................................................................................................................................................................60
List of Tables
Table 1: Development Scenarios .................................................................................................................................. 7 Table 2: Cover Types ......................................................................................................................................................12 Table 3: Permits and Approvals Required................................................................................................................14
Table 4: Soil Types ..........................................................................................................................................................25 Table 5: Wells within AUAR Study Area ....................................................................................................................29
Table 6: Anticipated Average Daily Flow Rates and Peak Daily Flow Rates...................................................32 Table 7: Wetlands Identified on Site .........................................................................................................................35
Table 8: MPCA What’s in My Neighborhood Sites ...............................................................................................42 Table 9: Trip Generation Forecasts ............................................................................................................................54
Table 10: Existing and Projected Intersection LOS................................................................................................55 Table 11: Permits and Approvals Required .............................................................................................................60
Table 12: Mitigation Plan ..............................................................................................................................................62
List of Figures
Figure 1: AUAR Study Area ............................................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 2: USGS Map ......................................................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 3: Development Scenario 1............................................................................................................................... 8
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR ii March 2022
Figure 4: Development Scenario 2............................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 5: Development Scenario 3.............................................................................................................................10
Figure 6: Development Scenario 4.............................................................................................................................11 Figure 7: Existing Cover Type Map ............................................................................................................................13
Figure 8: FEMA Map .......................................................................................................................................................19 Figure 9: Exis ting City Zoning ......................................................................................................................................22
Figure 10: Existing Land Use ........................................................................................................................................23 Figure 11: Soil Types ......................................................................................................................................................27
Figure 12: Wells within 150 feet of AUAR Study Area ..........................................................................................30 Figure 13: Water Resources Within 1-Mile of AUAR Study Area ......................................................................39
Figure 14: Water Resources Within AUAR Study Area .........................................................................................40 Figure 15: Drinking Water Supply Management Area & Wellhead Protection Area ..................................41 Figure 16: MPCA What’s in My Neighborhood Sites ...........................................................................................44
Figure 17: Traffic Study Intersections ........................................................................................................................58
List of Appendices
Appendix A: NHIS Correspondence (pending)
Appendix B: Historic Resources Correspondence Appendix C: Traffic Study Appendix D: Oakdale Sewer Service Agreement
Appendix E: Responses to Agency and Public Comments Appendix F: Agency and Public Comment Letters
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 1 March 2022
July 2013 Version
Alternative Urban Areawide Review
This Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) form and EAW Guidelines are available at the Environmental Quality Board’s website at:
http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/EnvRevGuidanceDocuments.htm. This EAW form is being used to delineate the issues and analyses to be reviewed in an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR).
Where the AUAR guidance provided by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) indicates that an AUAR response should d iffer notably from what is required for an EAW, the guidance is noted in italics.
1. Project Title
Cyphers Logistic Park
2. Proposer
Proposer: NorthPoint Development Contact Person: Christina Hubacek
Title: Project Manager Address: 3010 Highland Parkway, Suite 440
City, State, ZIP: Downers Grove, IL 60515 Phone: 331-251-3111
Email: chubacek@northpointkc.com
3. RGU
RGU: City of Lake Elmo Contact Person: Kristina Handt Title: City Administrator
Address: 3880 Laverne Avenue N, Suite 100 City, State, ZIP: Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Phone: 651-747-3905 Email: khandt@lakeelmo.org
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 2 March 2022
4. Reason for EAW Preparation
AUAR Guidance: Not applicable to an AUAR.
5. Project Location
County: Washington County
City/Township: Lake Elmo PLS Location (¼, ¼, Section, Township, Range): NE ¼ and SE ¼ of Section 16, Township 29N, Range 21W and NW ¼ of Section 21, Township 29N, Range 21W
Watershed (81 major watershed scale): Lower St. Croix River GPS Coordinates: 44° 59' 55.0" N, 92° 56' 23.1" W
Tax Parcel Number(s): 1602921230003, 1602921240002, and 1602921320001 At a minimum, attach each of the following to the AUAR :
• A map clearly depicting the boundaries of the AUAR and any subdistricts used in the AUAR analysis (See Figure 1 and Figure 3 through Figure 5)
• US Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:2 4,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (see Figure 2)
• A cover type map as required for Item 7 (See Figure 7)
• Land use and planning and zoning maps as required in conjunction with Item 9 (see
Figure 9 and Figure 10)
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 3 March 2022
Figure 1: AUAR Study Area
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 4 March 2022
Figure 2: USGS Map
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 5 March 2022
6. Project Description
AUAR Guidance: Instead of the information called for on the EAW form, the description section of an
AUAR should include the following elements for each major development scenario included:
• Anticipated types and intensity (density) of residential and commercial/warehouse/light industrial development throughout the AUAR area.
• Infrastructure planned to serve development (roads, sewers, water, stormwater system, etc.).
Roadways intended primarily to serve as adjoining land uses within an AUAR area are normally expected to be reviewed as part of an AUAR. More “arterial” types of roadways that would cross
an AUAR area are an optional inclusion in the AUAR analysis; if they are included, a more intensive level of review, generally including an analysis of alternative routes, is necessary.
• Information about the anticipated staging of various developments, to the extent known, and of the infrastructure, and how the infrastructure staging will influence the development schedule
Important Note: Every AUAR document MUST review one or more development scenarios based on and
consistent with the RGU’s Comprehensive Plan in effect when the AUAR is officially ordered. (This is equivalent to reviewing the “no-build” alternative in an EIS.) If an RGU expects to amend its existing
Comprehensive Plan, it has the options of deferring the start of the AUAR until after adopting the amended plan or reviewing developments based on both the existing and amended comprehensive
plans; however , it cannot review only a development based on an expected amendment to the existing plan. Also, the rules require that one or more development scenarios analyzed must be consistent with
known development plans of property owners within the AUAR area.
The AUAR study area encompasses approximately 190 acres on three existing tax parcels in the City of Lake Elmo . Approximately 180-acres of the AUAR s tudy a rea was recently acquired by the City of Lake Elmo as part of a settlement with 3M for the Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS ) contamination
that affects the groundwater in this region. When the City acquired the AUAR s tudy a rea as part of the 3M Settlement, it anticipated that any future development would require the extension of
municipal services given the groundwater contamination. The AUAR s tudy area is located east of I-694 and is bordered to the west by the City of Oakdale at Ideal Avenue N (CSAH 13). The AUAR
s tudy area is bisected east-west by 34th Street N (CSAH 14). Within the AUAR s tudy a rea, approximately 110 acres lie north, and 80 acres lie south of the 34th Street N right-of-way. The
existing land use within the AUAR s tudy area is predominantly agricultural, with approximately 7.4 acres used for the City’s public works building and municipal elevated water storage tower located
northeast of the 34th Street N and Ideal Ave N intersection.
Four development scenarios are proposed for evaluation in the AUAR (described in Table 1). The existing public works building is included in all the scenarios, but it is not planned for further development or redevelopment; however, since it is connected to the roadway system and may
eventually be served by municipal sewer, it is prudent to include it within this evaluation. In 2020 the City completed a Master Plan process to evaluate the desired land uses within the AUAR study area
as a result of the 3M settlement process. Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 are generally consistent with the land use patterns and densities evaluated within the Master Plan process but are not consistent with the
adopted 2040 Future Land Use Plan adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. Scenario 4 is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as required by this AUAR process, but is considered the no -build
scenario since it does not include the extension of municipal services to the AUAR study area north of 34th Street N .
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 6 March 2022
The intent of the AUAR is to evaluate scenarios that identify the greatest potential impact and to evaluate the development potential given the existing Comprehensive Plan. All development
scenarios must identify the mitigation measures that may be taken to compensate for any identified impacts .
Development Scenario 1:
Development Scenario 1 land uses includes business park, mixed -use business park, commercial,
existing public works, park, ponding, and right-of-way (see Figure 3).
Development Scenario 2:
Development Scenario 2 land uses includes business park, mixed-use business park, commercial, low density residential, medium density residential, existing public works, park, ponding, and right-of-
way (se e Figure 4).
Development Scenario 3 :
Development Scenario 3 land uses includes business park, commercial, low density residential, public
works, park, ponding, and right-of-way (see Figure 5).
Development Scenario 4:
Development Scenario 4 land uses includes agricultural, rural residential, public works , and business park. This s cenario is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan (see Figure 6).
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 7 March 2022
Scenario 1, Scenario 2, and Scenario 3 Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 evaluate the same anticipated development of the AUAR s tudy a rea lying south
of 34th Street N , which is the area the project proposer plans to develop. Construction of the parcels south of 34th Street N is anticipated to begin in 2022 and be built over two phases with construction
complete by 2024. The AUAR s tudy area lying north of 34th Street N will be developed later and there are no known development plans. To account for the unknown plans for the north area, different
land use patterns with varying densities are evaluated in Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 and are based on the City’s completed Master Plan pr ocess. Roadway infrastructure supporting Scenarios 1, 2, and 3
includes access from 34th Street N and Ideal Avenue N . The scenario plans identify three access points into the area south of 34th Street N and two access points into the northern portion of the
study area. The AUAR s tudy a rea will be connected to the public municipal water and regional sanitary sewer systems. Stormwater management will be provided locally onsite as part of any development.
Scenario 4
Scenario 4 is consistent with the 2040 Comp rehensive Plan which permits the development of the
parcels south of 34th Street N for Business Park uses and the parcels north of 34th Street N for rural residential uses , continued agriculture, and the public works facility.
Table 1 : Development Scenarios
Land Use Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4
Business Park ~1.1 million square feet ~1.1 million square feet ~2.2 million square feet ~1.1 million square feet
Mixed -Use Business Park
400 residential units 653,400 square feet business/light industrial
210 residential units 457,380 square feet business/light industrial
-- --
Commercial 91,500 square feet 178,596 square feet 91,500 square feet --
Rural Area Development (Residential) 10 residential units
Low Density Residential -- 56 residential units 56 residential units --
Medium Density Residential -- 124 residential units -- --
Existing Public Works Building 7.4 acres 7.4 acres 7.4 acres 7.4
Park 8 acres 8 acres 8 acres 0 acres Ponding 15 acres 15 acres 15 acres 0 acres Right-of-Way 6 acres 6 acres 6 acres 6 acres
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 8 March 2022
Figure 3: Development Scenario 1
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 9 March 2022
Figure 4: Development Scenario 2
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 10 March 2022
Figure 5 : Development Scenario 3
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 11 March 2022
Figure 6 : Development Scenario 4
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 12 March 2022
7. Cover Types
AUAR Guidance: The following information should be provided:
• A cover type map, at least at the scale of a USGS topographic map, depicting:
o Wetlands (identified by Circular 39 type)
o Watercourses (rivers, streams, creeks, ditches)
o Lakes (identify public waters status and shoreland management classification)
o Woodlands (break down by classes where possible)
o Grassland (identify native and old field)
o Cropland
o Current development
• An “overlay” map showing anticipated development in relation to the cover types. This map
should also depict any “protection areas,” existing or proposed, that will preserve sensitive
cover types. Separate maps for each major development scenario should be generally
provided.
The AUAR s tudy area covers approximately 190 acres of predominantly agricultural land.
Approximately 7.4 acres is partially developed with the Lake Elmo Public Works building at the northeast intersection of Ideal Avenue N and 34th Street N . Existing cover types within the AUAR
study area are listed in Table 2 and shown on Figure 7 and were determined by reviewing aerial photography and land cover classification maps. The National Wetland Inventory identifies five freshwater emergent wetlands and three freshwater ponds within the AUAR s tudy area.
Table 2 : Cover Types
Cover Type Existing (acres) Scenario 1 (acres) Scenario 2 (acres) Scenario 3 (acres) Scenario 4 (acres)
Agriculture 139.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Wooded/Forest 21.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.9
Lawn/Landscaping 16.8 62.0 64.2 54.2 115.1
Impervious Surface 5.4 105.2 103.0 113.0 54.5
Wetland/Pond 5.2 20.5 20.5 20.5 8.2
Total 187.7 187.7 187.7 187.7 187.7
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 13 March 2022
Figure 7 : Existing Cover Type Map
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 14 March 2022
8. Permits and Approvals Required
AUAR Guidance: A listing of major approvals (including any comprehensive plan amendments and
zoning amendments) and public financial assistance and infrastructure likely to be required by the anticipated types of development projects should be given for each major development scenario. This
list will help orient reviewers to the framework that will protect environmental resources. The list can also serve as a starting point for the development of the implementation aspects of the mitigation plan
to be developed as part of the AUAR.
Table 3: Permits and Approvals Required
Unit of Government Type of Application Status
Federal
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 To be applied for, if applicable
State
Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Stormwater
Permit for Construction Activities
To be applied for
Sanitary Sewer Extension
Permit To be applied for
Section 401 Water Quality Certification To be applied for, if applicable
Construction Contingency Plan and Response Action Plan approval To be applied for
Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources
Temporary Water Appropriation Permit for Construction Dewatering To be applied for, if applicable
Regional
Metropolitan Council Sewer Extension Permit To be applied for
Valley Branch Watershed District
Watershed District Permit To be applied for
Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Replacement Plan To be applied for, if applicable
County
Washington County Right-of-Way Permit To be applied for
Local
City of Lake Elmo Preliminary/Final Plat To be applied for
Building Permit To be applied for
Erosion Control, Grading, and Stormwater Permit To be applied for
Right-of-Way Permit To be applied for, if applicable
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment (applies to Scenario 1, 2, and 3) To be applied for
Zoning Map Amendment To be applied for
Planned Unit Development To be completed, if applicable
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 15 March 2022
Unit of Government Type of Application Status
Conditional Use Permit To be completed, if applicable
Union Pacific Railroad Utility Crossing Permit To be applied for
Xcel Energy Transmission Line Encroachment Agreement To be applied for
BP Gas Main Easement
Encroachment Agreement To be applied for
9. Land Use
a. Describe:
i. Existing land use of the site as well as areas adjacent to and near the site, including parks, trails, and prime or unique farmlands.
The AUAR s tudy area consists of three parcels totaling approximately 190 acres that are bisected
by 34th Street N (CSAH 14). Approximately 110 acres of the AUAR study area are located north of 34th Street N and approximately 80 acres are located south of 34th Street N . Approximately 95% of the AUAR study area consists of prime farmland, prime farmland if drained, or farmland of
statewide importance (see Table 4). There are no existing parks or trails in the AUAR s tudy area, but there are existing trails located adjacent to the site in the City of Oakdale. There is an existing
trail that runs within the Ideal Avenue N (CSAH 13) right-of-way, and a trail/sidewalk on the south side of 34th Street N within the right-of-way adjacent to the Oakdale Marketplace
development.
The s tudy a rea is bound by Ideal Avenue N along the easterly border, which is also the municipal boundary with the City of Oakdale . North and south of 34th Street N is mostly undeveloped
agricultur al land and Stillwater Boulevard (CSAH 6) is the southerly border. The Union Pacific railroad right-of-way bisects a portion of the agricultural land south of 34th Street N .
Approximately 7.4 acres of land northeast of the Ideal Avenue N and 34th Street N inte rsection is developed with the City’s existing public works building and municipal elevated water storage tower . Adjacent to the site on the north and east are rural residential uses and a small mining
operation. South of Stillwater Boulevard there are rur al residential uses . Across Ideal Avenue N, in the City of Oakdale , there are residential and business park uses (see Figure 9).
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.
The AUAR s tudy area is lo cated in the City of Lake Elmo and is subject to the adopted 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Regulations and standards within the 2040 Comprehensive Plan include the following:
• Future land use plan
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 16 March 2022
• Water Supply
• Sanitary Sewer Plan
• Local Surface Water Management Plan
• Lake Elmo Transportation Plan
• Washington County 2040 Transportation Plan
All development must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as adopted, or it must be amended. The City recently acquired the AUAR s tudy area as part of a 3M Settlement and it was
not planned for urbanized development within the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Since the adoption of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the 3M Settlement agreement was completed, and the City
acquired the approximately 180-acre AUAR s tudy area and prepared a Master Plan to plan for its development. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to adjust the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) in the City of Lake Elmo to include the approximately 80 acres contained south of 34th
Street N was completed in May 2021. Given the proximity of the site to the City of Oakdale and existing regional sanitary sewer infrastructure, it was determined that the most effective and
efficient way to develop the site with regional sewer is to work collaboratively with the City of Oakdale. In August 2021, the City of Lake Elmo entered into a cooperative agreement for the
reconstruction of a sanitary sewer lift station (Lift Station 6) to establish a sanitary sewer connection to ensure the full AUAR study area can be served through Oakdale. The Oakdale
Sewer Service Agreement detailing costs and responsibilities was subsequently executed to implement the cooperative agreement in September 2021 (See Appendix D). Reconstruction of
Lift Station 6 will require a DNR Water Appropriation Permit if the dewatering for reconstruction will exceed 10,000 gallons per day, or one million gallons per year.
Lake Elmo 2040 Comprehensive Plan The City of Lake Elmo adopted their 2040 Comprehensive Plan 1 in November 2019, and was
most recently amended in May 2021, as noted above. The Comprehensive Plan identifies Lake Elmo as an “emerging suburban edge ” community where the MUSA is designated and land area
in this designation is planned to transition from agricultural land uses to urbanized development. The remainder of the community is designated as a “rural residential” community that is
characterized by large lots with no plans to provide municipal sanitary sewer service. The May 2021 Comprehensive Plan Amendment was completed to add the parcels south of 34th Street N
to the City’s designated MUSA and to allow for its urbanized development. The study area north of 34th Street was not included in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and remains outside the
MUSA boundary.
The May 2021 Comprehensive Plan Amendment was approved and the study area south of 34th Street N is now located within the emerging suburban edge designation (MUSA) and was re-guided to Business Park (BP). All four scenarios evaluated in this AUAR are consistent with the
future land use guiding for parcels south of 34th Street N . The s tudy area north of 34th Street N is located within the rural residential designation and is guided Rural Area Development (RAD) and
Park/Open Space (public works facility) on the Future Land Use Plan. This guiding does not plan for the extension of the MUSA to this area (scenario 4). Any urbanized development in the study
1 Lake Elmo 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Available at
https://cms8.revize.com/revize/lakeelmomn/Full2040CompPlan.pdf
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 17 March 2022
area north of 34th Street N will require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan (s cenarios 1, 2 and 3).
Other Agreements and Plans
Sanitary Sewer Cooperative Agreement and Sewer Service Agreement with the City of Oakdale
As previously noted, the City of Lake Elmo entered into a cooperative agreement with the City of
Oakdale for improvements to Lift Station 6 to provide regional sanitary sewer to the AUAR study area. The cooperative agreement contemplates the development of the full AUAR s tudy a rea for
urban services. To implement the Cooperative Agreement, the City of Lake Elmo entered into the Oakdale Sewer Service Agreement in September 2021 which details costs and responsibilities for
the construction and long -term service once the improvements and extension are completed. The City of Lake Elmo acknowledges that any urbanized development of the area north of 34th
Street N will require a Comprehensive Plan amendment to include the approximately 110 acres into the MUSA.
Water Supply Plan
The 2040 Comprehensive Plan includes a water supply plan that planned for serving the AUAR study area with municipal water. As discussed, the City acquired the AUAR s tudy area as part of a
settlement with 3M for PFAS contamination which is a ffecting the City’s groundwater. Hooking up properties within the City, in both urbanized and rural areas , is important to protect the
health, safety, and welfare of Lake Elmo’s residents. As a result, all s cenarios included in this AUAR plan for developme nt to be served by the municipal water supply and is consistent with
the adopted 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
iii. Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild and scenic rivers, critical area, agricultural preserves, etc.
Existing Zoning The AUAR s tudy area, excluding the public works facility, is zoned Rural Residential (RR) and the
public works facility parcel is zoned Public Facilities (PF) (see Figure 8). Adjacent zoning in the City of Lake Elmo includes Rural Single Family (RS) along the northern boundary, Open Space
PUD (OP) east of the study area north of 34th Street N , Limited Commercial (LC) east of the study area south of 34th Street N, and Residential Estate (RE) along the southern boundary. Adjacent to
the site in the City of Oakdale , land is predominantly zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) with a small portion of land adjacent to the southern portion of the study area zoned Low
Density Residential (R-2) and Very Low Density Residential (R -1). Any proposed new development or redevelopment that results in a change in land use will be required to be zoned
consistent with the Future Land Use Plan adopted in the Comprehensive Plan.
A portion along the southern area of the AUAR study area is located within the City’s Shoreland buffer (see Figure 14).2
2 City of Lake Elmo Zoning Map (last updated January 2021):
https://cms8.revize.com/revize/lakeelmomn/Document%20center/Departments/Planning%20and%20Zoning/Maps/Z
oningJanuary2021%201-22-21.pdf
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 18 March 2022
Valley Branch Watershed District The AUAR s tudy area is located within the Valley Branch Watershed District 3 (VBWD) area. VBWD
seeks to protect surface water, ground water, and natural resources within in the Valley Branch Watershed. Several wetlands are located within the AUAR s tudy area as well as an unnamed
tributary along southern boundary of the site. Any future development adjacent to the tributary and wetlands will need to mainta in a vegetative buffer to minimize effects to the waterbody and
may require watershed district permit approvals if any physical modification of waterbodies is proposed. All proposed development will be required to meet the requirements and standards of
the City’s adopted Local Surface Water Management Plan that incorporates the VBWD standards by reference.
FEMA National Flood Hazard
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) Flood Insurance Rate Map , the majority of the AUAR s tudy area is located in an area of minimal flood hazard. The southeast and southwest corner s are located within a FEMA 100-year floodplain and are associated with an
unnamed DNR Public Water Basin and unnamed DNR Public Watercourse , respectively (see Figure 8). The FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panel number s for the site are
27163C0240E, 27163C0245E, 27163C0331E, and 27163C0329E , effective February 3, 2010.
The parcels located north of 34th Street N are not located within any of the City’s floodplain zoning districts . However, FEMA Zone A and Zone AE Floodway are present within the parcels
south of 34th Street N . Areas designated as Zone A are within the City’s General Flood Plain District. Areas designated as floodway are within the City’s Floodway District. Therefore, both the
General Flood Plain District and Floodway District exist within the area south of 34th Street N . All development of the parcels south of 34th Street N must follow the standards as established
within the adopted Floodplain Ordinance and any standards and regulations, including but not limited to setbacks established by the VBWD rules.
3 Valley Branch Watershed Dis trict rules. Available at
https://vbwd.org/document_center/Quick%20links/2013AdoptedRules.pdf
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 19 March 2022
Figure 8 : FEMA Map
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 20 March 2022
b. Discuss the project’s compatibility with nearby land uses, zoning, and plans listed in Item 9a above, concentrating on implications for environmental effects.
Scenario 1 , Scenario 2 , and Scenario 3
The City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan guides the area north of 34th Street N a as Rural Area
Development which generally permits rural residential principal and accessory uses. The May 2021 Comprehensive Plan Amendment guides the area south of 34th Street N for Business Park.
Land use east of the project site is guided for Rural Area Development and Limited Commercial/business uses . Land west of the site is within the City of Oakdale and is guided for
urbanized development including PUD Business Park and low d ensity residential. Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 propose development of the AUAR study area with urbanized development patterns that
require the extension of municipal water and regional sanitary sewer. This area of the City was not contemplated for urban service s in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan period because the 3M Settlement occurred after its adoption. The PFAS groundwater contamination in this area makes
it important for any development or redevelopment activities to be served by the municipal water supply, and consequently make it cost effective for the area to be served by the regional
sanitary sewer. Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 are consistent with the land use patterns in the City of Oakdale, and while they are somewhat inconsistent with the adjacent Lake Elmo land uses ,
environmentally it is important to serve this area with municipal services rather than private utilities and infrastructure.
Land adjacent to the AUAR s tudy a rea in the City of Lake Elmo is of a lower density and intensity
land use pattern than is identified in all Scenarios 1, 2, and 3. The most significant potential conflict is along the northern and eastern border of the s tudy area where the predominant
existing land use is rural residential. To mitigate potential land use conflicts , Scenario s 1, 2, and 3 include an approximately 14-acre residential buffer between the planned Business Park and existing rural residential development. The parcels south of 34th Street N are where the project
proposer intends to develop a Business Park that will include a combination of warehousing and light-industrial uses. Planned development will include open space buffers along the south and
southeaster n borders where there is existing vegetation and the floodplain. On the easterly border of the s tudy area there are existing Limited Commercial uses that will be compatible with
Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 .
The parcels south of 34th Street N in Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 are consistent with the guided Business Park land uses in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, as amended in May 2021, and rezoning of this
area will be required as part of the land use application process . The area north of 34th Street N in Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 are inconsistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and will require a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to be included within the MUSA. Once the development is known, this area would be re -guided and subsequently rezoned to be consistent as part of any land use application process.
Scenario 4
Scenario 4 is consistent with the adopted 2040 Comprehensive Plan as amended in May 2021.
The area south of 34th Street N are guided for Business Park and at time of development must be rezoned for consistency with this land use designation. The area south of 34th Street N is
included in the City’s MUSA boundary and is planned to be connected to both municipal water supply and the regional sanitary sewer system. The area north of 34th Street N is guided Rural
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 21 March 2022
Residential and is zoned Rural Area Development (RAD) and Public Facilities on the approximately 7.4 acres of land that includes the City’s public work facilities. Scenario 4 assumes
the continuation of this land use pattern and would permit the development of the existing agricultural land into approximately 10 r ural residential lots. If development occurs consistent
with Scenario 4, the City will require the extension of municipal water to these properties due to the known PFAS groundwater contamination in the area. Scenario 4 is not desirable due to the
costs associated with the infrastructure needed to develop the area north of 34th Street N , but it is consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan.
c. Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any potential
incompatibility as discussed in Item 9b above.
As mentioned in Item 9b, Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 include a residential buffer along the northern and eastern perimeter of the study area north of 34th Street N to transition between residential and Business Park uses. Development of this area will be required to demonstrate appropriate
transitions between the uses , includ ing where and how roadways are connected throughout the AUAR s tudy area, where open space, vegetation, and stormwater management features can be
used to protect existing neighborhoods from the more intense development patterns contemplated in Scenarios 1, 2, and 3.
Additionally, given the known PFAS groundwater contamination in the area , it is important for
any new development to be hooked up to and served by municipal water. To serve this area efficiently and cost-effectively, a more intense and urbanized development pattern will help to
mitigate the significant costs associated with the infrastructure.
Re-guiding and rezoning the AUAR s tudy area is another mitigative strategy as it will require public hearings and other formal land use applications that will provide opportunities for neighbors to express their concerns, and for the City and potential developers to respond to
potential adverse impacts.
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 22 March 2022
Figure 9 : Existing City Zoning
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 23 March 2022
Figure 10: Existing Land Use
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 24 March 2022
10. Geology, Soils, and Topography/Land Forms
AUAR Guidance: A map should be included to show any groundwater hazards identified. A standard
soils map for the area should be included.
a. Geology - Describe the geology underlying the project area and identify and map any susceptible geologic features such as sinkholes, shallow limestone formations,
unconfined/shallow aquifers, or karst conditions. Discuss any limitations of these features for the project and any effects the project could have on these features. Identify any
project designs or mitigation measures to address effects to geologic features.
AUAR Guidance: A map should be included to show any groundwater hazards identified.
According to the Geologic Atlas of Washington County (Minnesota Geological Survey, 2016), the
AUAR s tudy area is underlain by sand, gravel, and diamicton.
Bedrock is encountered at varying depths across the AUAR s tudy a rea, ranging in depth from approximately 1-50 feet below ground surface. Bedrock is comprised of Platteville and Glenwood
Formations, fine -grained limestone containing thin shale partings near the top and base, underlain by green, sandy shale.
The AUAR s tudy area is located within a karst-prone area where karst features may form on the
land surface and where they are likely present in the subsurface. Site specific subsurface investigations should be completed prior to work commencement. If karst conditions are found
to be present, the project proposer will follow the Valley Branch Watershed District, City of Lake Elmo, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (M PCA) design guidelines.
Groundwater is present at approximately 0 to 50 feet below the surface.
b. Soils and Topography - Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications and descriptions, including limitations of soils. Describe topography, any special site conditions
relating to erosion potential, soil stability, or other soil limitations, such as steep slopes or highly permeable soils. Provide estimated volume and acreage of soil excavation and/or
grading. Discuss impacts from project activities (distinguish between construction and operational activities) related to soils and topography. Identify measures during and after
project construction to address soil limitations including stabilization, soil corrections, or other measures. Erosion/sedimentation control related to stormwater runoff should be
addressed in response to Item 11.b.ii.
AUAR Guidance: The number of acres to be graded and number of cubic yards of soil to be moved need not be given; instead, a general discussion of the likely earthmoving needs for development of
the area should be given, with an emphasis on unusual or problem areas. In discussing mitigation measures, both the standard requirements of the local ordinances and any special measures that would be added for AUAR purposes should be included. A standard soils map for the area should be
included.
According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, the area is comprised of 13 different soil types (s ee Table 4 and Figure 10). A Geotechnical Evaluation
Report was completed by Braun Intertec (August 2021) on the study area south of 34th Street N, which is the area the project p roposer intends to develop for business park uses. According to
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 25 March 2022
the report, the predominant soil conditions consist of an average of one foot of topsoil overlying mixed glacially deposited soils.
Earthwork on the study area south of 34th Street N is anticipated to generally balance and be
kept onsite . The proposed project will require approximately 500,000 total cubic yards of excavation.
During construction, sediment control best management practices such as silt fence s, biologs,
and silt curtains will be used where appropriate. The proposed development within the study area south of 34th Street N will require compliance with both the City’s and VBWD’s erosion and
sediment control standards. Erosion will be minimized to the extent practicable by establishing or retaining stabilizing vegetation and avoiding the placement of structures or land alternations
near steep slopes.
A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Construction Stormwater Permit (SWPPP) will be obtained prior to any earthwork or grading activities within the study area south of 34th Street N .
While unlikely, if the study area north of 34th Street N is developed consistent with Scenario 4,
minimal site grading and excavation work will be necessary to develop large rural residential lots , and all proper grading permits and site plan approvals will be required. The City anticipates
development of the study area north of 34th Street N will be consistent with either Scenario s 1, 2, or 3 but the actual development is unknown. Based on the s cenario ’s excavation, mass grading
and site work are likely with Scenario s 1, 2, or 3. Any future development of the study area north of 34th Street N will be required to submit construction and development plans that include
erosion control and grading plans. All development will be required to obtain NPDES and SWPPP approvals, if applicable.
Table 4: Soil Types
Map Unit Symbol Soil Type Acres within site
Percent of Site Hydric Rating Farmland Classification
49B Antigo silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 48.9 26.1% Not Hydric Prime farmland
49C Antigo silt loam, 6 to
15 percent slopes 27.1 14.5% Not Hydric Farmland of statewide
importance
49D Antigo silt loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes 2.7 1.4% Not Hydric Not Prime Farmland
120 Brill silt loam 7.3 3.9% Hydric
(1%-32%) Prime farmland
153B Santiago silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 26.0 13.8% Not Hydric Prime farmland
153C Santiago silt loam, 6
to 15 percent slopes 45.9 24.5% Not Hydric Farmland of statewide
importance
155C Chetek sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes 1.3 0.7% Not Hydric Not Prime Farmland
264 Freeon silt loam, 2 to
6 percent slopes 11.6 6.2% Hydric
(1%-32%) Prime farmland
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 26 March 2022
Map Unit Symbol Soil Type Acres within site
Percent of Site Hydric Rating Farmland Classification
266 Freer silt loam 8.7 4.6% Hydric (1%-32%) Prime farmland if drained
325 Prebish loam 1.3 0.7% Hydric
(66%-99%) Not Prime Farmland
342B Kingsley sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 0.4 0.2% Hydric (1%-32%) Prime farmland
896D
Mahtomedi-Kingsley
complex, 12 to 25 percent slopes 3.5 1.9% Not Hydric Not Prime Farmland
1847 Barronett silt loam,
sandy substratum 2.9 1.5% Hydric
(66%-99%) Not Prime Farmland
Total 187.7 100% -- --
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 27 March 2022
Figure 11: Soil Types
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 28 March 2022
11. Water Resources
AUAR Guidance: The information called for on the EAW form should be supplied for any of the
infrastructure associated with the AUAR development scenarios, and for any development expected to physically impact any water resources. Where it is uncertain whether water resources will be impacted
depending on the exact design of future development, the AUAR should cover the possible impacts through a “worst case scenario” or else prevent impacts through the provisions of the mitigation plan.
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. All surface water features should be described and identified on a map of the project area. Include any special designations such as public waters, trout stream/lake, wildlife lakes, migratory waterfowl
feeding/resting lake, and outstanding resource value water. Include water quality impairments or special designations listed on the current MPCA 303d Impaired
Waters List that are within one mile of the project. Include DNR Public Waters Inventory number(s), if any.
Surface water features within the AUAR s tudy area include five freshwater emergent
wetlands and three ponds . These features are identified on the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) and the surface area of these ponds totals 5.2 acres (see Figure 13).
There are two waterbodies identified by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s
(MPCA) Part 303d Impaired Waters List within one mile of the AUAR study area. Lake Jane, located north of the site, is impaired for mercury in fish tissue and fish bioassessments. Eagle Point Lake, located southeast of the site, is impaired for
Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) in fish tissue (see Figure 12).
The site generally drains to the east and south. One unnamed DNR Public Water Basin is present in the southeast corner of the site (DNR ID 82040000). An unnamed DNR Public
Watercourse is present south of the site. This unnamed watercourse is an upstream tributary of Raleigh Creek , which drains into Eagle Point Lake.
ii. Groundwater – aquifers, springs, and seeps. Include 1) depth to groundwater; 2) if
project is within a MDH well protection area; and 3) identification of any onsite and/or nearby wells, including unique numbers and well logs, if available. If there
are no wells known on site or nearby, explain the methodology used to determine this.
According to the DNR’s County Geologic Atlas Pro gram, the depth to groundwater within the AUAR study area is 0 to 50 feet below the surface. Based on the Minnesota
Department of Health Minnesota Well Index, there is one well located within the AUAR study area and one well within 150 feet of the AUAR study area (see Table 5 and Figure
11). The City recently acquired the AUAR s tudy area parcels , and based on information obtained during the acquisition, the well has been properly sealed and closed. If
unknown wells are encountered onsite, they will be sealed and abandoned following Minnesota Department of Health and MPCA protocols.
The southernmost part of the AUAR s tudy area is located in the Oakdale drinking water
supply management area (DWSMA), see Figure 14. The AUAR study area is not within any
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 29 March 2022
wellhead protection areas , but it is adjacent to the Oakdale South wellhead protection area (WPA), see Figure 14.
Per the Minnesota Department of Health, the AUAR s tudy area is located in a Special
Well and Boring Construction Area (SWCA) due to the known PFAS groundwater contaminatio n at levels that may pose public health risks. As stated by Washington
County, “The purpose of a SWCA is to inform the public of potential health risks in areas of groundwater contamination, provide for the construction of safe water supplies, and
prevent the spread of contamination due to improper drilling of wells or borings”. As previously noted, the safety of the water supply is critical in this area due to known
groundwater contamination.
Table 5 : Wells within AUAR Stu dy Area
Well ID Number Well Status Well Name Well Depth Date Completed
440554 Sealed Cerney, Jim & Cindy 141 Feet 10/09/1986
255284 Sealed Imation MW 146 Feet 05/00/1956
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 30 March 2022
Figure 12: Wells within 150 feet of AUAR Study Area
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 31 March 2022
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.
In August 2021 , the City of Lake Elmo entered into a Cooperative Agreement with the City of Oakdale to hook up and serve the AUAR s tudy a rea with regional sanitary sewer
system through Oakdale. The Cooperative Agreement identifies and establishes the quantity of wastewater flows anticipa ted for full development of the AUAR study area,
and the City of Lake Elmo has agreed to contribute to the construction and upgrade of Oakdale’s Lift Station 6 proportionate to the development anticipated. The
implementation of the Cooperative Agreement was approved in the Oakdale Sewer Service Agreement approved by the Lake Elmo City Council in September 2021.
Ultimately the sanitary sewer main is connected to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services system through a 10 -inch gravity sewer main extending across the City of Oakdale and connecting to the MCES 15 -in 1 -WO -500 interceptor sewer trunk
line. The 1-WO-500 interceptor main discharges to the Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant in St. Paul.
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 32 March 2022
The Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant is the largest waste water treatment facility in Minnesota. The plant is an advanced secondary treatment plant with
chlorination/dichlorination. Currently, the plant has a maximum capacity of 314 million gallons per day. During the month of September 2021, the plant had an ave rage flow of
160.8 million of gallons per day, which results in an excess capacity of approximately 153 million gallons per day.
Table 6 illustrates the anticipated average daily flow rates and peak daily flow rates for
each of the scenarios. Each of the potential scenarios is well within the existing capacity of the existing Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Table 6 : Anticipated Average Daily Flow Rates and Peak Daily Flow Rates
AVERAGE DAY WASTEWATER USE PEAK DAY WASTEWATER USE
Area north of 34th
Street N (gpd)
Area south of 34th
Street N (gpd)
Total AUAR
s tudy area (gpd)
Area north of 34th
Street N (gpd)
Area
south of 34th
Street N (gpd)
Total
AUAR s tudy
area (gpd)
Scenario 1 114,000 38,000 152,000 240 80 320
Scenario 2 104,000 38,000 142,000 220 80 300
Scenario 3 38,000 38,000 76,000 80 80 160
Scenario 4 0 38,000 38,000 0 80 80
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.
The existing public works facility is served by an Individual Subsurface Sewage Treatment System that includes a private drainfield. The public works facility is located in the area
north of 34th Street N and there is no immediate plan to hook up the system to the regional sanitary system. At the time of development in the area north of 34th Street N ,
the public works facility may be hooked up to the regional system, but it is unknown at this time. If Scenario 4 were to be developed, Individual Subsurface Sewage Treatment
Systems (SSTS) would likely be installed to serve the rural residential development in the area north of 34th Street N . However, as previously stated, the City anticipates that development of the area north of 34 th Street N will be consistent with either Scenario 1,
2, or 3 and that the area will be served by the regional sewer extension and that no other subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS) would be developed in the AUAR s tudy
a rea.
3) If the wastewater discharge is to surface water, identify the wastewater treatment methods, discharge points, and proposed effluent limitations to mitigation
impacts. Discuss any effects to surface or groundwater from wastewater discharges.
No wastewater discharge to surface waters is anticipated for any of the development scenarios .
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 33 March 2022
iv. Stormwater – Describe the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff at the site prior to and post construction. Include the routes and receiving water bodies for
runoff from the site (major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters). Discuss any environmental effects from stormwater discharges.
Describe stormwater pollution prevention plans including temporary and permanent runoff controls and potential BMP site locations to manage or treat
stormwater runoff. Identify specific erosion control, sedimentation control, or stabilization measures to address soil limitations during and after project
construction.
AUAR Guidance: For an AUAR the following additional guidance should be followed in addition to that in EAW Guidelines:
• It is expected that an AUAR will have a detailed analysis of stormwater issues
• A map of the proposed stormwater management system and of the water bodies that will receive stormwater should be provided
• The description of the stormwater systems would identify on-site and “regional”
detention ponding and also indicate whether the various ponds will be new water bodies or converted existing ponds or wetlands. Where on-site ponds will be used but
have not yet been designed, the discussion should indicate the design standards that will be followed.
• If present in or adjoining the AUAR area, the following types of water bodies must be
given special analyses:
o Lakes: Within the Twin Cities metro area, a nutrient budget analysis must be prepared for any “priority lake” identified by the Metropolitan Council. Outside of
the metro area, lakes needing a nutrient budget analysis must be determined by consultation with the MPCA and DNR staffs.
o Trout streams: If stormwater discharges will enter or affect a trout stream, an evaluation of the impacts on the chemical composition and temperature regime of
the stream and the consequent impacts on the trout population (and other species of concern) must be included.
The existing Lake Elmo public works b uilding is located at the northeast quadrant of the Ideal Ave nue and 34th Str eet N intersection and is comprised of approximately three
acres of impervious surfaces. The remainder of the existing ground cover is made up of pervious surfaces. The soil across the AUAR s tudy area is generally clayey with relatively
low permeability ra tes. Valley Branch Watershed District (VBWD) regulates the stormwater management criteria for the AUAR s tudy area. For new, nonlinear
developments that create 6,000 square feet or more of new impervious surface on sites without restrictions, stormwater runoff volumes will be controlled, and the post-construction runoff volume shall be retained onsite for 1.1 inches of runoff from
impervious surfaces. In addition to the water quality retention requirements , the VBWD requires the peak rate of stormwater runoff from the developed site not exceed the
existing peak rate of runoff for all critical duration events, up to and including the 100-year return frequency storm event for all points where discharges leave a site during all
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 34 March 2022
phases of development. Design criteria shall be the 2-, 10-, and 100-year 24-hour storms with respective 2.8, 4.2, and 7.3-inch rainfall depths with VBWD-approved time
distribution and the 7.2-inch, 100-year , 10-day snowmelt event.
As shown in each s cenario , an extensive network of stormwater ponds and stormwater features are anticipated throughout the study area . The stormwater management design will be subject to the regulations as previously noted, regardless of the s cenario
developed, and individual plans will be required to demonstrate compliance with both the City’s and VBWD’s rules for stormwater management.
Additionally, the developer will look for methods to minimize chloride use and improve treatment of stormwater runoff to minimize potential impacts to downstream waters. The
project will comply with all city, watershed district, county, and state rules for stormwater management, and chloride use will be addressed in the Stormwater Management Plan that will be reviewed by the City for compliance.
v. Water Appropriation – Describe if the project proposes to appropriate surface or
groundwater (including dewatering). Describe the source, quantity, duration, use, and purpose of the water use and if a DNR water appropriation permit is required.
Describe any well abandonment. If connecting to an existing municipal water supply, identify the wells to be used as a water source and any effects on, or
required expansion of, municipal water infrastructure. Discuss environmental effects from water appropriation, including an assessment of the water resources
available for appropriation. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects from the water appropriation.
AUAR Guidance: If the area requires new water supply wells, specific information about
that appropriation and its potential impacts on groundwater levels should be given; if groundwater levels would be affected, any impacts resulting on other resources should be addressed.
Construction dewatering will be required for the development of the area south of 34th
Street N and may be required when the area north of 34th Street N develops. Construction activities associated with dewatering will include discharging into temporary
sedimentation basins to reduce the rate of water discharged from the site, as well as discharging to temporary stormwater best management practices. Any temporary
dewatering will require a DNR Temporary Water Appropriations General Permit 1997-0005 if less than 50 million gallons per year and less than one year in duration. In the
area south of 34th Street N it is anticipated that the temporary dewatering would only occur during utility installation and potential construction of building footings.
The water supply will be obtained from the three municipal groundwater wells that cur rently supply the Lake Elmo water system. The groundwater wells draw water from the
Jordan aquifer.4 According to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the City’s pumping capacity is 3,750 gallons per minute (gpm) as of 2019 for the three wells .
4 Source: City of Lake Elmo. 2040 Comprehensive Plan: Water Supply Plan in Appendix H (2019).
https://cms8.revize.com/revize/lakeelmomn/Full2040CompPlan.pdf
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 35 March 2022
The existing wa ter system was analyzed for supply, treatment, storage, and distribution capacity to determine if additional water system capital improvements are necessary to
continue to provide a safe and reliable water supply through 2040 in the Comprehensive Plan. It was determined that as the City grows , the Comprehensive Plan assumes an
additional 2-3 wells will be required and that the existing water tower storage capacity of Towers 2 and 4 equate to 1,750,000 gallons. In addition, the City is currently designing
and constructing Water Tower No. 3 to add another 1,000,000 gallons of elevated storage capacity to the overall system. With the completion of Water Tower No. 3,
anticipated in the Fall of 2023, the storage capacity will be sufficient to serve the demands projected in the Comprehensive Plan beyond 2040. The Minnesota DNR
recommends that the total storage be equal or exceed the average daily demand. The Water Supply Plan adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan did not plan for development of the AUAR s tudy area with urban densities; however, it did plan to serve
the AUAR study area with municipal water given the known PFAS groundwater contamination in the area. Based on the expected population growth of Lake Elmo per
the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and the May 2021 Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the projected average daily demand will be 2,100,000 gallo ns per day.
While the projected density and intensity is higher than planned, the City’s planned
improvements to the water supply, including additional wells and storage capacity, is sized adequately to serve the increased demand based on higher intensity and density in
the area.
vi. Surface Waters
1) Wetlands – D escribe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to wetland features, such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging, and vegetative removal. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification
of wetlands, including the anticipated effects that any proposed wetland alterations may have to the host watershed. Identify measures to avoid (e.g., available
alternatives that were considered), minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to wetlands. Discuss whether any required compensatory wetland mitigation for
unavoidable wetland impacts will occur in the same minor or major watershed and identify those probable locations.
Scenario s 1, 2, 3, and 4
Approximately 5.2 acres of wetlands are located within the AUAR s tudy area based on
National Wetlands Inventory data from the DNR (See Table 7). If any wetland impacts are proposed as part of future development within the AUAR s tudy area, the applicable WCA
and/or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approvals will need to be obtained .
Table 7 : Wetlands Identified on Site
Identifying Inventory Wetland Type Wetland Classification Identified Wetland Size
National
Wetlands Inventory
Freshwater Emergent Wetland PEM1A 0.44 acres
Freshwater Emergent Wetland PEM1C 1.6 acres
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 36 March 2022
Identifying Inventory Wetland Type Wetland Classification Identified Wetland Size
Freshwater Emergent Wetland PEM1C 48 sq uare feet
Freshwater Emergent Wetland PEM1F 0.3 acres
Freshwater Emergent Wetland PEM1A 2.4 acres
Freshwater Pond PUBFx 0.18 acres
Freshwater Pond PABHx 0.08 acres
Freshwater Pond PUBHx 0.21 acres
Total -- -- 5.2 Acres
c. Other surface waters – Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to surface water features (lakes, streams, ponds, intermittent channels, county/judicial ditches) such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging, diking, stream diversion,
impoundment, aquatic plant removal, and riparian alteration. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of water features. Identify measures to
avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to surface water features, including in-water Best Management Practices that are proposed to avoid or minimize
turbidity/sedimentation while physically altering the water features. Discuss how the project will change the number or type of watercraft on any water body, including current
and projected watercraft usage.
AUAR Guidance: Water surface use need only be addressed if the AUAR area would include or adjoin recreational water bodies.
No alternations to other surface waters are anticipated as part of any of the development
scenarios .
d. If the wastewater discharge is to surface water, identify the wastewater treatment
methods, discharge points, and proposed effluent limitations to mitigation impacts. Discuss any effects to surface or groundwater from wastewater discharges.
No wastewater discharge to existing surface waters is anticipated for any of the development
scenarios .
e. Stormwater – Describe the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff at the site prior to and post construction. Include the routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the
site (major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters). Discuss any environmental effects from stormwater discharges. Describe stormwater pollution
prevention plans including temporary and permanent runoff controls and potential Best Management Practices site locations to manage or treat stormwater runoff. Identify
specific erosion control, sedimentation control, or stabilization measures to address soil limitations during and after project construction.
Scenario s 1, 2, 3 and 4
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 37 March 2022
The following stormwater management requirements will be adhered to:
• City of Lake Elmo Code of Ordinances; 105.04-XIV Stormwater and Erosion and Sediment Control
• City of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan
• Valley Branch Watershed District Standards
• National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit requirements will be determined for
each new development within the AUAR Study Area . This permit requires 80 percent TSS removal and meeting existing run-off rates for the 2, 10, and 100-year storm events.
Stormwater will be managed on site and will maintain the current drainage patterns to the
discharge points . The proposed development within the AUAR s tudy area will require compliance with the standards of the VBWD and the City of Lake Elmo for water quality, volume control, rate
control, and erosion control. For new, nonlinear developments that create 6,000 square feet or more of new impervious surface on sites without restrictions, stormwater runoff volumes will be controlled, and the post-construction runoff volume shall be retained onsite for 1.1 inches of
runoff from impervious surfaces. In addition to the water quality retention requirements , the City and VBWD r equires the peak rate of stormwater runoff from the developed site shall not exceed
the existing peak rate of runoff for all critical duration events, up to and including the 100-year return frequency storm event for all points where discharges leave a site during all phases of
development. Design criteria shall be the 2-, 10-, and 100-year 24-hour storms with respective 2.8, 4.2, and 7.3-inch rainfall depths with VBWD-approved time distribution and the 7.2-inch 100-
year 10-day snowmelt event.
The soil profile is anticipated to be clayey having a poor permeability rate. Per VBWD regulations, developments must exhaust options to infiltrate the 1.1-inch water quality volume before
alternate means of treatment can be considered. Alternate options to infiltratio n may include but are not limited to underground detention, underground infiltration, stormwater reuse, surface biofiltration, and green roofs. In addition to potential soil permeability issues, karst geology may
be present in the area. If karst formations are found onsite, the stormwater mitigation measures must follow both M PCA and VBWD requirements.
Stormwater modeling of runoff and temperature controls will be completed as part of the final
design of each project phase to provide volume and temperature control for the proposed improvements. The modeling will be performed to ensure conformance to all City of Lake Elmo
and VBWD standards. Outfalls will be defined as part of the final design of each project phase.
The following design/construction standar ds are to be adhered to during construction:
• Grading of the infiltration basins shall be accomplished using low-impact, earthmoving
equipment to prevent compaction of the underlying soils.
• Infiltration basin excavation shall be held 1 foot above the botto m of the excavation until
the contributing drainage areas with exposed soils have been fully stabilized.
• Divert upland drainage areas to prevent runoff from entering the excavated basins or
into the work areas.
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 38 March 2022
• Care must be taken to avoid contamination of engineered soils with sediment, in-situ, or
topsoil during and after installation. Materials must be segregated.
• Installation with dry soil conditions is critical to prevent smearing and compaction.
Schedule work for periods of dry weather.
• Do not leave infiltration areas and/or perimeter slope exposed overnight. Secure the area
from risk of precipitation and damages at the end of every workday. In the event of rain,
take action to divert stormwater away from work area and temporarily cover all exposed
soils with filter fabric or impermeable sheeting.
• In the event that the sediment is introduced into the BMP during or immediately
following excavation, remove sediment prior to initiating the next step in the infiltration
basin construction process.
• Excavate sediment built up during construction after stabilization of upstream areas and
before placement of hydraulic soil stabilizer type special.
• Stockpiling of materials shall not be allowed in proposed infiltration areas before or after
they are constructed. Only specified equipment will be allowed inside of the orange
construction fence for the sole purpose of constructing the infiltration basins.
• All infiltration basin construction activities shall be completed during dry soil conditions.
• All infiltration areas shall be protected during construction operations.
In all four development scenarios, roads, parking lots, and stormwater management basins are
proposed. To minimize the impact of snow melt on the adjacent natural resources, snow will be stockpiled and managed in proposed landscape and stormwater pre-treatment forebays. In the
spring, the proposed infiltration basins will minimize the effect of freezing by providing increased pore space through the native sandy soils and proposed plantings. The basins will also be sized
to control the peak runoff rates from the 1-, 10-, and 100-year, 24-hour rainfall events . It is anticipated that approximately 500,000 cubic feet of stormwater volume will need to be retained
and infiltrated on-site. Pretreatment of all runoff prior to discharging into the stormwater BMP is encouraged, but not required if the tributary area is less than two acres. The volume provided onsite will provide excess storage to compensate for the runoff volume expected during spring
thawing. The pr oposed stormwater management BMPs will be designed to comply with all City of Lake Elmo and VBWD standards and with comply with all maintenance/monitoring
requirements of the City and VBWD.
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 39 March 2022
Figure 13: Water Resources Within 1-Mile of AUAR Study Area
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 40 March 2022
Figure 14: Water Resources Within AUAR Study Area
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 41 March 2022
Figure 15: Drinking Water Supply Management Area & Wellhead Protection Area
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 42 March 2022
12. Solid Wastes, Hazardous Wastes, and Storage Tanks
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 the AUAR s tudy area. Two sites were identified within
the AUAR study area and two sites were identified within 250 feet of the AUAR s tudy a rea (see Table 8 and Figure 16).
Using the following criteria established by the Minnesota Department of Transportation
(MnDOT), the sites were classified into high, medium, and low risk sites:
• High risk: In general, sites with high environmental risks are properties that have documented releases of chemicals or hazardous or regulated substances (e.g., active and
inactive state and federal cleanup sites, active and inactive dump sites, and active leaking underground storage tank sites), strong evidence of contamination (e.g., soil staining,
stressed vegetation), or storage of large volumes of petroleum or other chemicals (e.g., bulk storage tank facilities).
• Medium risk: Sites of medium environmental risk are properties where smaller volumes of petroleum, chemicals, or hazardous materials are frequently stored and used (e.g.,
registered underground and aboveground storage tanks, vehicle repair facilities, metal working shops), but at which no evidence of spills or releases exists, or properties with
documented releases that have been “closed” (signifying no further cleanup actions deemed necessary) by the MPCA. Closed sites, such as closed leaking underground
storage tank sites, are considered medium risks because residual soil or groundwater contamination may exist.
• Low risk: Low environmental risk sites include properties where minor volumes of
chemicals or hazardous materials have been used or stored (e.g., hazardous waste generators, and possibly some farmsteads and residences).
Table 8 : MPCA What’s in My Neighborhood Sites
Site ID Site Name Activity Status Activity Risk Level
108620 Lake Elmo Public Works Active Hazardous Waste – minimal quantity generator Low
95697 Lake Elmo Public
Works Facility
Inactive Construction Stormwater Low
Active Underground Tanks Medium
28670 Oakwood Animal Hospital Active Hazardous Waste – very small quantity generator Low
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 43 March 2022
Site ID Site Name Activity Status Activity Risk Level
Inactive Petroleum Remediation Medium
40673 Myrons Service Center Inactive Hazardous Waste Low
As described in Item 11(ii), the AUAR s tudy area is located within the Special Well and Boring Construction Area (SWCA) because of known PFAS groundwater contamination. As stated by Washington County, “Wastes containing perfluoro -alkyl Substances (PFAS), also known as
perfluorochemicals (PFCs) were disposed of by the 3M Company at the 3M disposal sites in Oakdale, Woodbury, and Cottage Grove, and the former Washington County Landfill in Lake Elmo. PFAS were
released from the sites, resulting in contamination of groundwater and nearby drinking water wells ”.
Scenarios 1, 2, 3, and 4
The AUAR study area is in an area known to contain PFAS groundwater contamination and as a result any development must be served by municipal water. Additionally, given the known contamination in
the area a Response Action Plan (RAP) must be developed for any construction in the AUAR study area, and a Construction Contingency Plan (CCP) will be prepared and implemented during
construction.
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 44 March 2022
Figure 16: MPCA What’s in My Neighborhood Sites
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 45 March 2022
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 Washington County Ordinance No. 202, Washington 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
Scenarios 1, 2, 3, and 4
All four scenarios include the development and construction of the area south of 34th Street N
with business park uses. The construction will generate construction-related waste materials such as wood, packaging, excess materials, and other wastes. The wastes generated as a result of the
construction will either be recycled or disposed of in the proper facilities in accordance with state regulations and guidelines.
Future development of the area north of 34th Street N will likely be similar to the waste
generated in the area south of 34th Street N; the wastes will either be recycled or disposed of in the proper facilities in accordance with state regulations and guidelines.
Operation Generated Solid Waste
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4 Recycling for residential units and commercial buildings in the AUAR s tudy area will be
conducted in accordance with the 2016 Recycling Law (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 115A, Section 115A.151 and Section 115A.552). Furthermore, Washington County Ordinance 202 (2.83) requires source separation by the generator prior to collection for r ecycling services.
The proposed development of the area south of 34th Street N will generate new demands on
solid waste management and sanitation services. It is estimated that the added residential waste stream will be approximately 937 tons per year unde r Scenario 1; 914 tons per year under
Scenario 2; 131 tons per year under Scenario 3; and 23 tons per year under Scenario 4. The added non-residential (commercial/industrial) waste stream will be approximately 27,674 tons
per year under Scenario 1; 26,040 tons per year under Scenario 2; 42,623 tons per year under Scenario 3; and 16,500 tons per year under Scenario 4.
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 above or below ground tanks to store petroleum or other materials. 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.
AUAR Guidance: Not required for an AUAR. P otential locations of storage tanks associated with commercial uses in the AUAR should be identified (e.g., gasoline tanks at service stations).
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 46 March 2022
Not required for an AUAR.
d. Project Related Generation/Storage of Hazardous Wastes – Describe hazardous wastes generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of
disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from hazardous waste handling, storage, and disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from the
generation/storage of hazardous wastes including source reduction and recycling.
AUAR Guidance: Not required for an AUAR.
Not required for an AUAR.
13. Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources
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.
Minimal native wildlife habitat is located within the AUAR s tudy area due to the site’s use as an agricultural field . Wildlife that can be found within the AUAR s tudy area include birds and small
mammals. There are four areas of Minnesota Biological Survey (MBS) Sites of Biodiversity Significance, eight native plant communities, and six Regionally Significant Ecological Areas
(RSEA) located within one mile of the site. Exis ting cover types are shown in Figure 6.
b. Describe rare features such as state-listed (endangered, threatened, or special concern) species, native plant communities, Minnesota County Biological Survey Sites of
Biodiversity Significance, and other sensitive ecological resources on or within close proximity to the site. Provide the license agreement number (LA-965) and/or
correspondence number (ERDB) from which the data were obtained, and attach the Natural Heritage letter from the DNR. Indicate if any additional habitat or species survey work has been conducted within the site and describe results.
AUAR Guidance: For an AUAR, prior consultation with the DNR Division of Ecological Resources for
information about reports of rare plant and animal species in the vicinity is required. Include the referenc e numbers called for on the EAW form in the AUAR and include the DNR’s response letter.
If such consultation indicates the need, an on-site habitat survey for rare species in the appropriate portions of the AUAR area is required. Areas of on-site surveys should be depicted on a map, as
should any “protection zones” established as a result.
Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Based on a review of the US Department of Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) data for federally
listed threatened and enda ngered species, there are seven federally listed species within Washington County; Northern long -eared bat (NLEB), Higgins eye (pearlymussel), snuffbox mussel, spectaclecase (mussel), winged mapleleaf, monarch butterfly, and rusty patched bumble
bee.
A re cord for the Northern Long -E ared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) is located within Washington County. Northern long -eared bat was designated a federally threatened species by FWS in April
2015. According to the Minnesota DNR, in the southern part of the state, Northern Long -Eared
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 47 March 2022
Bat may use attics, bridges, and buildings for hibernating. In summer, the species is often found within forested habitats, especially around wetlands. Summer roosts may include under loose
tree bark, in buildings, behind signs or shutters, caves, mines, and quarry tunnels.
A record for Higgins eye (Lampsilis higginsii), a federally endangered species, is located within Washington County. The preferred habitat for this species is larger rivers with deep water and
moderate currents.
A record for snuffbox mussel (Epioblasma triquetra), a federally endangered species, is located within Washington County. The preferred habitat for this species is small to medium sized creeks
with a swift current.
A record for spectaclecase (Cumberlandia monodonta), a federally endangered species, is located within Washington County. The preferred habitat for this species is in large rivers where they can
shelter from the main force of the current.
A record for winged mapleleaf (Quadrula fragosa), a federally endangered species, is located
within Washington County. The preferred habitat for this species is in riffles with clean gravel, sand, or rubble bottoms and in clear, high quality water.
A record for monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus), a federal candidate species, is located within
Washington County. The preferred habitat for this species is anywhere milkweed is present, including fields, roadside ditches, open areas, or wet areas.
A record for the r usty patched bumble bee (Bombus affinis), a federally listed endangered
species, is located within Washington County. The preferred habitat for this species includes grasslands and tallgrass prairies. Although the AUAR s tudy a rea is located within a high potential
zone for the rusty patched bumble bee, the site has been previously cultivated for agricultural use and does not contain natural prairie vegetation.
State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Based on a review of the Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) for state -listed threatened,
endangered, and special concern species (per license agreement LA-965), there are no records within the AUAR study a rea and three records within one mile of the AUAR s tudy a rea: Red-
shouldered hawk, least darter, and rusty-patched bumble bee.
A record for the Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus), a state-listed special concer n species, is located within a one -mile radius of the project site. The preferred habitat for this species includes
large tracts of mature deciduous forest with scattered wetland openings.
A record for the Least Darter (Etheostoma microperca), a state-lis ted special concern species, is located within a one -mile radius of the project site. The preferred habitat for this species includes
freshwater streams and lakes.
A record for the Rusty-patched Bumble Bee (Bombus affinis), a federally listed endangered s pecies, is located within a one-mile radius of the project site. The AUAR s tudy area is also entirely within a High Potential Zone for the rusty-patched bumble bee. Disturbed areas will be
reseeded using native seed mixes; therefore, no long-term adverse impacts are anticipated.
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 48 March 2022
Other Sensitive Ecological Resources There are four areas of Minnesota Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance and eight
native plant communities within a one -mile radius of the project site. Considering none are within the AUAR s tudy area, no adverse impacts in these areas are anticipated.
There are six regionally significant ecological areas (RSEA) within one mile of the project site, one
of which is within the AUAR s tudy area, south of 34th Street N. Any project grading or tree removal will occur along the edge of the RSEA, and potential impact will be limited.
c. Discuss how the identified fish, wildlife, plant communities, rare features, and ecosystems
may be affected by the project. Include a discussion on introduction and spread of invasive species from the project construction and operation. Separately discuss effects to known
threatened and endangered species .
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4 Effects to Wildlife Habitat The current site provides several acres of non-native wildlife habitat. It is possible one or more
species utilizing the existing site may be relocated as a result of future development.
Effects to Threatened and Endangered Species The AUAR s tudy area is not located in a township containing documented NLEB maternity roost
trees or hibernacula; therefore, adverse impacts are minimal.
Potential suitable habitat for the rusty patched bumble bee may exist within or near the AUAR stud y area as it is located entirely within a High Potential Zone; however, due to the highly
disturbed nature of the site, proposed impacts are minimal.
The Least Darter is sensitive to environmental degradation, especially turbidity and siltation within the waterbodies that it inhabits .
The site does not contain any rivers or creeks; therefore, no adverse impacts to the Higgins eye, snuffbox mussel, spectaclecase, or winged mapleleaf are anticipated.
The site does not contain suitable habitat for the Red-shouldered hawk ; therefore, no adverse
impacts are anticipated.
Potential suitable habitat for the monarch butterfly may exist within or near the project AUAR study area; however, due to the highly disturbed nature of the site, proposed impacts are
minimal.
A request for concurrence was submitted to the DNR and is currently pending (see correspondence in Appendix A).
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.
d. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to fish,
wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources.
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4
Effects to Wildlife Habitat
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 49 March 2022
Tree removal mitigation will be implemented if the maximum allowable amount of tree removal is exceeded as required by City of Lake Elmo’s code of ordinances § 154.257. Some green space
and native landscaping will be provided within the proposed development scenarios. Pollinator friendly seed mixes will be used to promote pollinator habitat.
Effects to Threatened and Endangered Species Disturbed areas will be reseeded using native seed mixes to promote pollinator habitat;
therefore, no long -term adverse impacts are anticipated to the Rusty-Patched Bumble Bee and Monarch butterfly.
Removal of trees and any potential rusty patched bumble bee habitat will be completed during
the inactive season (November 1 – March 31) to minimize impacts to the northern long eared bat and rusty patched bumble bee.
In order to avoid impacts to the Least Darter , proper erosion and sediment control practices will be implemented and maintained during construction near wetlands and will be incorporated into
a stormwater management plan.
Invasive Species Invasive species will be controlled on-site during construction and landscaping will not include
any DNR identified invasive species . Additionally, best management practices will be followed when relo cating equipment from other sites.
14. Historic Properties
Describe any historic structures, archeological sites, and/or traditional cultural properties on
or in close proximity to the site. Include 1) historic designations; 2) known artifact areas; and 3) architectural features. Attach letter received from the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Discuss any anticipated effects to historic properties during project
construction and operation. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to historic properties.
AUAR Guidance: For an AUAR, contact with the State Historic Preservation Office and State Archeologist is required to determine whether there are areas of potential impacts to these resources. If
any exist, an appropriate site survey of high probability areas is needed to address the issue in more detail. The mitigation plan must include mitigation for any impacts identified.
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4 A SHPO database review was requested in November 2021. The database review identified no
historic sites within proximity to the AUAR s tudy area. Therefore, there are no impacts to nearby archaeological, historical, and/or architectural resources anticipated as part of this development. A letter from the State Historic Preservation Office is provided in Appendix B.
15. Visual
Scenic views or vistas may include spectacular viewing points along lakes, rivers or bluffs;
virgin timber tracts; prairie remnants; geological features; waterfalls; specimen trees; or plots of wildflowers. Describe any project related visual effects such as vapor plumes or glare from
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 50 March 2022
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. If any non-routine
visual impacts would occur from the anticipated development, this should be discussed here along with appropriate mitigation.
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4 The AUAR study area includes existing agricultural property that is not near any unique designated
scenic views or vistas. Future development will conform with the zoning regulations for building height, building form, landscape screening, and lighting would be in conformance with City
ordinances. No visual impacts are anticipated.
16. Air
a. Stationary Source Emissions – Describe the type, sources, quantities, and compositions of
any emissions from stationary sources such as boilers or exhaust stacks. Include any hazardous air pollutants, criteria pollutants, and any greenhouse gases. Discuss effects to
air quality including any sensitive receptors, human health, or applicable regulatory criteria. Include a discussion of any methods used to assess the project’s effect on air
quality and the results of that assessment. Identify pollution control equipment and other measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from stationary
source emissions.
AUAR Guidance: This item is not applicable to an AUAR. Any stationary air emissions source large enough to merit environmental review requires individual review.
Not applicable.
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 18 indicates that development would cause or
worsen traffic congestion. The general guidance from the EAW form should still be followed.
Questions about the details of air quality analysis should be directed to MPCA staff.
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4 The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has developed a screening method designed to identify intersections that will not cause a carbon monoxide (CO) impact above state
standards. MnDOT has demonstrated that even the 10 highest traffic volume intersections in the Twin Cities do not experience CO impacts. Therefore, intersections with traffic volumes lower
than these 10 highest intersections will not cause a CO impact above state standards. MnDOT’s screening method demonstrates that intersections with total daily approaching traffic volumes
below 82,300 vehicles per day will not have the potential for causing CO air pollution problems.
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 51 March 2022
None of the intersections in the AUAR s tudy 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 16a). Discuss the effect of dust and odors in the vicinity of the
project including nearby sensitive receptors and quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of dust and odors.
AUAR Guidance: Dust and odors need not be addressed in an AUAR, unless there is some unusual
reason to do so. The RGU might want to discuss as part of the mitigation plan, however, any dust
control ordinances in effect.
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4
The proposed development for any scenario may generate temporary fugitive dust emissions during construction. Dust emissions can be controlled by sweeping, watering, sprinkling, as
appropriate or as prevailing weather and soil conditions dictate. Dust emissions are not anticipated during operations as all ground surfaces will either be impervious or vegetated.
17. Noise
Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of noise generated during project construction and operation. Discuss the effect of noise in the vicinity of the project
including 1) existing noise levels/sources in the area; 2) nearby sensitive receptors; 3) conformance to state noise standards; and 4) quality of life. Identify measures that will be
taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of noise.
AUAR Guidance: Construction noise need not be addressed in an AUAR, unless there is some unusual reason to do so. The RGU might want to discuss as part of the mitigation plan, however, any
construction noise ordinances in effect.
• If the area will include or adjoin major noise sources, a noise analysis is needed to determine if any noise levels in excess of standards would occur, and if so, to identify appropriate mitigation
measures. With respect to traffic -generated noise, the noise analysis should be based on the traffic analysis of Item 18. it is expected that an AUAR will have a detailed analysis of stormwater issues;
• A map of the proposed stormwater management system and of the water bodies that will receive stormwater should be provided;
• The description of the stormwater systems would identify on-site and “regional” detention ponding
and also indicate whether the various ponds will be new water bodies or converted existing ponds or wetlands. Where on-site ponds will be used but have not yet been designed, the discussion should
indicate the design standards that will be followed.
• If present in or adjoining the AUAR area, the following types of water bodies must be given special analyses:
• 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;
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 52 March 2022
• Trout streams: if stormwater discharges will enter or affect a trout stream an evaluation of the impacts on the chemical composition and temperature regime of the stream and the consequent
impacts on the trout population (and other species of concern) must be included.
Traffic Generated Noise Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4
The AUAR study area is predominantly existing agricultural land near state highways and county roads. The Union Pacific railroad passes though the southern portion of the AUAR study area.
Existing traffic noise sources at the site are from the surrounding roadways. Traffic volumes in the AUAR s tudy area are either on roadways that do not have receivers that are sensitive to noise, or the
traffic levels attributable to the project are well below the amount that would generate a sound increase that could be noticeable. The change in traffic noise levels is not anticipated to be readily
perceptible.
A sound increase of 3 dBA is barely noticeable by the human ear, a 5 dBA increase is clearly
noticeable, and a 10 dBA increase is heard as twice as loud. For example, if the sound energy is doubled (i.e., the amount of traffic doubles), there is a 3 dBA increase in noise, which is just barely
noticeable to most people. On the other hand, if traffic increases by a factor of 10, the resulting sound level will increase by about 10 dBA and be perceived as twice as loud.
Operational Noise
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4 The Lake Elmo Code of Ordinances regulates mechanical noise associated with building operation by
the standards set by the MPCA and Washington County.5 All future development of the study area will be required to comply with these requirements.
Construction Noise
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4 As stated in the AUAR guidelines, construction noise need not be addressed unless there is some unusual reason to do so. No unusual circumstances have been identified that would necessitate a
detailed construction noise analysis. The Lake Elmo Code of Ordinances regulates both the hours of operation for construction equipment and allowable noise levels. All construction and development
activities in the AUAR s tudy area must comply with these requirements.
18. Transportation
AUAR Guidance: For AUAR reviews a detailed traffic analysis will be needed, conforming to the MnDOT guidance as listed on the EAW form.
a. Describe traffic-related aspects of project construction and operation. Include 1) existing and proposed additional parking spaces; 2) estimated total average daily traffic generated;
3) estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence; 4) source of trip generation rates used in the estimates; and 5) availability of transit and/or other
alternative transportation modes.
Parking
5 Source: Lake Elmo, Minnesota, Municipal Code § 9.04.050 (h)
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 53 March 2022
There are no existing parking spaces within the AUAR s tudy a rea. Proposed parking spaces located in the area north of 34th Street N will be determined when a site plan becomes available.
There will be approximately 797 parking stalls for the development south of 34th Street N .
Existing Conditions The primary existing roadway network within the AUAR s tudy area includes 34th Street (CSAH 14),
Ideal Avenue (CSAH 13), and Stillwater Boulevard (CSAH 6). The roadway network is described below.
• 34th Street N (CSAH 14) is an east-west roadway that runs along the northern boundary
of the proposed industrial site and on the southern boundary of the proposed mixed -use site. 34th Street N is a 4 -lane divided roadway with turn lanes provided at major
intersections. 34th Street N is classified an A-Minor Expander in the Washington County 2040 Comprehensive Plan with a posted speed limit of 55 miles per hour (mph) in the AUAR s tudy ar ea. According to the MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application, the existing
Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) along 34th Street N is approximately 14,600 vehicles per day (vpd) (2018) west of Ideal Avenue N and 10,400 vpd (2018) east of Ideal Avenue
N.
• Ideal Avenue N (CSAH 13) is a north-south roadway that runs along the western
boundary of the proposed site. Ideal Avenue N is a two -lane undivided roadway south of 34th Street N and a four -lane divided roadway between 34th Street N and 36th Street N.
Turn lanes or passing lanes are provided at all intersections. Ideal Avenue N is classified as an A-Minor Reliever, north of 34th Street N and a Major Collector south of 34th Street
N in the Washington County 2040 Comprehensive Plan with a posted speed limit of 50 mph north of 34th Street N and 40 mph south of 34th Street N. According to the MnDOT
Traffic Mapping Application, the existing Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) along Ideal Avenue N is approximately 4,250 vpd (2018) north of 34th Street N and 5,200 vpd (2018) south of 34th Street N.
• Stillwater Boulevard N (CSAH 6) generally runs east-west, south of the AUAR study area and turns north at the eastern edge of the study network. Stillwater Boulevard N is a
two -lane undivided roadway with right turn lanes provided at intersections. Stillwater Boulevard N is classified as a Major Collector west of Inwood Avenue N and an A-Minor
Expander east of Inwood Avenue N in the Was hington County 2040 Comprehensive Plan with a posted speed limit of 50 mph. According to the MnDOT Traffic Mapping
Application, the existing AADT along Stillwater Boulevard N is 5,400 vpd (2018) west of Inwood Avenue N, and 4,900 vpd (2018) east of Inwood Avenue N.
Traffic Generation Scenario 1, 2, 3 and 4
Trip generation estimates were based on a review of industrial land uses provided in the manual, Land Use Code (LUC) 154 (High-Cube Transload and Short-Term Storage Warehouse), LUC 820
(Shopping Plaza >150ksf), LUC 821 (Shopping Plaza 40ksf-150ksf), LUC 210 (Single Family Detached Housing), LUC 220 (Multifamily Housing Low-Rise), and LUC 2 21 (Multifamily Housing
Mid -Rise ) were determined to be the most appropriate fit for the proposed development in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. The trip generation for the three scenarios is shown in
Table 9. The full traffic study cond ucted for the AUAR can be found in Appendix C.
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 54 March 2022
Table 9 : Trip Generation Forecasts
Scenario AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Total In Out Total In Out
Scenario 1 450 245 205 805 380 425 10,450
Scenario 2 440 235 205 960 460 500 11,105
Scenario 3 380 250 130 750 330 420 9,790
Scenario 4 95 70 25 120 35 85 1,635
Availability of Transit
There are no transit routes currently serving the AUAR s tudy a rea.
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 16 and 17.
Scenario 1, 2, 3 and 4 A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was completed in November 2021 based on the projected trip
generation of the four proposed scenarios. The results of this study can be found in Appendix C. Based on the detailed findings of the NorthPoint Industrial Park TIA, the area’s transportation
network is expected to support redevelopment within the AUAR s tudy area with mitigation. The TIA identified improvements that could be constructed to mitigate possible future traffic impacts
associated with development within the AUAR s tudy a rea. Metrics for traffic analysis include intersection delay as measured by Level of Service (LOS) and queue lengths.
The traffic analysis report includes intersection capacity analyses for intersections at site access
points along Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N as well as intersection operations within the vicinity of the project (see locations identified on Figure 16). Based on the results of the TIA capacity analysis, a couple intersections operate poorly in Horizon Year (2040) Scenario 2 without
mitigation. Table 10 s hows the LOS for the AUAR s tudy a rea intersections in each analysis scenario. The mitigation determined necessary for 2040 No-Build conditions was included in the
No Mitigation analysis for all three 2040 Build Scenarios.
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 55 March 2022
Table 10: Existing and Projected Intersection LOS
Intersection 2021
2025 2040
No-Build Scenarios 1-4 No-Build Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4
No Miti No Miti No Miti Miti No Miti No Miti Miti No Miti No Miti
A.M. Peak Hour Intersection LOS
Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N A B B B B C C C B B
Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Street N/Site Access 2 A A A A A A A B A A
Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3 A A A A A A A A A A
Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N A A A A A A A A A A
34th Street N & Jamaca Avenue N A A A A A A A A A A
Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N A A A A A B B A A A
34th Street N & Site Access 1 -- -- A -- -- C C C C B
P.M. Peak Hour Intersection LOS
Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N B C C C C C C C C C
Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Street N/Site Access 2 B B C C C D C D C C
Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3 A A B F B C C C C B
Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N A B B E B C C C B B
34th Street N & Jamaca Avenue N A A A B B C D A C B
Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N A A A C C C C C C C
34th Street N & Site Access 1 -- -- A -- -- D F C D A
Miti=Mitigation
c. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate project related transportation effects.
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 56 March 2022
Existing (2021) Conditions
• No mitigation necessary
Opening Year (2025) No-Build Conditions
• No mitigation necessary
Opening Year (2025) Build Scenario s 1-4 Conditions
• Install eastbound right and westbound left turn lanes on 34th Street N at site access 1
• Side-Street stop control at all accesses
Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Conditions
• Addition of a southbound left-turn lane at the intersection of Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater
Boulevard N
• Signal timing modification at the intersection of 34th Street N & Ideal Avenue N
Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1 Conditions
• All Modifications from Horizon Year (2040) No -Build Conditions
• Install eastbound left, eastbound right, westbound left, and westbound right turn lanes on 34th Street N at site access 1
• Side-Street stop control at all accesses
• Monitor 34th Street & site access 1 as development continues to determine if a signal is warranted
Horizon Year (204 0) Build Scenario 2 Conditions
• All Modifications from Horizon Year (2040) No -Build Conditions
• Expansion of 34th Street N to a four -lane cross-section at its intersection with Jamaca Avenue
N
• Monitor the roundabout at 34th Street N & Jamaca Avenue N and add a second circulating
lane for the eastbound and westbound movements if necessary
• Addition of southbound left-turn lane to site access 1 on 34th Street N
• Install eastbound left, eastbound right, westbound left, and westbound right turn lanes on 34th Street N at site access 1
• Monitor 34th Street & site access 1 as development continues to determine if a signal is warranted
Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3 Conditions
• All Modifications from Horizon Year (2040) No -Build Conditions
• Install eastbound left, eastbound right, westbound left, and westbound right turn lanes on 34th
Street N at site access 1
• Monitor 34th Street & Site Access 1 as development continues to determine if a signal is warranted
Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4 Conditions
• All Modifications from Horizon Year (2040) No -Build Conditions
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 57 March 2022
• Install eastbound left, eastbound right, westbound left, and westbound right turn lanes on 34th Street N at site access 1
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 58 March 2022
Figure 17: Traffic Study Intersections
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 59 March 2022
19. Cumulative Potential Effects
AUAR Guidance: Because the AUAR process by its nature is intended to deal with cumulative potential effects from all future developments within the AUAR area, it is presumed that the responses to all
items on the EAW form automatically encompass the impacts from all anticipated developments within the AUAR area.
However, the total impact on the environment with respect to any of the items on the EAW form may also be influenced by past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects outside of the AUAR
area. The cumulative potential effect descriptions may be provided as part of the responses to other appropriate EAW items, or in response to this item.
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.”6 The
geographic areas considered for cumulative effects are those areas adjacent to the AUAR s tudy a rea, 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.
Washington County is planning to construct road improvements on Ideal Avenue from 34th
Street (CSAH 14) to 44th Street in the Cities of Oakdale and Lake Elmo. The project includes improvements to intersection controls, pavement, surface water drainage, and continuing north-
south trail segments. The first phase of the project was constructed in 2017 and the second phase of the project is planned for construction in 2022.
The Willowbrook development, located on the northwest corner of the Ideal Avenue N and 36th
Street N intersection is anticipated to have a total of 1,410 residential units, composed of single family, townhomes, multifamily apartments and senior housing. Phase 1 is anticipated to be
completed by 2025 which includes 114 single family units and 280 townhomes , and a ll development is anticipate d to be completed prior to 2040.
a. 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.
Impacts resulting from the development of the AUAR study area may include wetland impacts and increased traffic to the area. Impacts of the future road project on Ideal Avenue and the
Willowbrook residential development may also impact traffic and adjacent water resources;
6 Minnesota Rules, part 4410.0200, subpart 11a
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 60 March 2022
however, the planned future road improvements will result in a cumulative benefit to traffic conditions. All other impacts from these future projects will be addressed via regulatory
permitting and approval measures; therefore, they will be individually mitigated to ensure no cumulative impacts occur to environmental and community resources .
20. Other Potential Environmental Impacts
If the project may cause any additional environmental effects not addressed by Items 1 to 19,
describe the effects here, discuss the how the environment will be affected, and identify measures that will be taken to minimize and mitigate these effects.
All known environmental effects are addressed in the preceding sections.
Mitigation Plan
This Mitigation Plan is submitted as part of the AUAR to provide reviewers and regulators with an
understanding of the actions that are advisable, recommended, or necessary to protect the environment and minimize potential impacts by the propose d development scenarios.
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 s tudy area. Although mitigation strategies are
discussed throughout the AUAR document, this plan will be formally adopted by the RGU as their action plan to prevent potentially significant environmental impacts.
The primary mechanism for mitigation of environmental impacts is the effective use of ordinances, rules, and regulations. The plan does not modify the regulatory agencies’ responsibilities for
implementing their respective regulatory programs nor create additional regulatory requirements. The plan specifies the legal and institutional arrangements that will assure that the adopted
mitigation measures are implemented.
There were no impacts or mitigation strategies identified in Item 14 and Item 15; therefore, these areas are not included in the Mitigation Plan. The remaining AUAR items have identified regulatory
requirements and/or mitigation measures that reduce the level of potential impact of development within the AUAR study a rea. The following mitigation summary applies to Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4
unless otherwise specified.
Table 11: Permits and Approvals Required
Unit of Government Type of Application Status
Federal
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 To be applied for, if applicable
State
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Stormwater Permit for Construction
Activities
To be applied for
Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit To be applied for
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 61 March 2022
Unit of Government Type of Application Status
Section 401 Water Quality Certification To be applied for, if applicable
Construction Contingency Plan
and Response Action Plan approval To be applied for
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Temporary Water
Appropriation Permit for Construction Dewatering To be applied for, if applicable
Regional
Metropolitan Council Sewer Extension Permit To be applied for
Valley Branch Watershed
District
Watershed District Permit To be applied for
Wetland Conservation Act
(WCA) Replacement Plan To be applied for, if applicable
County
Washington County Right-of-Way Permit To be applied for, if applicable
Local
City of Lake Elmo
Preliminary/Final Plat To be applied for
Building Permit To be applied for
Erosion Control, Grading, and
Stormwater Permit To be applied for
Right-of-Way Permit To be applied for, if applicable
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment (applies to Scenario 1, 2, and 3) To be applied for
Zoning Map Amendment To be applied for
Planned Unit Development To be completed, if applicable
Conditional Use Permit To be completed, if applicable
Union Pacific Railroad Utility Crossing Permit To be applied for
Xcel Energy Transmission Line
Encroachment Agreement To be applied for
BP Gasmain Easement Encroachment Agreement To be applied for
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 62 March 2022
Table 12: Mitigation Plan
Resource Area Mitigation
Land Use
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: All four scenarios propose business park and commercial uses in the area south of 34th Street N, which are consistent with the May 2021
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The area north of 34th Street is guided as Rural Area Development (RAD). Development consistent with Scenarios 1, 2, or 3 will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re-guide the parcels consistent with
the proposed development to be included in the MUSA.
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: Any proposed development in the AUAR study area for Scenario 1, Scenario 2, Scenario 3, or Scenario 4 will require rezoning of the
parcels to allow for business park, mixed-use business park, commercial uses and any urban density residential development.
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: Any future development adjacent to the tributary and
wetlands will need to maintain a vegetative buffer to minimize effects to the waterbody and may require watershed district permit approvals if any physical
modification of waterbodies is proposed. All proposed development will be required to meet the requirements and standards of the City’s adopted Local
Surface Water Management Plan that incorporates the VBWD standards by reference.
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: All development of the parcels south of 34th Street N must
follow the standards as established within the adopted Floodplain Ordinance and any standards and regulations, including but not limited to setbacks established
by the VBWD rules.
Geology, Soils, and
Topography
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Construction Stormwater Permit
(SWPPP) will be obtained prior to any earthwork or grading activities within the area south of 34th street N, and if needed in the area north of 34th Street N.
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: During construction, sediment control best manag ement
practices such as silt fences, biologs, and silt curtains will be used where appropriate. The proposed development within the AUAR study area will require
compliance with the City and watershed district erosion and sediment control standards.
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: Site specific subsurface investigations should be completed
prior to work commencement. If karst conditions are found to be present, follow the Valley Branch Watershed District, City of Lake Elmo, and the Minnesota
Pollution Contro l Agency (MPCA) design guidelines.
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: Stabilizing vegetation will be established or retained. Placing structures or land alterations near steep slopes will be avoided to the
extent practicable. All proper grading permits and site plan approvals will be required.
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 63 March 2022
Resource Area Mitigation
Water
Resources
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: Future infrastructure will be built within the AUAR study area to convey stormwater to stormwater management areas to help achieve the
appropriate water quality treatment. As required by the City and VBWD, the quantity and rate of stormwater runoff from the 2-, 10-, and 100-year, 24-hour
rainfall events with respective 2.8, 4.2, and 7.3-inch rainfall depths with VBWD-approved time distribution and the 7.2-inch 100-year 10-day snowmelt event.
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: Stormwater management BMPs will be designed to comply
with all City of Lake Elmo and VBWD standards and will comply with all maintenance/monitoring requirements of the City and VBWD.
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: Best management practices pertaining to stormwater
management will be adhered to during construction.
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: Obtain a permit from the Metropolitan Council and MPCA for a sewer extension and permit to connect.
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: Obtain a permit from MDH for a watermain installation.
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: A DNR temporary water appropriation permit will be
obtained for any dewatering that will be needed for construction.
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: Groundwater wells will be pr operly sealed, if not already sealed, by a licensed well contractor prior to any development within the AUAR
study area per MPCA and MDH well sealing requirements.
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: If any wetland impacts are proposed as part of future development within the AUAR s tudy area, the applicable WCA and/or U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers approvals will need to be obtained.
Contamination/
Hazardous Waste
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: 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, 2, 3, and 4: Recycling for residential units and commercial buildings
will be conducted in accordance with the 2016 Recycling Law (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 115A, Section 115A.151 and Section 115A.552). Furthermore, Washington
County Ordinance 202 (2.83) requires source separation by the generator prior to collection for recycling services .
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: Ensure compliance with applicable laws, rules, and
ordinances related to the management of solid and hazardous waste as required by Minnesota Statutes 2020, section 473.811, subdivision 5c.
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: A Response Action Plan (RAP) will be developed for any
known areas of contamination and a Construction Contingency Plan (CCP) will prepared and implemented during construction.
Fish, Wildlife,
Plant Communities,
and Sensitive Ecological Resources
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: Tree removal mitigation will be implemented if the
maximum allowable amount of tree removal is exceeded as required by City of Lake Elmo’s code of ordinances § 154.257.
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: Removal of trees and any potential rusty patched bumble
bee habitat will be completed during the inactive season (November 1 – March 31) to minimize impacts to the northern long eared bat and rusty patched bumble bee.
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 64 March 2022
Resource Area Mitigation
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: To avoid impacts to the Least Darter, proper erosion and sediment control practices will be implemented and maintained during
construction near wetlands and will be incorporated into a stormwater management plan.
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: Invasive species will be controlled during site construction.
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: Pollinator friendly seed mixes will be used to promote
pollinator habitat.
Air
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: Construction will generate temporary fugitive dust emissions during construction. These emissions will be controlled by sweeping,
watering, sprinkling, as appropriate or as prevailing weather and soil conditions dictate.
Noise
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: Construction activities may result in temporarily elevated
noise levels. The Lake Elmo 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.
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 65 March 2022
Resource Area Mitigation
Transportation
Opening Year (2025) Build Scenarios 1 -4 Conditions
• Install eastbound right and westbound left turn lanes on 34th Street N at site access 1
• Side -Street stop control at all accesses
Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Conditions
• Addition of a southbound left-turn lane at the intersection of Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N
• Signal timing modification at the intersection of 34th Street N & Ideal Avenue N
Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1 Conditions
• All Modifications from Horizon Year (2040) No -Build Conditions
• Install eastbound left, eastbound right, westbound left, and westbound right turn lanes on 34th Street N at site access 1
• Side -Street stop control at all accesses
• Monitor 34th Street & site access 1 as development continues to determine if a signal is warranted
Horizon Year (2040 ) Build Scenario 2 Conditions
• All Modifications from Horizon Year (2040) No -Build Conditions
• Expansion of 34th Street N to a four -lane cross-section at its intersection
with Jamaca Avenue N
• Monitor the roundabout at 34th Street N & Jamaca Avenue N and add a
second circulating lane for the eastbound and westbound movements if necessary
• Addition of southbound left-turn lane to site access 1 on 34th Street N
• Install eastbound left, eastbound right, westbound left, and westbound
right turn lanes on 34th Street N at site access 1
• Monitor 34th Street & site access 1 as development continues to determine if a signal is warranted
Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3 Conditions
• All Modifications from Horizon Year (2040) No -Build Conditions
• Install eastbound left, eastbound right, westbound left, a nd westbound
right turn lanes on 34th Street N at site access 1
• Monitor 34th Street & Site Access 1 as development continues to determine if a signal is warranted
Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4 Conditions
• All Modifications from Horizon Year (2040) No -Build Conditions
• Install eastbound left, eastbound right, westbound left, and westbound right turn lanes on 34th Street N at site access 1
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR March 2022
Appendix A
NHIS Correspondence (pending)
Appendix A: Correspondence
to Agency Comments
: Responses to Public Comments
From:Peterson, Kestra
To:Review.NHIS@state.mn.us
Subject:NHIS Review Request for Cyphers Logistic Park in Lake Elmo, MN
Date:Thursday, November 18, 2021 1:43:00 PM
Attachments:StudyArea.pdf
Hello,
Kimley-Horn has been contracted to prepare an AUAR for Cyphers Logistic Park located north and
south of 34th Street N and east of Ideal Avenue N on an approximately 190-acre site in Lake Elmo,
Washington County, Minnesota. A project location map is attached.
A review of the DNR Natural Heritage Inventory System (LA-965) database was conducted for the
AUAR study area and the area within one mile of the project site. This review identified three
records within one mile of the project site but no records within the project site itself.
A record for the Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus), a state-listed special concern species, is
located within a one-mile radius of the project site. The preferred habitat for this species includes
large tracts of mature deciduous forest with scattered wetland openings. The site does not contain
suitable habitat for the species; therefore, no adverse impacts to the Red-shouldered Hawk are
anticipated.
A record for the Least Darter (Etheostoma microperca), a state-listed special concern species, is
located within a one-mile radius of the project site. The preferred habitat for this species includes
freshwater streams and lakes. The site does not contain suitable habitat for the species; therefore,
no adverse impacts to the Least Darter are anticipated.
A record for the Rusty-patched Bumble Bee (Bombus affinis), a federally listed endangered species,
is located within a one-mile radius of the project site. The AUAR study area is also entirely within a
High Potential Zone for the rusty-patched bumble bee.
There are four areas of Minnesota Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance and eight native
plant communities within a one-mile radius of the project site. Considering none are within the
AUAR study area, no adverse impacts in these areas are anticipated.
There are six regionally significant ecological areas (RSEA) within one mile of the project site, one of
which is within the AUAR study area, south of 34th Street N. This RSEA is associated with an
unnamed DNR stream and unnamed DNR waterbody, which are adjacent to the site. Due to the
small amount of overlap between the RSEA and the study area, impacts will be minimal.
Please confirm our conclusions and let us know if you have any questions or need additional
information.
Thank you,
Kestra Peterson
Kimley-Horn | 767 Eustis Street, Suite 100, St. Paul, MN 55114
Main: 651-645-4197 | Direct: 651-456-8167
Celebrating 14 years as one of FORTUNE’s 100 Best Companies to Work For
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR March 2022
Appendix B
Historic Resources Correspondence
Historic Resources Correspondence
From:MN_MNIT_Data Request SHPO
To:Peterson, Kestra
Subject:RE: Database Search Request
Date:Wednesday, November 17, 2021 5:58:50 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
History.xls
Hello Kestra,
Please see attached. Our database has no archaeological records for the given project area.
BTW, I assumed you meant Township 29N, Range 21W for both sections?
Jim
SHPO Data Requests
Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office
50 Sherburne Avenue, Suite 203
Saint Paul, MN 55155
(651) 201-3299
datarequestshpo@state.mn.us
Notice: This email message simply reports the results of the cultural resources database search you requested. The
database search is only for previously known archaeological sites and historic properties. IN NO CASE DOES THIS
DATABASE SEARCH OR EMAIL MESSAGE CONSTITUTE A PROJECT REVIEW UNDER STATE OR FEDERAL
PRESERVATION LAWS – please see our website at https://mn.gov/admin/shpo/protection/ for further information
regarding our Environmental Review Process.
Because the majority of archaeological sites in the state and many historic/architectural properties have not been
recorded, important sites or properties may exist within the search area and may be affected by development
projects within that area. Additional research, including field surveys, may be necessary to adequately assess the
area’s potential to contain historic properties or archaeological sites.
Properties that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or have been determined eligible for
listing in the NRHP are indicated on the reports you have received, if any. The following codes may be on those
reports:
NR – National Register listed. The properties may be individually listed or may be within the boundaries of a
National Register District.
CEF – Considered Eligible Findings are made when a federal agency has recommended that a property is eligible for
listing in the National Register and MN SHPO has accepted the recommendation for the purposes of the
Environmental Review Process. These properties need to be further assessed before they are officially listed in the
National Register.
SEF – Staff eligible Findings are those properties the MN SHPO staff considers eligible for listing in the National
Register, in circumstances other than the Environmental Review Process.
DOE – Determination of Eligibility is made by the National Park Service and are those properties that are eligible for
listing in the National Register, but have not been officially listed.
CNEF – Considered Not Eligible Findings are made during the course of the Environmental Review Process. For the
This message may be from an external email source.
Do not select links or open attachments unless verified. Report all suspicious emails to Minnesota IT Services Security
Operations Center.
purposes of the review a property is considered not eligible for listing in the National Register. These properties may
need to be reassessed for eligibility under additional or alternate contexts.
Properties without NR, CEF, SEF, DOE, or CNEF designations in the reports may not have been evaluated and
therefore no assumption to their eligibility can be made. Integrity and contexts change over time, therefore any
eligibility determination made ten (10) or more years from the date of the current survey are considered out of date
and the property will need to be reassessed.
If you require a comprehensive assessment of a project’s potential to impact archaeological sites or
historic/architectural properties, you may need to hire a qualified archaeologist and/or historian. If you need
assistance with a project review, please contact Kelly Gragg-Johnson, Environmental Review Specialist @ 651-201-
3285 or by email at kelly.graggjohnson@state.mn.us.
The Minnesota SHPO Archaeology and Historic/Architectural Survey Manuals can be found at
https://mn.gov/admin/shpo/identification-evaluation/.
Given the Governor's implementation of Stay Safe MN, SHPO staff will continue to work
remotely and be available via phone and email, and the SHPO office will be closed to visitors
and unable to accommodate in-person research and deliveries. Mail is being delivered to the
office via USPS, FedEx and UPS, however, staff have limited weekly access to sort and process
mail. Our office will continue to take file search requests via DataRequestSHPO@state.mn.us.
Check SHPO's webpage for the latest updates and we thank you for your continued patience.
From: Peterson, Kestra <Kestra.Peterson@kimley-horn.com>
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 2:47 PM
To: MN_MNIT_Data Request SHPO <DataRequestSHPO@state.mn.us>
Subject: Database Search Request
Hello,
I would like to request a database search for a proposed project located in the northeast and
southeast quadrants of the 34th Street N/Ideal Avenue N intersection in Lake Elmo (NE ¼ and SE ¼ of
Section 16, Township 21N, Range 29W and NW ¼ of Section 21, Township 29N, Range 21W). The
location is shown on the attached USGS and existing conditions maps. Please let me know if you
need any additional information.
Thank you,
Kestra
Kestra Peterson
Kimley-Horn | 767 Eustis Street, Suite 100, St. Paul, MN 55114
Main: 651-645-4197 | Direct: 651-456-8167
Celebrating 14 years as one of FORTUNE’s 100 Best Companies to Work For
COUNTY CITYTWP PROPNAME ADDRESS TOWNSHIPRANGESECTIONQUARTERSUSGS REPORTNUMNRHPCEFDOEINVENTNUM
Washington
Baytown Twp.
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 16 SE-SE XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 16 SW-SE XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 21 NW-NE XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 21 NW-NW XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 21 NE-NW XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Lake Elmo
Kern House 11912 Stillwater Blvd N 29 21 21 NE-SE-SE Stillwater WA-2018-3H WA-LEC-020
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 16 SE-SE XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Washington
Lake Elmo
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 16 SW-SE XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 21 NW-NW XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 21 NW-NE XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 21 NE-NW XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Oak Park Heights
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 16 SE-SE XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 16 SW-SE XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 21 NW-NE XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 21 NW-NW XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 21 NE-NW XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Oakdale
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 16 SW-SE XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 16 SE-SE XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 21 NE-NW XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 21 NW-NE XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 21 NW-NW XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Washington
Oakdale
Stillwater
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 16 SW-SE XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 16 SE-SE XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 21 NW-NW XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 21 NE-NW XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 21 NW-NE XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR March 2022
Appendix C
Traffic Study
Appendix C
Traffic Impact Analysis
NorthPoint Industrial Park
AUAR
LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 2022
Prepared For:
Prepared By:
1 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 3
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................... 3
2.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS ..................................................................................3
2.2 STUDY AREA............................................................................................................4
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................... 5
3.1 FUTURE ROADWAY AND INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ........................................5
3.2 FUTURE TRAFFIC FORECAS TING .............................................................................5
4.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................... 8
4.1 SITE LOCATION ........................................................................................................8
4.2 SITE CIRCULATION...................................................................................................8
4.3 FUTURE LAND USE ..................................................................................................8
4.4 TRIP GENERATION ...................................................................................................9
4.5 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT ................................................... 12
4.6 TOTAL TRAFFIC FORECAST.................................................................................... 13
5.0 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS .......................................................................... 13
5.1 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS ........................................................................................... 13
5.2 LEVEL OF SERVICE OVERVIEW .............................................................................. 13
5.3 EXISTING YEAR (2021) INTERSECTION ANALYSIS.................................................... 14
5.4 OPENING YEAR (2025) NO-BUILD INTERSECTION ANALYSIS .................................... 17
5.5 OPENING YEAR (2025) BUILD SCENARIOS 1-4 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS ................ 19
5.6 HORIZON YEAR (2040) NO-BUILD INTERSECTION ANALYSIS .................................... 21
5.7 HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 1 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS ...................... 25
5.8 HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 2 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS ...................... 27
5.9 HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 3 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS ...................... 31
5.10 HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 4 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS .................... 33
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 35
6.1 PROJECT TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT & STUDY AREA................................................. 35
6.2 EXISTING YEAR (2021) LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SUMMARY ............................ 35
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
2
6.3 OPENING YEAR (2025) NO-BUILD LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SUMMARY ............. 36
6.4 OPENING YEAR (2025) BUILD SCENARIOS 1-3 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SUMMARY
36
6.5 HORIZON YEAR (2040) NO-BUILD LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SUMMARY ............. 36
6.6 HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SUMMARY
37
6.7 HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 2 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SUMMARY
37
6.8 HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 3 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SUMMARY
37
6.8 HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 4 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SUMMARY
38
6.9 MITIGATION PLAN .................................................................................................. 38
APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................... 40
3 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
1.0 INTRODUCTION
NorthPoint Development is proposing to develop an approximately 84-acre industrial park located on the
southeast corner of the intersection of 34th Street N & Ideal Avenue N and an approximately 96-acre mixed
use development on the northeast corner of the intersection of 34th Street N & Ideal Avenue N, in Lake
Elmo , MN. The existing site is currently undeveloped. Exhibit 1 in Appendix A shows the project location
and study intersections.
The purpose of this study is to address traffic and transportation impacts of the proposed development on
surrounding streets and intersections.
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Following provides a description of the public roadways within the study area:
34th Street N (CSAH 14) is an east -west roadway that runs along the northern boundary of the
proposed industrial site and on the southern boundary of the proposed mixed-use site. 34th Street N is
a 4-lane divided roadway with turn lanes provided at major intersections. 34th Street N is classified an
A-Minor Expander in the Washington County 2040 Comprehensive Plan with a posted speed limit of
55 miles per hour (mph) in the study area. According to the MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application, the
existing Annual Average Daily Traffic (A ADT) along 34th Street N is approximately 14,600 vehicles per
day (vpd) (2018) west of Ideal Avenue N and 10,400 vpd (2018) east of Ideal Avenue N.
Ideal Avenue N (CSAH 13) is a north-south roadway that runs along the western boundary of the
proposed site. Ideal Avenue is a two -lane undivided roadway south of 34th Street N and a four-lane
divided roadway between 34th Street N & 36th Street N. Turn lanes or passing lanes are provided at all
intersections. Ideal Avenue is classified as an A -Mino r Reliever, north of 34th Street N and a Major
Collector south of 34th Street N in the Washington County 2040 Comprehensive Plan with a posted
speed limit of 50 mph north of 34th Street N and 40 mph south of 34th Street N. According to the MnDOT
Traffic Mapping Application, the existing Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) along Ideal Avenue N is
approximately 4,250 vpd (2018) north of 34th Street N and 5,200 vpd (2018) south of 34th Street N.
Stillwater Boulevard N (CSAH 6) generally runs east-west, south of the proposed development area
and turns north at the eastern edge of the study network . Stillwater Boulevard N is a two -lane undivided
roadway with right turn lanes provided at intersections . Stillwater Boulevard N is classified as a Major
Collector west of Inwood Avenue N and an A -Minor Expander east of Inwood Avenue N in the
Washington County 2040 Comprehensive Plan with a posted speed limit of 50 mph. According to the
MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application, t he existing AADT along Stillwater Boulevard N is 5,400 vpd
(2018) west of Inwood Avenue N, and 4,900 vpd (2018) east of Inwood Avenue N.
Jamaca Avenue N runs north-south, east of the proposed development. Jamaca Avenue N is a two-
lane undivided roadway ; no turn lanes are provided along Jamaca Avenue N. Jamaca Avenue N is
classified as a local roadway in the Lake Elmo 2040 Comprehensive Plan with a posted speed limit of
45 mph. According to the MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application, the existing AADT along Jamaca Avenue
N is 1,950 vpd (2019).
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
4
36th Street N runs east -west , north of the proposed development. 36th Street N is a two -lane divided
roadway; turn lanes are provided at accesses along 36th Street N. 36th Street N is classified as a local
roadway in the Lake Elmo 2040 Comprehensive Plan with no posted speed limit. There is no reported
AADT along 36th Street N.
32nd Street N runs east -west, west of the proposed development. 32nd Street N is a two-lane undivided
roadway that provides access to businesses south of 34th Street N; turn lanes are provided at major
accesses along 32nd Street N. 32nd Street N is classified as a local roadway in the Lake Elmo 2040
Comprehensive Plan with no posted speed limit. There is no reported AADT along 32nd Street N.
31st Street N runs east -wes t, west of the proposed development. 31st Street N is a two -lane undivided
roadway; no turn lanes are provided along 31st Street N. 31st Street N is classified as a local roadway
in the Lake Elmo 2040 Comprehensive Plan with no posted speed limit. There is no reported AADT
along 36th Street N.
Interstate 694 (I-694) is a highway that runs north-south in the study area, west of the of the proposed
development. While I-694 will not be analyzed in the study network it is expected that many site trips
will utilize I-694 to connect the site with the regional roadway network. I-694 is a four-lane divided
highway with grade separated interchanges at intersections with major roadways. I-694 is classified as
a Principal Arterial in the Lake Elmo 2040 Comprehensive Pl an with a posted speed limit of 60 mph.
The AADT along I-694 is 61,505 vpd (2020) north of 34th Street N and 63,000 vpd (2020) south of 34th
Street N.
The following is a list of the study intersections analyzed in this report and the intersection control type at
each intersection:
• Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N – Side Street Stop Control
• Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N – Signalized
• Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Street N – Side Street Stop control
• Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N – Side Street Stop Control
• Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N – All Way Stop Control
• 34th Street N & Jamaca Avenue N / Stillwater Boulevard N – Roundabout
Exhibit 2 provides the existing geometry and intersection control for the study intersections. Washington
County is planning to improve pavement and safety conditions on Ideal Avenue, this will result in an updated
geometry for the intersection of Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N by 2022, which is what will be analyzed for
opening year and horizon year conditions.
Weekday AM and PM peak period turning movement counts were collected Tuesday August 10th, 2021 at
all study intersections in the study area except for the intersection of Ideal Avenue N and 36th Street N
which was under construction at the time of data collection. The turning movement counts are provided in
Appendix B. Exhibit 3 provides the existing volumes used in the analysis.
2.2 STUDY AREA
The land uses adjacent to the development are generally low-density single family residential to the north,
east, and south and commercial and office to the west.
5 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
The study area intersections include Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N, Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N, Ideal
Avenue N & 32nd Street N, Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N, Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N, and
34th Street N & Jamaca Avenue N / Stillwater Boulevard N.
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
It is assumed that the 84-acre industrial development will be fully built out by the Opening Year (2025). By
the Horizon Year (2040), it is assumed the 96-acre parcel to the north will be developed for a mix of
residential, commercial, and industrial use. Therefore, intersection turning movement volumes were
projected for the Opening Year (2025) and Horizon Year (2040) based on the data collected in August
2021. The future volume forecast accounted for background growth in regional traffic volumes as well as
including traffic from the Willowbrooke development which is under construction.
3.1 FUTURE ROADWAY AND INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Washington County is planning a future roadway improvement that will impact the surrounding
transportation network. County Highway 13 (Ideal Avenue) Phase II is a pavement and safety improvement
project, which will change the roadway geometry on Ideal Avenue N, between 36th Street N & 44th Street
N. The only study intersection that will be affected is the intersection of Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N. The
following describes the proposed changes at the intersection of Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N:
• Add a northbound right turn lane
• Add a southbound right turn lane
• Buildout the westbound approach to have a shared left -through lane and a shared through-right
turn lane.
• The westbound approach will be realigned to be an east -wes t roadway, with an access point for
the Lake Elmo Public Works Driveway
The proposed roadway improvements are planned for construction in 2022, the improvements were
included in the Opening Year (2025) and Horizon Year (2040) conditions. No other roadway improvement
projects are currently planned in the study area.
3.2 FUTURE TRAFFIC FORECASTING
Background growth was based on a review of historic AADT volumes and projected 2040 AADT volumes
provided in the Lake Elmo 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The 2040 Projec tions are also consistent with
projections from the Washington County 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Historic (2015) and projected (2040)
AADT volumes for existing roadways within the study area are summarized in Table 1. Based on the data,
this study assumed an average annual growth rate of 1.0 percent for 34th Street N and 1.5 percent for Ideal
Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N. No growth rate was applied to the remaining roads in the study area.
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
6
TABLE 1: AADT PROJECTION AND RESPECTIVE GROWTH RATE
Count Location
Lake Elmo 2040
Comprehensive Plan 2040 Forecast
Growth Rate 2015 AADT 2040 AADT
34th Street N – West of Ideal Avenue N 16,200 21,000 1.0%
34th Street N – East of Stillwater Boulevard/Jamaca Avenue N 11,000 13,300 0.8%
Ideal Avenue N – North of 34th Street N 3,850 4,500 0.6%
Ideal Avenue N – 34th Street to Stillwater Boulevard N 5,000 7,100 1.4%
Stillwater Boulevard N – East of Ideal Avenue N 5,400 8,300 1.7%
In addition to the background growth rates, trips were also added to the network to account for the
Willowbrooke Residential development, located on the northwest corner of the Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street
N intersection. The development is anticipated to have a total 1,410 residential units, composed of single
family , townhomes, multifamily apartments, and senior housing. All development is anticipated to be
completed prior to the Horizon Year (2040). It was assumed that phase 1 of development (114 single family
units and 280 townhomes) was completed by Opening Year (2025). Table 2 provides the anticipated trip
generation of the Willowbrooke development for the Opening Year (2025) and Horizon Year (2040).
TABLE 2: WILLOWBROOKE DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION
Land Use Description ITE Intensity / Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Opening Year (2025) Development
Single -Family Detached Housing 210 114 Dwelling Units 1,076 21 63 84 71 42 113
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) 220 280 Dwelling Units 2,050 8 26 34 99 58 157
TOTAL ROUNDED SITE TRIPS 3,125 30 90 120 170 100 270
Horizon Year (2040) Development
Single -Family Detached Housing 210 302 Dwelling Units 2,851 56 167 223 188 111 299
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) 220 342 Dwelling Units 2,503 9 32 41 121 71 192
Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) 221 656 Dwelling Units 3,569 61 175 236 176 113 289
Senior Adult Housing-Attached 252 110 Dwelling Units 407 8 14 22 16 13 29
TOTAL ROUNDED SITE TRIPS 9,330 135 385 520 500 310 810
The Willowbrooke residential development is anticipated to generate 3,125 daily trips, 120 AM peak hour
trips, and 270 PM peak hour trips in the Opening Year. In the Horizon Year, Willowbrooke is anticipated to generate 9,330 daily trips, 520 AM peak hour trips, and 810 PM peak hour trips. The trips were then
assigned to the study network based on population hubs and the roadway network. The global distribution was assumed to be:
• 65% to/from the west on 34th Street N
• 5% to/from the east on 34th Street N
• 5% to/from the west on Stillwater Boulevard N
• 5% to/from the south on Inwood Avenue N
7 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
Exhibit 4 shows the Opening Year (2025) No -Build peak hour traffic volumes based on the turning movement counts , the assumed growth rate, and the addition of Willowbrooke traffic. Exhibit 5 shows the
Horizon Year (2040) No -Build peak hour traffic volumes.
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
8
4.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
4.1 SITE LOCATION
The proposed development is in the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota, and is adjacent to low density, single
family developments to the east, north, and south. The development consists of 2 primary developments,
on the southeast corner of 34th Street N & Ideal Avenue N is the proposed 84-acre industrial development
that is anticipated to be operational by 2025, and on the northeast corner of 34th Street N & Ideal Avenue
N is the proposed 96-acre mixed-use development that is anticipated to be built out by 2040. The proposed
site is currently undeveloped and zoned as Rural Residential (RR). The project location is shown in Exhibit
1.
4.2 SITE CIRCULATION
In Phase 1, access to the development is proposed to be provided at three full access connections, two
along Ideal Avenue N and one located on 34th Street N. In Pha se 2 , two full access driveways are proposed
in addition to the three accesses from phase 1 of development. Of the additional accesses, one will be
located on Ideal Avenue N as an extension of 36th Street N and the last access will be on 34th Street N,
directly aligned with the access from phases 1 of development. All four build scenarios have the same
proposed site accesses. The p roposed site plans are attached in Appendix C.
The industrial development is separated by railroad tracks owned by Union Pacific, one building is proposed
south of the tracks and three buildings are proposed north of the tracks. There will be no facilities on the
proposed site to cross the train tracks, vehicles needing to cross the tracks will need to utilize Ideal Avenue
N.
4.3 FUTURE LAND USE
There are four potential development plans, Scenario 1 consists of industrial park, commercial, and
multifamily residential. Scenario 2 consists of industrial park, commercial, multifamily residential, and single
family residential. Scenario 3 consists of industrial park, commercial, and single family residential. Scenario
4 consists of industrial park, and single family residential. The first three development scenarios have similar
land uses and levels of density and scenario 4 is lower density north of 34th Street N. Table 3 provides a
summary of the four development scenarios that are considered in this AUAR.
9 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
TABLE 3: AUAR DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS
Full Development Scenario 1
Land Use Size
Industrial Business Park 1,753,400 Square Feet
Commercial 91,500 Square Feet
Multifamily Residential Units 400 Dwelling Units
Full Development Scenario 2
Land Use Size
Industrial Business Park 1,557,380 Square Feet
Commercial 178,596 Square Feet
Multifamily Residential Units 334 Dwelling Units
Single Family Residential Units 38 Dwelling Units
Full Development Scenario 3
Land Use Size
Industrial Business Park 2,2 00,000 Square Feet
Commercial 91,500 Square Feet
Single Family Residential Units 56 Dwelling Units
Full Development Scenario 4
Land Use Size
Industrial Business Park 1,100,000 Square Feet
Single Family Residential Units 10 Dwelling Units
For scenario s 1, 2, 3, and 4, the development south of 34th Street N was assumed to be fully built by the
Opening Year (2025). All four scenarios are expected to have the same development, 1,100,000 square
feet of industrial business park, in the Opening Year. Full development was assumed for all four scenarios
by Horizon Year (2040). The access locations are anticipated to be the same in all four scenarios.
4.4 TRIP GENERATION
Proposed development traffic was based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip
Generation, 11th Edition. The manual provides peak hour trips rates/equations , inbound -outbound
percentages, and truck percentages which were used to estimate the number of daily peak hour, and truck
trips that can be attributed to the undeveloped site. Based on a review of industrial land uses provided in
the manual, Land Use Code (LUC) 154 (High-Cube Transload and Short -Term S torage Warehouse), LUC
820 (Shopping Plaza >150ksf), LUC 821 (Shopping Plaza 40ksf -150ksf), LUC 210 (Single Family Detached
Housing), LUC 220 (Multifamily Housing Low-Rise), and LUC 221 (Multifamily Housing Mid -Rise ) were
determined to be the most appropriate fit for the proposed development.
LUC 154 was determined to most accurately reflect trip generation of typical NorthPoint industrial
d evelopment based on a study completed by Priority Engineers, Inc. in December 2019. The NorthPoint
Development Traffic Trip Generation Analysis is included in Appendix D.
Scenarios 1-4 all have the same phase 1 development. Table 4 provides a summary of trip generation for
development phase 1 of Scenarios 1-4. Based on the trip generation calculation, phase 1 development is
anticipated to generate 90 total trips during the AM Peak Hour (70 entering and 20 exiting), 110 total trips
during the PM Peak Hour (30 entering, 80 exiting), and 1,540 total daily trips.
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
10
TABLE 4: BUILD PHASE 1 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Land Use Description
ITE Land
Use Code
(LUC)
Intensity/
Units Vehicle Type Daily
Trips
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Opening Year (2025)
High-Cube Transload and Short -
Term Storage Warehouse 154 1,100,000
Square Feet
Passenger Vehicles 1,300 60 10 70 25 75 100
Trucks 240 10 10 20 5 5 10
Total Rounded Trips 1,540 70 20 90 30 80 110
Table 5 provides a summary of trip generation for development phase 2 of Scenario 1, this is a cumulative
table, and includes development from phase 1. Based on the trip generation calculation the phase 2 of
scenario 1 is anticipated to generate 450 total trips d uring the AM Peak Hour (245 entering and 205 exiting),
805 total trips during the PM Peak Hour (380 entering, 425 exiting), and 10,450 total daily trips.
TABLE 5: BUILD SCENARIO 1 PHASE 2 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Land Use Description
ITE Land
Use Code
(LUC)
Intensity/
Units Vehicle Type Daily
Trips
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Horizon Year (2040)
High-Cube Transload and Short -
Term Storage Warehouse 154 1,753,400
Square Feet
Passenger Vehicles 2,070 95 10 105 45 115 160
Trucks 385 15 20 35 5 10 15
Shopping Plaza (40-150ksf) 821 91,500
Square Feet Passenger Vehicles 6,180 100 60 160 235 240 475
Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) 221 400
Dwelling Units Passenger Vehicles 1,815 35 115 150 95 60 155
Total Passenger Vehicle Trips 10,065 230 185 415 375 415 790
Total Truck Trips 385 15 20 35 5 10 15
Total Rounded Trips 10,450 245 205 450 380 425 805
Table 6 provides a summary of trip generation for development phase 2 of Scenario 2, this is a cumulative
table, and includes development from phase 1. Based on the trip generation calculation the phase 2 of
scenario 2 is anticipated to generate 430 total trips during the AM Peak Hour (230 entering and 200 exiting),
925 total trips during the PM Peak Hour (450 entering, 495 exiting), and 10,940 total daily trips.
11 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
TABLE 6: BUILD SCENARIO 2 PHASE 2 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Land Use Description
ITE Land
Use Code
(LUC)
Intensity/
U nits Vehicle Type Daily
Trips
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Horizon Year (2040)
High-Cube Transload and Short-
Term Storage Warehouse 154 1,557,380
Square Feet
Passenger Vehicles 1,840 85 15 95 40 105 140
Trucks 340 15 15 30 5 10 15
Shopping Plaza (>150ksf) 820 178,596
Square Feet Passenger Vehicles 6,610 95 55 150 290 315 605
Single Family Detached Housing 210 38
Dwelling Units Passenger Vehicles 360 5 20 25 25 15 40
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) 220 124
Dwelling Units Passenger Vehicles 835 10 40 50 40 25 65
Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) 221 210
Dwelling Units Passenger Vehicles 955 20 60 80 50 30 80
Total Passenger Vehicle Trips 10,600 215 190 400 445 490 925
Total Truck Trips 340 15 15 30 5 10 15
Total Rounded Trips 10,940 230 200 430 450 495 925
Table 7 provides a summary of trip generation for development phase 2 of Scenario 3, this is a cumulative
table, and includes development from phase 1. Based on the trip generation calculation, phase 2 of scenario
3 is anticipated to generate 380 total trips during the AM Peak Hour (250 entering and 130 exiting), 750
total trips during the PM Peak Hour (330 entering, 420 exiting), and 9,790 total daily trips.
TABLE 7: BUILD SCENARIO 3 PHASE 2 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Land Use Description
ITE Land
Use Code
(LUC)
Intensity/
Units Vehicle Type Daily
Trips
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Horizon Year (2040)
High-Cube Transload and Short-
Term Storage Warehouse 154 2,200,000
Square Feet
Passenger Vehicles 2600 120 20 140 50 150 200
Trucks 480 20 20 40 10 10 20
Shopping Plaza (40-150ksf) 821 91,500
Square Feet Passenger Vehicles 6,180 100 60 160 235 240 475
Single Family Detached Housing 210 56
Dwelling Units Passenger Vehicles 530 10 30 40 35 20 55
Total Passenger Vehicle Trips 9,310 230 110 340 320 410 730
Total Truck Trips 480 20 20 40 10 10 20
Total Rounded Trips 9,790 250 130 380 330 420 750
Table 8 provides a summary of trip generation for development phase 2 of Scenario 4, this is a cumulative
table, and includes development from phase 1. Based on the trip generation calculation, phase 2 of scenario
4 is anticipated to generate 95 total trips during the AM Peak Hour (70 entering and 25 exiting), 120 total
trips during the PM Peak Hour (35 entering, 85 exiting), and 1,635 total daily trips.
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
12
TABLE 8: BUILD SCENARIO 3 PHASE 2 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Land Use Description
ITE Land
Use Code
(LUC)
Intensity/
Units Vehicle Type Daily
Trips
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Horizon Year (2040)
High-Cube Transload and Short-
Term Storage Warehouse 154 1,100,000
Square Feet
Passenger Vehicles 1,300 60 10 70 25 75 100
Trucks 240 10 10 20 5 5 10
Single Family Detached Housing 210 10
Dwelling Units Passenger Vehicles 95 0 5 5 5 5 10
Total Passenger Vehicle Trips 1,395 60 15 75 30 80 110
Total Truck Trips 240 10 10 20 5 5 10
Total Rounded Trips 1,635 70 25 95 35 85 120
4.5 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
Based on regional traffic patterns, development locations, and population hubs, the following global
distribution was assumed for passenger vehicles utilizing the proposed industrial and residential
development in all three build scenarios :
• 80% to/from the west via 34th Street N
• 10% to/from the east via 34th Street N
• 5% to/from the south via Inwood Avenue N
• 5% to/from the southwest via Stillwater Boulevard N
Exhibits 6, 7, & 8 provide t he passenger vehicle distributions for the industrial development and for the
Residential Development.
The following global distribution was assumed for the commercial passenger vehicles trips:
• 60% to/from the west via 34th Street N
• 30% to/from the east via 34th Street N
• 5% to/from the south via Inwood Avenue N
• 5% to/from the southwest via Stillwater Boulevard N
Exhibit 9 provides the passenger vehicle distribution for the commercial development.
The following global distribution was assumed for industrial truck trips:
• 100% to/from the west via 34th Street N
Exhibits 10 & 11 provide the truck distributions for the industrial development.
Project trips were assigned to the roadway network based on the trip distribution and the likely travel
patterns to and from the site. For the purposes of this analysis, the proposed development traffic was
distributed to site accesses based on the proposed site layout, particularly the location and size of
development buildings in relation to the proposed site accesses as well as the anticipated site circulation.
Scenario 1, 2, 3, & 4 have different trip assignments to the site accesses.
13 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
The following lists the trip assignment for various development scenarios:
• Exhibit 12 – Opening Year (2025) Build Scenarios 1-4 total trip assignment
• Exhibit 13 – Opening Year (2025) Build Scenarios 1-4 truc k trip assignment
• Exhibit 14 – Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1 total trip assignment
• Exhibit 15 – Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1 truck trip assignment
• Exhibit 16 – Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2 total trip assignment
• Exhibit 17 – Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2 truck trip assignment
• Exhibit 18 – Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3 total trip assignment
• Exhibit 19 – Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3 truck trip assignment
• Exhibit 20 – Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4 total trip assignment
• Exhibit 21 – Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4 truck trip assignment
4.6 TOTAL TRAFFIC FORECAST
Total traffic volumes were developed from a combination of existing turning movement counts, background
growth, adjacent development assignment, and the forecasted site traffic. Exhibit 22 provides the total
traffic volumes for Opening Year (2025) Build Scenario s 1-4. Exhibits 23, 24, 25, & 26 provide the total
traffic volumes for the Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1, 2, 3, & 4, respectively.
5.0 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
5.1 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
An intersection capacity analysis was performed at the study intersections to quantify the delay and level
of service at the study intersections during the AM and PM peak hours. The capacity analysis was
performed using Synchro/SimTraffic traffic models and delays and level of service were evaluated for each
of the following scenarios:
• Existing Year (2021)
• Opening Year (2025) No -Build
• Opening Year (2025) Build Scenarios 1-4
• Horizon Year (2040) No -Build
• Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1
• Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2
• Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3
• Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4
5.2 LEVEL OF SERVICE OVERVIEW
Synchro/SimTraffic were used for the analysis. Level of Service (LOS ) is a quantitative measure used by
traffic engineers to describe the operations of an intersection. It ranges from A to F, with A being the best
and F being the worst level of operation. LOS A conditions are characterized by minimal vehicle delay and
free-f low conditions, while LOS F is characterized by long vehicle delay – usually when demand exceeds
available roadway capacity. Although LOS E is defined as at -capacity, LOS D is generally the minimum
acceptable level of operation at an intersection. Table 9 provides the LOS grading criteria for unsignalized
and signalized intersections.
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
14
TABLE 9: LEVEL OF SERVICE GRADING CRITERIA
Level of Service Description
Average Control Delay
(seconds/vehicle)
Unsignalized Signalized
A
Minimal control delay; traffic operates at
primarily free -flow conditions; unimpeded
movement within traffic stream.
0 – 10 0 – 10
B
Minor control delay at signalized
intersections; traffic operates at a fairly
unimpeded level with slightly restricted
movement within traffic stream.
> 10 – 15 > 10 – 20
C
Moderate control delay; movement within
traffic stream more restricted than at LOS B;
formation of queues contributes to lower
average travel speeds.
> 15 – 25 > 20 – 35
D
Considerable control delay that may be
substantially increased by small increases in
flow; average travel speeds continue to
decrease.
> 25 – 35 > 35 – 55
E High control delay; average travel speed no
more than 33 percent of free flow speed. > 35 – 50 > 55 – 80
F
Extremely high control delay; extensive
queuing and high volumes create exceedingly
restricted traffic flow.
> 50 > 80
For the purposes of this study, the worst individual movement delay was reported as the overall intersection
delay at side street stop control intersections.
5.3 EXISTING YEAR (2021) I NTERSECTION A NALYSIS
The Existing Year (2021) Condition analysis was completed to develop an understanding of the baseline
operating conditions for the study area. The traffic volumes shown in Exhibit 3 were used in the Existing
Year (2021) analysis. As previously discussed, these volumes were developed based on turning movement
counts recorded in August 2021.
Tables 10 – 11 provide a summary of the average delay (seconds per vehicle) and LOS under Existing
Year (2021) Conditions for each movement at the study intersections during the AM peak hour and PM
peak hour, respectiv ely. The full SimTraffic reports are included in Appendix E.
15 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
TABLE 10: EXISTING YEAR (2021) AM LOS SUMMARY
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Ideal Avenue N &
34th Street N Signal
EB 19.8 B 8.4 A 2.2 A
9.7 A WB 20.3 C 9.2 A 2.6 A
NB 11.0 B 6.7 A 2.1 A
SB 12.9 B 15.8 B 6.8 A
Ideal Avenue N &
32nd Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 6.4 A - - 2.6 A
6.4 A WB - - - - - -
NB 2.0 A 0.2 A - -
SB - - 4.1 A 3.7 A
Ideal Avenue N &
31st Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 6.4 A - - 3.3 A
6.4 A WB - - - - - -
NB 3.0 A 1.6 A - -
SB - - 0.3 A 0.3 A
Ideal Avenue N &
Stillwater
Boulevard N
All -
Way
Stop
EB 4.7 A 9.6 A 2.2 A
5.8 A WB 4.4 A 9.4 A 3.0 A
NB 4.5 A 8.6 A 2.0 A
SB 4.8 A 8.1 A 1.9 A
34th Street N &
Jamaca Avenue N
Round-
about
EB 2.7 A 5.5 A 2.7 A
5.5 A WB 4.5 A 9.3 A 4.6 A
NB 2.2 A 4.8 A 1.7 A
SB 2.3 A 5.4 A 1.5 A
Ideal Avenue N &
36th Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 5.1 A - - 1.8 A
5.5 A WB 5.5 A - - - -
NB 2.0 A 1.6 A 1.0 A
SB - - 0.5 A 0.1 A
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
16
TABLE 11: EXISTING YEAR (2021) PM LOS SUMMARY
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Ideal Avenue N &
34th Street N Signal
EB 45.0 D 13.1 B 3.8 A
17.8 B WB 45.6 D 11.0 B 1.8 A
NB 31.5 C 31.8 C 6.2 A
SB 26.3 C 38.3 D 8.8 A
Ideal Avenue N &
32nd Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 11.1 B - - 4.6 A
11.1 B WB - - - - - -
NB 3.8 A 0.3 A - -
SB - - 6.0 A 5.1 A
Ideal Avenue N &
31st Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 9.5 A - - 3.8 A
9.5 A WB - - - - - -
NB 4.6 A 1.8 A - -
SB - - 0.8 A 0.6 A
Ideal Avenue N &
Stillwater
Boulevard N
All -
Way
Stop
EB 8.5 A 13.0 B 3.5 A
9.5 A WB 8.0 A 13.1 B 5.0 A
NB 7.0 A 11.2 B 3.9 A
SB 10.6 B 13.5 B 3.6 A
34th Street N &
Jamaca Avenue N
Round-
about
EB 8.5 A 12.4 B 8.7 A
8.5 A WB 6.5 A 11.1 B 5.7 A
NB 3.7 A 7.7 A 3.3 A
SB 3.6 A 6.0 A 1.4 A
Ideal Avenue N &
36th Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 4.9 A - - 2.1 A
5.2 A WB 5.2 A - - - -
NB 2.5 A 1.5 A 1.9 A
SB - - 0.6 A 0.1 A
Based on the analysis, all study intersections are expected to operate at LOS B or better during the AM &
PM peak hours. Under Existing Year (2021) Conditions, all intersection movements are anticipated to
operate at LOS D or better.
The 95th percentile queues were reviewed at the study intersections. All 95th percentile queues are
anticipated to be accommodated within their respective storage bays.
17 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
5.4 OPENING YEAR (2025 ) NO-BUILD INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
The Opening Year (2025) No -Build Condition analysis was completed to develop an understanding of the
baseline operating conditions for the study area without the addition of the development traffic. The traffic
volumes shown in Exhibit 4 were used in the Opening Year (2025) No -Build analysis. As previously
discussed, these volumes were developed based on turning movement counts collected in August 2021,
traffic projections from the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the Willowbrooke development . Signal
timings were not changed from existing year (2021) conditions.
Tables 12 – 13 provide a summary of the average delay (seconds per vehicle) and LOS under Opening
Year (2025) No -Build Conditions for each movement at the study intersections during the AM peak hour
and PM peak hour, respectively. The ful l SimTraffic reports are included in Appendix F.
TABLE 12: OPENING YEAR (2025) NO-BUILD AM LOS SUMMARY
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Ideal Avenue N &
34th Street N Signal
EB 20.1 C 10.7 B 2.4 A
11.3 B WB 24.9 C 11.9 B 1.8 A
NB 11.0 B 8.9 A 3.1 A
SB 14.0 B 17.1 B 7.8 A
Ideal Avenue N &
32nd Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 7.4 A - - 2.6 A
7.4 A WB - - - - - -
NB 2.1 A 0.2 A - -
SB - - 4.2 A 4.0 A
Ideal Avenue N &
31st Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 6.3 A - - 3.6 A
6.3 A WB - - - - - -
NB 2.9 A 1.6 A - -
SB - - 0.4 A 0.3 A
Ideal Avenue N &
Stillwater
Boulevard N
All -
Way
Stop
EB 5.1 A 9.7 A 1.6 A
6.1 A WB 4.5 A 10.3 B 3.3 A
NB 4.0 A 8.6 A 2.4 A
SB 5.2 A 8.5 A 1.8 A
34th Street N &
Jamaca Avenue N
Round-
about
EB 2.9 A 5.4 A 2.1 A
5.5 A WB 4.7 A 9.3 A 4.2 A
NB 1.8 A 4.9 A 1.8 A
SB 1.8 A 5.4 A 1.6 A
Ideal Avenue N &
36th Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 5.3 A - - 2.0 A
5.8 A WB 5.8 A - - - -
NB 1.9 A 1.8 A 1.3 A
SB - - 0.4 A 0.1 A
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
18
TABLE 13: OPENING YEAR (2025) NO-BUILD PM LOS SUMMARY
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Ideal Avenue N &
34th Street N Signal
EB 42.4 D 15.2 B 3.9 A
21.8 C WB 47.9 D 16.2 B 2.4 A
NB 34.7 C 34.0 C 10.5 B
SB 27.3 C 42.3 D 11.1 B
Ideal Avenue N &
32nd Street N
Side
Stree t
Stop
EB 11.3 B - - 4.5 A
11.3 B WB - - - - - -
NB 4.1 A 0.4 A - -
SB - - 6.0 A 5.7 A
Ideal Avenue N &
31st Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 8.2 A - - 3.6 A
8.2 A WB - - - - - -
NB 4.2 A 1.8 A - -
SB - - 0.9 A 0.6 A
Ideal Avenue N &
Stillwater
Boulevard N
All -
Way
Stop
EB 9.4 A 14.1 B 4.1 A
10.6 B WB 9.3 A 14.4 B 5.7 A
NB 7.6 A 11.3 B 4.2 A
SB 12.6 B 15.0 B 3.4 A
34th Street N &
Jamaca Avenue N
Round-
about
EB 8.9 A 13.4 B 9.3 A
9.0 A WB 7.1 A 11.7 B 7.2 A
NB 4.3 A 7.6 A 3.2 A
SB 3.2 A 6.3 A 1.5 A
Ideal Avenue N &
36th Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 7.1 A - - 2.3 A
7.1 A WB 5.0 A - - - -
NB 3.8 A 1.5 A 1.6 A
SB - - 0.6 A 0.1 A
Based on the analysis, all study intersections are expected to operate at LOS C or better during the AM &
PM peak hours. Under Opening Year (2025) No -Build Conditions, all intersection movements are
anticipated to operate at LOS D or better.
The 95th percentile queues were reviewed at the study intersections. All 95th percentile queues for the
movements are anticipated to be accommodated within their respective storage bays.
19 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
5.5 OPENING YEAR (2025) BUILD SCENARIOS 1-4 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
The Opening Year (2025) Build Scenarios 1-3 analysis was completed to develop an understanding of the
impact of site traffic on the operating conditions for the study area. Scenarios 1-3 have the same anticipated
phase 1 development. The traffic volumes shown in Exhibit 22 were used in the Opening Year (2025) Build
Scenario s 1-3 analysis. As previously discussed, these volumes were calculated by adding the Phase 1
trips generated by the site to the Opening Year (2025) No -Build volumes. All site accesses were modeled
as side street stop, with one exiting lane. Per conversations with Washington County, site access 1 was
assumed to have a 300-foot eastbound right turn lane and a 300-foot westbound left turn lane along 34th
Street N. Signal timings were not changed from existing year (2021) conditions.
Tables 14 – 15 provide a summary of the average delay (seconds per vehicle) and LOS under Opening
Year (2025) Build Scenario s 1-3 for each movement at the study intersections during the AM peak hour
and PM peak hour. The movements that are anticipated to operate at LOS E are shown in yellow and the
movements that are anticipated to operate at LOS F are shown in red. The full SimTraffic reports are
included in Appendix G.
TABLE 14: OPENING YEAR (2025) BUILD SCENARIOS 1-3 AM LOS SUMMARY
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Ideal Avenue N &
34th Street N Signal
EB 23.1 C 10.2 B 2.6 A
11.5 B WB 27.2 C 11.9 B 2.0 A
NB 12.8 B 8.0 A 2.6 A
SB 14.8 B 17.9 B 8.1 A
Ideal Avenue N &
32nd Street N/Site
Access 2
Side
Street
Stop
EB 6.3 A - - 2.5 A
6.3 A WB - - - - 3.3 A
NB 1.6 A 0.3 A 0.1 A
SB 6.2 A 4.8 A 4.4 A
Ideal Avenue N &
31st Street N/Site
Access 3
Side
Street
Stop
EB 6.8 A - - 2.6 A
6.8 A WB - - - - - -
NB 3.7 A 1.6 A 1.4 A
SB 1.5 A 0.5 A 0.2 A
Ideal Avenue N &
Stillwater
Boulevard N
All -
Way
Stop
EB 5.1 A 10.1 B 2.8 A
6.0 A WB 4.1 A 9.8 A 3.0 A
NB 5.4 A 8.7 A 2.3 A
SB 4.9 A 8.4 A 1.9 A
34th Street N &
Jamaca Avenue N
Round-
about
EB 3.0 A 5.6 A 3.2 A
5.7 A WB 5.1 A 9.4 A 4.1 A
NB 1.7 A 5.1 A 1.9 A
SB 2.6 A 5.2 A 1.5 A
Ideal Avenue N &
36th Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 5.4 A - - 2.0 A
5.8 A WB 5.8 A - - - -
NB 2.2 A 1.8 A 1.1 A
SB - - 0.4 A 0.1 A
34th Street N &
Site Access 1
Side
Street
Stop
EB - - 3.0 A 2.2 A
6.9 A WB 3.2 A 0.4 A - -
NB 6.9 A - - - -
SB - - - - - -
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
20
TABLE 15: OPENING YEAR (2025) BUILD SCENARIOS 1-3 PM LOS SUMMARY
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Ideal Avenue N &
34th Street N Signal
EB 44.2 D 18.2 B 4.4 A
23.4 C WB 52.1 D 17.9 B 2.6 A
NB 35.5 D 29.5 C 8.1 A
SB 29.6 C 46.9 D 10.7 B
Ideal Avenue N &
32nd Street N/Site
Access 2
Side
Street
Stop
EB 17.3 C - - 5.2 A
17.3 C WB - - - - 14.6 B
NB 7.3 A 4.2 A 0.7 A
SB 10.9 B 6.6 A 5.8 A
Ideal Avenue N &
31st Street N/Site
Access 3
Side
Street
Stop
EB 12.5 B - - 4.3 A
12.5 B WB 8.7 A - - 7.0 A
NB 5.0 A 1.8 A 1.8 A
SB 6.4 A 1.1 A 0.8 A
Ideal Avenue N &
Stillwater
Boulevard N
All -
Way
Stop
EB 9.6 A 14.3 B 3.9 A
11.1 B WB 9.2 A 14.3 B 5.8 A
NB 8.2 A 11.7 B 4.6 A
SB 14.0 B 16.7 C 4.4 A
34th Street N &
Jamaca Avenue N
Round-
about
EB 9.7 A 13.9 B 10.4 B
9.0 A WB 6.7 A 11.5 B 6.5 A
NB 4.0 A 7.8 A 3.5 A
SB 3.3 A 6.1 A 1.5 A
Ideal Avenue N &
36th Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 7.7 A - - 2.3 A
8.1 A WB 8.1 A - - - -
NB 4.0 A 1.5 A 1.8 A
SB - - 0.7 A 0.1 A
34th Street N &
Site Access 1
Side
Street
Stop
EB - - 2.6 A 2.6 A
9.8 A WB - - 0.6 A - -
NB 9.8 A - - 6.2 A
SB - - - - - -
Based on the analysis, all study intersections are expected to operate at LOS C or better during the AM &
PM peak hours. Under Opening Year (2025) Build Scenario s 1-3, all intersection movements are
anticipated to operate at LOS D or better. It is not anticipated that a signal will be required at site access 1
on 34th Street N, due to the anticipated trip generation and because all movements at site access 1 are
expected to operate acceptably .
The 95th percentile queues were reviewed at the study intersections. All 95th percentile queues for the
movements are anticipated to be accommodated within their respective storage bays, except the 95th
percentile queue of the northbound left turn at the intersection of 34th Street N & Ideal Avenue N which
extends approximately 20 feet past the provided storage bay. The anticipated queue will fit within the
existing taper. No mitigation is anticipated for the Opening Year (2025) Build Scenario 1 conditions.
21 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
5.6 HORIZON YEAR (2040) NO-BUILD INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
The Horizon Year (2040) No -Build Condition analysis was completed to develop an understanding of the
baseline operating conditions for the study area in the Horizon Year without the addition of the development
traffic. The traffic volumes shown in Exhibit 5 were used in the Horizon Year (2040) No -Build analysis. As
previously discussed, these volumes were developed based on turning movement count collected in August
2021, traffic projections from the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the Willowbrooke development.
Signal timing was optimized at the intersection of 34th Street N & Ideal Avenue N. Signal timings were
optimized at the intersection of Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N.
Tables 16 – 17 provide a summary of the average delay (seconds per vehicle) and LOS under Horizon
Year (2040) No -Build Conditions for each movement at the study intersections during the AM peak hour
and PM peak hour, respectively. The movements that are anticipated to operate at LOS E are shown in
yellow and the movements that are anticipated to operate at LOS F are shown in red. The full SimTraffic
reports are included in Appendix H.
TABLE 16: HORIZON YEAR (2040) NO-BUILD AM LOS SUMMARY
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Ideal Avenue N &
34th Street N Signal
EB 25.6 C 17.0 B 3.1 A
17.7 B WB 31.8 C 22.3 C 3.1 A
NB 17.0 B 12.7 B 5.2 A
SB 16.6 B 19.9 B 15.7 B
Ideal Avenue N &
32nd Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 9.1 A - - 3.1 A
9.1 A WB - - - - - -
NB 2.8 A 0.4 A - -
SB - - 4.4 A 4.4 A
Ideal Avenue N &
31st Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 7.8 A - - 2.9 A
7.8 A WB - - - - - -
NB 3.2 A 1.7 A - -
SB - - 0.5 A 0.4 A
Ideal Avenue N &
Stillwater
Boulevard N
All -
Way
Stop
EB 6.0 A 11.7 B 3.2 A
7.0 A WB 5.5 A 10.6 B 4.0 A
NB 5.7 A 9.3 A 3.1 A
SB 6.4 A 9.6 A 2.3 A
34th Street N &
Jamaca Avenue N
Round-
about
EB 4.0 A 6.7 A 4.1 A
6.3 A WB 5.7 A 10.4 B 5.3 A
NB 2.8 A 6.3 A 2.1 A
SB 3.4 A 6.3 A 1.7 A
Ideal Avenue N &
36th Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 8.0 A - - 3.9 A
8.0 A WB 7.1 A - - - -
NB 3.2 A 1.9 A 1.5 A
SB - - 0.9 A 0.2 A
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
22
TABLE 17: HORIZON YEAR (2040) NO-BUILD PM LOS SUMMARY
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Ideal Ave nue N &
34th Street N Signal
EB 41.3 D 21.7 C 5.2 A
26.3 C WB 47.6 D 27.9 C 4.8 A
NB 33.9 C 28.3 C 12.9 B
SB 28.6 C 41.0 D 16.6 B
Ideal Avenue N &
32nd Street N
Side
Stree t
Stop
EB 19.6 C - - 6.9 A
19.6 C WB - - - - - -
NB 6.9 A 0.5 A - -
SB - - 6.6 A 5.9 A
Ideal Avenue N &
31st Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 47.4 E - - 51.1 F
51.1 F WB - - - - - -
NB 7.1 A 2.0 A - -
SB - - 18.6 C 4.1 A
Ideal Avenue N &
Stillwater
Boulevard N
All -
Way
Stop
EB 23.9 C 26.3 D 5.3 A
39.1 E WB 17.3 C 21.5 C 11.7 B
NB 14.7 B 19.1 C 5.8 A
SB 93.7 F 92.5 F 12.5 B
34th Street N &
Jamaca Avenue N
Round-
about
EB 16.5 C 20.6 C 14.2 B
14.1 B WB 14.4 B 18.7 C 14.0 B
NB 4.6 A 9.6 A 4.1 A
SB 4.1 A 6.8 A 1.7 A
Ideal Avenue N &
36th Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 17.5 C - - 3.7 A
17.5 C WB 14.9 B - - - -
NB 7.5 A 2.0 A 1.9 A
SB - - 1.3 A 0.2 A
Based on the analysis, all study intersections and intersection movements are expected to operate at LOS
C or better during the AM peak hour. Und er Horizon Year (2040) No -Build PM peak hour conditions, all
intersections and movements are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better except the following:
• Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N – The overall intersection is anticipated to operate at
LOS E and the southbound left and through movements are expected to operate at LOS F. The
long southbound delays are caused by the southbound approach, specifically the shared left-
through lane being over capacity
• Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N – The overall intersection delay is reported as the worst individual
movement. The eastbound left is anticipated to operate at LOS E and the eastbound right is
anticipated to operate at LOS F. These delays are caused by southbound queues backing into the
intersection from Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N.
The 95th percentile queues were reviewed at the study intersections. All 95th percentile queues for the
movements are anticipated to be accommodated within their respective storage bays, except for the following in the PM peak hour:
• Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N – The northbound left 95th percentile queue is anticipated to extend
past the provided storage capacity by approximately 25 feet. This anticipated queue can be
accommodated within the taper of the turn lane.
23 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
• Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N – The southbound approach is anticipated to have excessive
queueing, with queues potentially impacting operations at the upstream intersection of Ideal
Avenue N & 31st Street N. As prev iously mentioned, this is a result of the existing geometry being
over capacity for the southbound approach.
The southbound approach at Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N was expanded to include a dedicated
left turn lane, a dedicated through lane, and a dedicated right turn lane to mitigate operational issues in the
Horizon Year (2040) No -Build Conditions. Tables 18 – 19 provide a summary of the average delay
(seconds per vehicle) and LOS under Horizon Year (2040) No -Build Conditions with mitigation for each
movement at the study intersections during the AM & PM peak hour, respectively. The movements that are
anticipated to operate at LOS E are shown in yellow and the movements that are anticipated to operate at
LOS F are shown in red. The full SimTraffic reports are included in Appendix I.
TABLE 18: HORIZON YEAR (2040) NO-BUILD MITIGATION AM LOS SUMMARY
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Ideal Avenue N &
34th Street N Signal
EB 26.9 C 16.2 B 2.9 A
18.0 B WB 31.2 C 21.7 C 3.0 A
NB 18.6 B 14.3 B 4.9 A
SB 17.7 B 20.7 C 15.8 B
Ideal Avenue N &
32nd Street N
Side
Stree t
Stop
EB 8.8 A - - 3.2 A
8.8 A WB - - - - - -
NB 2.5 A 0.4 A - -
SB - - 4.5 A 4.2 A
Ideal Avenue N &
31st Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 6.9 A - - 3.4 A
6.9 A WB - - - - - -
NB 3.1 A 1.6 A - -
SB - - 0.5 A 0.3 A
Ideal Avenue N &
Stillwater
Boulevard N
All-
Way
Stop
EB 6.7 A 11.4 B 2.6 A
6.7 A WB 5.9 A 10.3 B 3.7 A
NB 6.0 A 9.7 A 3.1 A
SB 5.5 A 8.6 A 2.2 A
34th Street N &
Jamaca Avenue N
Round-
about
EB 3.9 A 6.9 A 4.0 A
6.8 A WB 6.3 A 11.2 B 5.8 A
NB 2.7 A 5.9 A 2.0 A
SB 4.1 A 6.8 A 1.8 A
Ideal Avenue N &
36th Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 9.2 A - - 6.1 A
9.2 A WB 8.2 A - - - -
NB 3.6 A 1.5 A 1.1 A
SB - - 0.9 A 0.2 A
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
24
TABLE 19: HORIZON YEAR (2040) NO-BUILD MITIGATION PM LOS SUMMARY
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Ideal Avenue N &
34th Street N Signal
EB 40.9 D 21.5 C 5.1 A
26.4 C WB 42.6 D 28.4 C 4.5 A
NB 32.3 C 29.0 C 12.4 B
SB 28.5 C 41.9 D 18.2 B
Ideal Avenue N &
32nd Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 22.5 C - - 7.0 A
22.5 C WB - - - - - -
NB 5.4 A 0.5 A - -
SB - - 6.6 A 6.5 A
Ideal Avenue N &
31st Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 12.4 B - - 4.8 A
12.4 B WB - - - - - -
NB 5.0 A 2.0 A - -
SB - - 1.1 A 0.7 A
Ideal Avenue N &
Stillwater
Boulevard N
All -
Way
Stop
EB 16.8 C 20.9 C 5.4 A
14.4 B WB 15.8 C 19.9 C 9.6 A
NB 12.9 B 18.6 C 6.0 A
SB 16.2 C 12.9 B 4.7 A
3 4th Street N &
Jamaca Avenue N
Round-
about
EB 15.7 C 19.9 C 15.6 C
14.1 B WB 14.5 B 19.4 C 14.4 B
NB 5.7 A 9.1 A 4.2 A
SB 4.5 A 6.4 A 1.6 A
Ideal Avenue N &
36th Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 15.2 C - - 5.3 A
15.2 C WB 14.7 B - - - -
NB 7.5 A 1.9 A 1.8 A
SB - - 1.2 A 0.2 A
Based on the analysis, all study intersections are expected to operate at LOS C or better during the AM &
PM peak hours. Under Horizon Year (2040) No -Build with Mitigation, all intersection movements are
ant icipated to operate at LOS D or better.
The 95th percentile queues were reviewed at the study intersections. All 95th percentile queues for the
movements are anticipated to be accommodated within their respective storage bays, except the 95th
percentile queue of the northbound left turn at the intersection of 34th Street N & Ideal Avenue N which
extends approximately 10 feet past the provided storage bay. The anticipated queue will fit within the
existing taper.
25 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
5.7 HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 1 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
The Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1 Condition analysis was completed to develop an understanding
of the impact of site traffic on the operating conditions for the study area. The traffic volumes shown in
Exhibit 23 were used in the Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1 anal ysis. As previously discussed, these
volumes were calculated by adding the Phase 2 o f Scenario 1 trips generated by the site to the Horizon
Year (2040) No -Build volumes. The same geometry and intersection control was used as in the Horizon
Year (2040) No -Build model (the southbound approach at the intersection of Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater
Boulevard N was expanded to three approach lanes and signal timing was optimized at the intersection of
34th Street N & Ideal Avenue N). All site accesses were modeled as side street stop, with one exiting lane.
Site Access 1 was modeled with left and right turn lanes on 34th Street N due to the high speeds along the
corridor.
Tables 20 – 21 provide a summary of the average delay (seconds per vehicle) and LOS under Horizon
Year (2040) Build Scenario 1 Conditions for each movement at the study intersections during the AM & PM
peak hours. The movements that are anticipated to operate at LOS E are shown in yellow and the
movements that are anticipated to operate at LOS F are shown in red. The full SimTraffic reports are
included in Appendix J.
TABLE 20: HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 1 AM LOS SUMMARY
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Ideal Avenue N &
34th Street N Signal
EB 31.2 C 20.9 C 3.3 A
21.6 C WB 33.8 C 24.9 C 3.6 A
NB 21.6 C 17.4 B 6.5 A
SB 20.0 B 24.0 C 21.1 C
Ideal Avenue N &
32nd Street N/Site
Access 2
Side
Street
Stop
EB 9.8 A - - 3.4 A
9.8 A WB - - - - 3.4 A
NB 2.5 A 0.5 A 0.3 A
SB 6.5 A 5.4 A 4.7 A
Ideal Avenue N &
31st Street N/Site
Access 3
Side
Street
Stop
EB 9.3 A - - 3.5 A
9.3 A WB - - - - - -
NB 3.2 A 1.8 A 1.6 A
SB 2.7 A 0.7 A 0.4 A
Ideal Avenue N &
Stillwater
Boulevard N
All -
Way
Stop
EB 7.2 A 11.1 B 2.9 A
6.8 A WB 4.6 A 10.9 B 4.0 A
NB 6.6 A 10.0 A 2.8 A
SB 5.6 A 8.2 A 2.4 A
34th Street N &
Jamaca Ave nue N
Round-
about
EB 4.4 A 7.4 A 4.1 A
7.0 A WB 6.5 A 11.2 B 6.7 A
NB 2.7 A 6.4 A 2.2 A
SB 2.9 A 6.0 A 1.7 A
Ideal Avenue N &
36th Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 8.5 A - - 8.1 A
10.5 B WB 10.5 B - - - -
NB 3.7 A 1.6 A 1.4 A
SB - - 1.2 A 0.1 A
34th Street N &
Site Access 1
Side
Street
Stop
EB 9.5 A 4.4 A 4.0 A
24.1 C WB 3.3 A 0.8 A 0.3 A
NB 24.1 C - - - -
SB 20.6 C - - 5.6 A
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
26
TABLE 21: HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 1 PM LOS SUMMARY
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Ideal Avenue N &
34th Street N Signal
EB 47.1 D 29.3 C 7.0 A
32.6 C WB 47.0 D 36.7 D 7.3 A
NB 39.4 D 27.2 C 15.4 B
SB 29.5 C 45.7 D 25.1 C
Ideal Avenue N &
32nd Street N/Site
Access 2
Side
Street
Stop
EB 27.3 D - - 7.4 A
27.3 D WB - - - - 24.0 C
NB 8.2 A 5.9 A 0.7 A
SB 12.2 B 7.3 A 7.0 A
Ideal Avenue N &
31st Street N/Site
Access 3
Side
Street
Stop
EB 18.4 C - - 5.9 A
18.4 C WB 17.4 C - - 8.0 A
NB 5.5 A 1.9 A 1.9 A
SB 7.5 A 1.3 A 1.0 A
Ideal Avenue N &
Stillwater
Boulevard N
All -
Way
Stop
EB 24.0 C 27.7 D 6.0 A
17.1 C WB 16.3 C 22.4 C 12.1 B
NB 18.1 C 20.0 C 5.9 A
SB 19.8 C 14.5 B 5.8 A
34th Street N &
Jamaca Avenue N
Round-
about
EB 20.2 C 24.0 C 17.9 C
19.4 C WB 22.9 C 27.6 D 22.8 C
NB 6.7 A 9.5 A 4.4 A
SB 4.2 A 8.1 A 1.7 A
Ideal Avenue N &
36th Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 14.8 B - - 6.5 A
19.3 C WB 19.3 C - - - -
NB 7.6 A 2.2 A 2.1 A
SB - - 1.4 A 0.2 A
34th Street N &
Site Access 1
Side
Street
Stop
EB 10.8 B 4.1 A 4.0 A
27.0 D WB - - 1.1 A 1.3 A
NB 18.1 C - - 9.4 A
SB 27.0 D - - 18.9 C
Based on the analysis, all study intersections are expected to operate at LOS D or better during the AM &
PM peak hours. Under Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1, all intersection movements are anticipated
to operate at LOS D or better. 34th Street N & site access 1 has acceptable side street delays in the peak
hours but the intersection should be monitored as development occurs on the north side of 34th Street N.
The 95th percentile queues were reviewed at the study intersections. All 95th percentile queues for the
movements are anticipated to be accommodated within their respective storage bays, except the 95th
percentile queue of the northbound left turn at the intersection of 34th Street N & Ideal Avenue N which
extends approximately 85 feet past the provided storage bay. The queue is anticipat ed to fit within the
existing taper. No mitigation is anticipated for the Opening Year (2025) Build Scenario 1 conditions.
27 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
5.8 HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 2 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
The Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2 Condition analysis was completed to develop an understanding
of the impact of site traffic on the operating conditions for the study area. The traffic volumes shown in
Exhibit 24 were used in the Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2 analysis. As previousl y discussed, these
volumes were calculated by adding the Phase 2 of Scenario 2 trips generated by the site to the Horizon
Year (2040) No -Build volumes. The same geometry and intersection control was used as in the Horizon
Year (2040) No -Build model (the southbound approach at the intersection of Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater
Boulevard N was expanded to three approach lanes and signal timing was optimized at the intersection of
34th Street N & Ideal Avenue N). All site accesses were modeled as side street stop, with one exiting lane.
Site Access 1 was modeled with left and right turn lanes on 34th Street N due to the high speeds along the
corridor.
Tables 22 – 23 provide a summary of the average delay (seconds per vehicle) and LOS under Horizon
Year (2040) Build Scenario 2 Conditions for each movement at the study intersections during the AM & PM
peak hours. The movements that are anticipated to operate at LOS E are shown in yellow and the
movements that are anticipated to operate at LOS F are shown in red. The full SimTraffic reports are
included in Appendix K.
TABLE 22: HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 2 AM LOS SUMMARY
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Ideal Avenue N &
34th Street N Signal
EB 29.2 C 19.5 B 3.1 A
21.1 C WB 35.4 D 23.9 C 4.0 A
NB 21.1 C 16.5 B 4.5 A
SB 18.8 B 23.3 C 21.7 C
Ideal Avenue N &
32nd Street N/Site
Access 2
Side
Street
Stop
EB 8.4 A - - 3.0 A
8.4 A WB - - - - 3.3 A
NB 2.7 A 0.4 A 0.4 A
SB 6.4 A 5.3 A 4.7 A
Ideal Avenue N &
31st Street N/Site
Access 3
Side
Street
Stop
EB 8.0 A - - 3.5 A
8.0 A WB - - - - - -
NB 4.3 A 1.7 A 1.3 A
SB 2.4 A 0 .7 A 0.4 A
Ideal Avenue N &
Stillwater
Boulevard N
All -
Way
Stop
EB 6.3 A 11.2 B 2.4 A
6.5 A WB 4.9 A 10.5 B 3.9 A
NB 5.8 A 9.5 A 2.9 A
SB 5.2 A 7.9 A 2.4 A
34th Street N &
Jamaca Avenue N
Round-
about
EB 6.2 A 8.0 A 5.5 A
7.2 A WB 6.3 A 11.2 B 6.8 A
NB 2.5 A 5.6 A 2.2 A
SB 3.7 A 6.7 A 1.6 A
Ideal Avenue N &
36th Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 9.4 A - - 8.1 A
11.2 B WB 11.2 B - - - -
NB 3.9 A 1.9 A 1.3 A
SB - - 1.1 A 0.2 A
34th Street N &
Site Access 1
Side
Street
Stop
EB 8.8 A 4.3 A 3.3 A
18.7 C WB 2.1 A 0.8 A 0.4 A
NB 15.0 B - - - -
SB 18.7 C - - 6.0 A
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
28
TABLE 23: HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 2 PM LOS SUMMARY
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Ideal Avenue N &
34th Street N Signal
EB 48.0 D 29.2 C 6.6 A
33.0 C WB 50.4 D 38.6 D 8.4 A
NB 38.8 D 33.4 C 14.7 B
SB 27.7 C 46.3 D 24.8 C
Ideal Avenue N &
32nd Street N/Site
Access 2
Side
Street
Stop
EB 22.4 C - - 7.7 A
22.4 C WB - - - - 17.5 C
NB 8.0 A 6.0 A 0.7 A
SB 12.1 B 7.4 A 7.0 A
Ideal Avenue N &
31st Street N/Site
Access 3
Side
Street
Stop
EB 20.5 C - - 5.8 A
20.5 C WB 15.1 C - - 7.7 A
NB 6.3 A 2.0 A 1.8 A
SB 5.9 A 1.2 A 0.9 A
Ideal Avenue N &
Stillwater
Boulevard N
All -
Way
Stop
EB 24.8 C 28.8 D 5.7 A
16.9 C WB 15.8 C 22.3 C 11.2 B
NB 15.7 C 19.4 C 6.4 A
SB 20.0 C 13.4 B 5.6 A
34th Street N &
Jamaca Avenue N
Round-
about
EB 40.4 E 45.9 E 43.5 E
32.5 D WB 37.2 E 40.6 E 40.0 E
NB 6.1 A 10.3 B 4.2 A
SB 5.2 A 7.2 A 1.8 A
Ideal Avenue N &
36th Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 17.5 C - - 6.5 A
18.7 C WB 18.7 C - - - -
NB 8.0 A 2.1 A 2.3 A
SB - - 1.5 A 0.3 A
34th Street N &
Site Access 1
Side
Street
Stop
EB 11.8 B 4.1 A 3.6 A
61.0 F WB - - 1.2 A 1.4 A
NB 20.7 C - - 9.3 A
SB 61.0 F - - 48.8 E
Based on the analysis, all study intersections and intersection movements are expected to operate at LOS
C or better during the AM peak hour. Under Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2 PM peak hour conditions,
all intersections and movements are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better except the following:
• 34th Street N & Jamaca Avenue N –The eastbound and westbound approaches are expected to
operate at LOS E. Th is is caused by increased east -west volume along 34th Street N nearing
capacity of the roundabout.
• 34th Street N & Site Access 1 – The overall intersection delay is reported as the worst individual
movement. The southbound left is anticipated to operate at LOS F and the southbound right is
anticipated to operate at LOS E. These delays are caused by increased east -west volumes and
only one exiting lane at the site access.
The 95th percentile queues were reviewed at the study intersections. All 95th percentile queues for the
movements are anticipated to be accommodated within their respective storage bays, except the 95th percentile queue of the northbound left turn at the intersection of 34th Street N & Ideal Avenue N which
extends approximately 70 feet past the provided storage bay. The queue is anticipated to fit within the existing taper. Required mitigation is consistent with Horizon Year (2040) conditions .
29 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
The following mitigation was analyzed to improve operations at intersections with undesirable LOS:
•34th Street N was expanded to a four-lane cross section through Jamaca Avenue N.
•A second through lane was added to the roundabout at 34th Street N & Jamaca Avenue N to
increase capacity.
•The southbound approach at Access 1 was modeled with a dedicated southbound left turn lane
and a dedicated southbound right turn lane.
Tabl es 24 – 25 provide a summary of the average delay (seconds per vehicle) and LOS under Horizon
Year (2040) Build Scenario 2 Conditions with mitigation for each movement at the study intersections during
the AM & PM peak hour, respectively. The full SimTraffic reports are included in Appendix L.
TABLE 24: HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD S CENARIO 2 MITIGATED AM LOS SUMMARY
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Ideal Avenue N &
34th Street N Signal
EB 29.8 C 21.2 C 3.3 A
20.8 C WB 34.7 C 24.5 C 3.7 A
NB 21.6 C 19.5 B 5.6 A
SB 20.3 C 22.5 C 18.6 B
Ideal Avenue N &
32nd Street N/Site
Access 2
Side
Street
Stop
EB 11.6 B - - 3.2 A
11.6 B WB - - - - 3.9 A
NB 2.6 A 0.5 A 0.2 A
SB 6.8 A 5.3 A 4.7 A
Ideal Avenue N &
31st Street N/Site
Access 3
Side
Street
Stop
EB 8.1 A - - 3.0 A
8.1 A WB - - - - - -
NB 3.4 A 1.8 A 1.9 A
SB 2.3 A 0.8 A 0.3 A
Ideal Avenue N &
Stillwater
Boulevard N
All -
Way
Stop
EB 6.4 A 11.7 B 3.0 A
6.7 A WB 5.4 A 11.2 B 4.1 A
NB 6.7 A 9.8 A 2.8 A
SB 5.5 A 8.4 A 2.4 A
34th Street N &
Jamaca Avenue N
Round-
about
EB 2.6 A 5.1 A 1.9 A
5.1 A WB 4.7 A 8.0 A 2.6 A
NB 2.8 A 6.9 A 2.2 A
SB 3.6 A 5.7 A 1.9 A
Ideal Avenue N &
36th Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 8.8 A - - 5.6 A
9.9 A WB 9.9 A - - - -
NB 3.8 A 1.8 A 1.5 A
SB - - 1.1 A 0.1 A
34th Street N &
Site Access 1
Side
Street
Stop
EB 8.7 A 4.1 A 3.6 A
19.6 C WB 2.9 A 0.8 A 0.3 A
NB 19.5 C - - - -
SB 19.6 C - - 3.8 A
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
30
TABLE 25: HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 2 MITIGATED PM LOS SUMMARY
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Ideal Avenue N &
34th Street N Signal
EB 48.8 D 28.5 C 6.4 A
34.6 C WB 49.7 D 39.6 D 8.1 A
NB 46.8 D 31.2 C 19.4 B
SB 29.6 C 44.6 D 28.4 C
Ideal Avenue N &
32nd Street N/Site
Access 2
Side
Street
Stop
EB 29.2 D - - 7.9 A
29.2 D WB - - - - 18.5 C
NB 7.8 A 6.2 A 0.8 A
SB 11.7 B 7.1 A 6.9 A
Ideal Avenue N &
31st Street N/Site
Access 3
Side
Street
Stop
EB 16.5 C - - 5.9 A
16.5 C WB 15.0 B - - 8.1 A
NB 5.5 A 2.0 A 2.0 A
SB 5.5 A 1.2 A 0.9 A
Ideal Avenue N &
Stillwater
Boulevard N
All -
Way
Stop
EB 25.5 D 28.9 D 5.8 A
17.3 C WB 17.2 C 22.3 C 11.5 B
NB 16.0 C 21.2 C 6.2 A
SB 20.4 C 12.9 B 5.5 A
34th Street N &
Jamaca Avenue N
Round-
about
EB 5.5 A 8.9 A 4.2 A
7.4 A WB 6.8 A 9.6 A 3.3 A
NB 7.5 A 10.9 B 4.3 A
SB 4.5 A 7.6 A 1.9 A
Ideal Avenue N &
36th Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 19.5 C - - 6.5 A
19.5 C WB 17.2 C - - - -
NB 7.8 A 2.3 A 2.2 A
SB - - 1.4 A 0.2 A
34th Street N &
Site Access 1
Side
Street
Stop
EB 10.0 A 3.6 A 2.9 A
24.7 C WB - - 1.4 A 1.5 A
NB 18.1 C - - 9.7 A
SB 24.7 C - - 9.1 A
Based on the analysis, all study intersections are expected to operate at LOS D or better during the AM &
PM peak hours. Under Opening Year (2025) Build Scenarios 1-3, all intersection movements are
anticipated to operate at LOS D or better. 34th Street N & site access 1 has acceptable side street delays
with the addition of dedicated turn lanes on the side streets in the peak hours, but the intersection should
be monitored as development occurs to determine if a signal is required.
The 95th percentile queues were reviewed at the study intersections. All 95th percentile queues for the
movements are anticipated to be accommodated within their respective storage bays, except the 95th
percentile queue of the northbound left turn at the intersection of 34th Street N & Ideal Avenue N which
extends approximately 120 feet past the provided storage bay in the pm peak hour. If these volumes are
realized, it may be necessary to restripe the northbound approach to include a longer storage capacity,
however it is anticipated this can be done within the existing cross section.
31 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
5.9 HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 3 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
The Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3 Condition analysis was completed to develop an understanding
of the impact of site traffic on the operating conditions for the study area. The traffic volumes shown in
Exhibit 25 were used in the Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3 analysis. As previously discussed, these
volumes were calculated by adding the Phase 2 of Scenario 3 trips generated by the site to the Horizon
Year (2040) No -Build volumes. The same geometry and intersection control was used as in the Horizon
Year (2040) No -Build model (the southbound approach at the intersection of Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater
Boulevard N was expanded to three approach lanes and signal timing was optimized at the intersection of
34th Street N & Ideal Avenue N). All site accesses were modeled as side street stop, with one exiting lane.
Site Access 1 was modeled with left and right turn lanes on 34th Street N due to the high speeds along the
corridor.
Tables 26 – 27 provide a summary of the average delay (seconds per vehicle) and LOS under Horizo n
Year (2040) Build Scenario 3 Conditions for each movement at the study intersections during the AM & PM
peak hours. The movements that are anticipated to operate at LOS E are shown in yellow and the
movements that are anticipated to operate at LOS F are shown in red. The full SimTraffic reports are
included in Appendix M.
TABLE 26: HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 3 AM LOS SUMMARY
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Ideal Avenue N &
34th Street N Signal
EB 29.5 C 19.5 B 3.2 A
20.0 C WB 32.1 C 25.2 C 3.0 A
NB 19.8 B 15.1 B 5.6 A
SB 19.1 B 22.2 C 17.7 B
Ideal Avenue N &
32nd Street N/Site
Access 2
Side
Street
Stop
EB 8.7 A - - 3.1 A
8.7 A WB - - - - 3.5 A
NB 2.4 A 0.4 A 0.3 A
SB 5.9 A 5.1 A 5.3 A
Ideal Avenue N &
31st Street N/Site
Access 3
Side
Street
Stop
EB 6.9 A - - 3.3 A
6.9 A WB - - - - - -
NB 3.8 A 1.7 A 1.6 A
SB 2.3 A 0.8 A 0.3 A
Ideal Avenue N &
Stillwater
Boulevard N
All -
Way
Stop
EB 6.8 A 11.2 B 3.0 A
6.7 A WB 5.2 A 11.1 B 3.9 A
NB 6.6 A 9.8 A 2.8 A
SB 5.5 A 8.3 A 2.4 A
34th Street N &
Jamaca Avenue N
Round-
about
EB 4.7 A 8.0 A 4.6 A
7.0 A WB 6.5 A 11.0 B 6.0 A
NB 2.5 A 6.1 A 2.2 A
SB 3.6 A 6.5 A 1.8 A
Ideal Avenue N &
36th Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 8.0 A - - 3.9 A
8.7 A WB 8.7 A - - - -
NB 3.9 A 1.7 A 1.3 A
SB - - 1.0 A 0.2 A
34th Street N &
Site Access 1
Side
Street
Stop
EB 8.9 A 4.4 A 3.3 A
21.7 C WB 1.4 A 0.8 A 0.4 A
NB 18.0 C - - - -
SB 21.7 C - - 7.8 A
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
32
TABLE 27: HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 3 PM LOS SUMMARY
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Ideal Avenue N &
34th Street N Signal
EB 43.5 D 27.5 C 6.0 A
31.4 C WB 43.8 D 36.1 D 8.5 A
NB 38.5 D 34.4 C 16.9 B
SB 28.7 C 46.3 D 23.5 C
Ideal Avenue N &
32nd Street N/Site
Access 2
Side
Street
Stop
EB 23.4 C - - 7.2 A
23.4 C WB - - - - 16.4 C
NB 7.9 A 5.4 A 0.7 A
SB 11.3 B 7.3 A 6.4 A
Ideal Avenue N &
31st Street N/Site
Access 3
Side
Street
Stop
EB 16.9 C - - 6.4 A
16.9 C WB 16.1 C - - 8.1 A
NB 5.6 A 1.9 A 1.6 A
SB 7.8 A 1.2 A 1.0 A
Ideal Avenue N &
Stillwater
Boulevard N
All -
Way
Stop
EB 16.6 C 21.1 C 4.9 A
13.7 C WB 14.2 B 19.7 C 9.1 A
NB 11.2 B 16.1 C 6.0 A
SB 15.7 C 12.9 B 5.0 A
34th Street N &
Jamaca Avenue N
Round-
about
EB 25.4 D 28.6 D 25.4 D
20.2 C WB 21.2 C 26.1 D 20.7 C
NB 6.4 A 10.0 A 4.4 A
SB 3.8 A 7.3 A 1.6 A
Ideal Avenue N &
36th Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 16.9 C - - 7.0 A
17.6 C WB 17.6 C - - - -
NB 7.6 A 2.1 A 1.9 A
SB - - 1.4 A 0.2 A
34th Street N &
Site Access 1
Side
Street
Stop
EB 9.7 A 3.8 A 2.8 A
28.8 D WB - - 1.0 A 1.0 A
NB 17.3 C - - 10.3 B
SB 28.8 D - - 18.4 C
Based on the analysis, all study intersections are expected to operate at LOS D or better during the AM &
PM peak hours. Under Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3, all intersection movements are anticipated
to operate at LOS D or better. 34th Street N & site access 1 has acceptable side street delays in the peak
hours but the intersection should be monitored as development occurs on the north side of 34th Street N.
The 95th percentile queues were reviewed at the study intersections. All 95th percentile queues for the
movements are anticipated to be accommodated within their respective storage bays, except the 95th
percentile queue of the northbound left turn at the intersection of 34th Street N & Ideal Avenue N which
extends approximately 60 feet past the provided storage bay in the PM peak hour. If these volumes are
realized, it may be necessary to restripe the northbound approach to include a longer storage capacity,
however it is anticipated this can be done within the existing cross secti on.
33 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
5.10 HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 4 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
The Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4 Condition analysis was completed to develop an understanding
of the impact of site traffic on the operating conditions for the study area. The traffic volumes shown in
Exhibit 26 were used in the Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4 analysis. As previousl y discussed, these
volumes were calculated by adding the Phase 2 of Scenario 4 trips generated by the site to the Horizon
Year (2040) No -Build volumes. The same geometry and intersection control was used as in the Horizon
Year (2040) No -Build model (the southbound approach at the intersection of Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater
Boulevard N was expanded to three approach lanes and signal timing was optimized at the intersection of
34th Street N & Ideal Avenue N). All site accesses were modeled as side street stop, with one exiting lane.
Site Access 1 was modeled with left and right turn lanes on 34th Street N due to the high speeds along the
corridor.
Tables 28 – 29 provide a summary of the average delay (seconds per vehicle) and LOS under Horizon
Year (2040) Build Scenario 4 Conditions for each movement at the study intersections during the AM & PM
peak hours. The movements that are anticipated to operate at LOS E are shown in yellow and the
movements that are anticipated to operate at LOS F are shown in red. The full SimTraffic reports are
included in Appendix N.
TABLE 28: HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 4 AM LOS SUMMARY
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Ideal Avenue N &
34th Street N Signal
EB 24.9 C 16.5 B 3.1 A
17.3 B WB 35.3 D 21.1 C 2.8 A
NB 17.5 B 13.5 B 4.4 A
SB 17.6 B 20.4 C 15.6 B
Ideal Avenue N &
32nd Street N/Site
Access 2
Side
Street
Stop
EB 8.7 A - - 3.0 A
8.7 A WB - - - - 4.0 A
NB 2.6 A 0.5 A 0.2 A
SB 6.4 A 5.3 A 5.0 A
Ideal Avenue N &
31st Street N/Site
Access 3
Side
Street
Stop
EB 7.4 A - - 3.0 A
7.4 A WB - - - - - -
NB 4.0 A 1.7 A 1.7 A
SB 2.3 A 0.6 A 0.5 A
Ideal Avenue N &
Stillwater
Boulevard N
All -
Way
Stop
EB 6.7 A 11.4 B 2.5 A
6.6 A WB 5.4 A 10.4 B 4.0 A
NB 5.6 A 9.3 A 2.8 A
SB 5.2 A 8.5 A 2.2 A
34th Street N &
Jamaca Avenue N
Round-
about
EB 4.8 A 6.9 A 4.9 A
6.3 A WB 5.5 A 10.4 B 6.1 A
NB 1.6 A 5.0 A 2.0 A
SB 2.7 A 5.7 A 1.7 A
Ideal Avenue N &
36th Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 9.6 A - - 4.2 A
9.6 A WB 8.0 A - - - -
NB 3.3 A 1.8 A 1.2 A
SB - - 0.9 A 0.2 A
34th Street N &
Site Access 1
Side
Street
Stop
EB - - 3.6 A 2.8 A
10.9 B WB 2.9 A 0.4 A - -
NB 10.9 B - - - -
SB - - - - - -
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
34
TABLE 29: HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 3 PM LOS SUMMARY
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Ideal Avenue N &
34th Street N Signal
EB 42.7 D 23.8 C 6.1 A
28.8 C WB 48.9 D 30.1 C 4.3 A
NB 39.0 D 29.1 C 14.0 B
SB 30.2 C 45.8 D 19.2 B
Ideal Avenue N &
32nd Street N/Site
Access 2
Side
Street
Stop
EB 20.2 C - - 7.1 A
20.6 C WB - - - - 20.6 C
NB 9.2 A 5.5 A 0.7 A
SB 10.9 B 7.1 A 6.7 A
Ideal Avenue N &
31st Street N/Site
Access 3
Side
Street
Stop
EB 14.9 B - - 5.0 A
14.9 B WB 14.6 B - - 9.2 A
NB 5.2 A 1.9 A 1.6 A
SB 6.8 A 1.2 A 0.7 A
Ideal Avenue N &
Stillwater
Boulevard N
All -
Way
Stop
EB 16.9 C 20.5 C 5.2 A
13.9 B WB 12.4 B 19.4 C 9.2 A
NB 14.9 B 17.7 C 5.7 A
SB 16.6 C 12.4 B 5.0 A
34th Street N &
Jamaca Avenue N
Round-
about
EB 16.9 C 20.7 C 18.1 C
13.7 B WB 12.4 B 17.4 C 10.9 B
NB 5.6 A 9.1 A 4.1 A
SB 4.1 A 7.1 A 1.7 A
Ideal Avenue N &
36th Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 17.6 C - - 5.3 A
17.6 C WB 16.0 C - - - -
NB 8.1 A 2.0 A 1.6 A
SB - - 1.4 A 0.2 A
34th Street N &
Site Access 1
Side
Street
Stop
EB - - 3.1 A 2.9 A
10.0 A WB - - 0.8 A - -
NB 10.0 A - - 7.1 A
SB - - - - - -
Based on the analysis, all study intersections are expected to operate at LOS C or better during the AM &
PM peak hours. Under Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4, all intersection movements are anticipated
to operate at LOS D or better. 34th Street N & site access 1 has acceptable side street delays in the peak
hours but the intersection should be monitored as development occurs on the north side of 34th Street N.
The 95th percentile queues were reviewed at the study intersections. All 95th percentile queues for the
movements are anticipated to be accommodated within their respective storage bays, except the 95th
percentile queue of the northbound left turn at the intersection of 34th Street N & Ideal Avenue N which
extends approximately 75 feet past the provided storage bay in the PM peak hour. If these volumes are
realized, it may be necessary to restripe the northbound approach to include a longer storage capacity,
however it is anticipated this can be done within the existing cross section.
35 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A traffic analysis was performed to quantify the impacts of the proposed development on the adjacent
roadway network and intersections. The proposed site is located on the northeast and southeast corner of
the intersection of 34th Street N & Ideal Avenue N, in Lake Elmo, MN. No -Buil d, Build Scenario 1, Build
Scenario 2, Build Scenario 3, and Build Scenario 4 were analyzed in the Opening Year (2025) and Horizon
Year (2040)
6.1 PROJECT TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT & STUDY AREA
Four d evelopment buildout scenarios were considered; Scenario 1 is anticipated to have 1,753,400 square
feet of industrial development, 91,500 square feet of commercial development, and 400 multifamily dwelling
units. Scenario 2 is anticipated to have 1,557,380 square feet of industrial development , 178,596 square
feet of commercial development, 38 single family dwelling units, and 334 multifamily dwelling units.
Scenario 3 is anticipated to have 1,750,000 square feet of industrial development, 91,500 square feet of
commercial development, and 56 single family dwelling unit s . Scenario 4 is anticipated to have 1,100,000
square feet of industrial development and 10 single family dwelling units. All four scenarios are not expected
to be fully built out until the Horizon Year (2040); in the Opening Year (2025) all build scenarios are
anticipated to have 1,100,000 square feet of industrial development.
The Opening Year (2025) Scenarios 1-4 are anticipated to generate 90 trips during the AM peak hour and
110 trips during the PM peak hour. In the Horizon Year (2040), Scenario 1 is anticipated to generate 450
trips during the AM peak hour and 805 trips during the PM peak hour. Scenario 2 is anticipated to generate
430 AM peak hour trips and 940 PM peak hour trips in the Horizon Year (2040). Scenario 3 is anticipated
to generate 380 AM peak hour trips and 750 PM peak hour trips in the Horizon Year (2040). Lastly, Scenario
4 is anticipated to generate 95 AM peak hour trips and 120 PM peak hour trips in the Horizon Year (2040).
The study area intersections include Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N, Ideal Avenue & 32nd Street N/Site
Access 2, Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3, Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N, 34th
Street N & Jamaca Avenue N, and Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N/Site Access 4. A capacity analysis was
performed for each of the following conditions to quantify background operations in the study area, as well
as operating conditions with Scenario 1, Scenario 2, Scenario 3, and Scenario 4 development:
•Existing Year (2021)
•Opening Year (2025) No-Build
•Opening Year (2025) Build Scenarios 1-4
•Horizon Year (2040) No-Build
•Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1
•Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2
•Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3
•Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4
6.2 EXISTING YEAR (2021) LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SUMMARY
A capacity analysis was conducted for Existing Year (2021) traffic conditions at the study intersections to
determine baseline existing conditions. No improvements were incorporated into the traffic model. Based
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
36
on the analysis, all intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS and there are no queuing
issues at the study intersections.
6.3 OPENING YEAR (2025) NO -BUILD LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
A capacity analysis was conducted for Opening Year (2025) No -Build traffic conditions at the study
intersections to determine baseline conditions for the 2025 analysis year. The only modification to the traffic
model was an update to the geometry at Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N according to the Washington
County Highway 13 (Ideal Avenue) Phase II pavement and safety improvement project .
Based on the analysis, all intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS and there are no
queuing issues at the study intersections.
6.4 OPENING YEAR (2025) BUILD SCENARIOS 1-3 LEVEL OF SERVICE
ANALYSIS SUMMARY
A capacity analysis was conducted for Opening Year (2025) Build Scenarios 1-3 at the study intersections
to determine baseline conditions for the 2025 analysis year. The geometry and signal timings are the same
as Opening Year (2025) No -Build conditions. B ased on the analysis, all intersections are anticipated to
operate at acceptable LOS and there are no queuing issues at the study intersections. Side-street stop
control is adequate at all site accesses. It is not anticipated that a signal will be required at site access 1 on
34th Street N due to the anticipated trip generation and because all movements at site access 1 are
expected to operate acceptably.
6.5 HORIZON YEAR (2040) NO -BUILD LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
Horizon Year (2040) No -Build traffic conditions were studied with and without mitigation at the study
intersections to determine baseline mitigation needed to maintain acceptable LOS as the background traffic
volumes grow. The first analysis assumed the base geometry and the mitigated analysis was similar to the
base geometry, with the exception of Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N, where the southbound
approach was expanded to have dedicated left, through, and right turn lanes.
Based on the unmitigated analysis, the following intersections have movements that are anticipated to
operate at unacceptable LOS with background growth
• Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N (PM peak hour)
• Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N (PM peak hour)
Additionally, the southbound left turn movement at the intersection of Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard
N has a 95th percentile queue that extend past the provided storage capacity and impacts the upstream
intersection of Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N.
In the mitigated analysis, all intersections and movements operate at LOS D or better. Additionally, there
are no queuing issues in the study network.
37 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
6.6 HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
A capacity analysis was performed for Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1 at the study intersections to
determine the impact of site traffic. The mitigated geometry from Opening Year (2040) No -Build analysis
was utilized for this analysis.
A ll intersections operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours. Additionally, all 95th
percentile queues are expected to be within their respective storage capacity, except for the northbound
left at 34th Street N & Ideal Avenue N, which is anticipated to fit within the existing taper.
6.7 HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 2 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2 traffic conditions were studied with and without mitigation at the study
intersections to determine mitigation needed to maintain acceptable LOS with the development traffic. The
mitigated geometry from Opening Year (2040) No -Build analysis was originally used for this analysis, then
additional mitigation was applied to movements and intersection operating at unacceptable LOS.
Based on the unmitigated analysis, the following intersections have movements that are anticipated to
operate at unacceptable LOS with background growth
•34th Street N & Jamaca Avenue N (PM peak hour)
•34th Street N & Site Access 1 (PM peak hour)
To alleviate operational issues, 34th Street was expanded to a four-lane cross section through the
intersection with Jamaca Avenue, and a second through lane was added to the roundabout to increase
capacity. At the intersection of 34th Street N & Site Access 1 the southbound approach was expanded to
include dedicated left and right turn lanes.
In the mitigated analysis, all intersections and movements operate at LOS D or better. Additionally, th ere
are no queuin g issues in the study network, except for the n ort hbound left at the inters ection of 34th Street
N & Ideal Avenue N, which c ould extend out of the turn lane ta per. This movement should be monitored
and if projected volumes are realized, restriping may be necessary to provide adequate storage. P av ement
ex pansion is not expected.
6.8 HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 3 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
A capacity analysis was performed for Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3 at the study intersections to
determine the impact of site traffic. The mitigated geometry from Opening Year (2040) No -Build analysis
was utilized for this analysis.
All intersections operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours. Additionally, there are
no queuing issues in the study network, except for the northbound left at the intersection of 34th Street N &
Ideal Avenue N, which could extend out of the turn lane taper. This movement should be monitored and if
projected volumes are realized, restriping may be necessary to provide adequate storage. Pavement
expansion is not expected.
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
38
6.8 HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 4 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
A capacity analysis was performed for Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4 at the study intersections to
determine the impact of site traffic. The mitigated geometry from Opening Year (2040) No -Build analysis
was utilized for this analysis.
All intersections operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours. Additionally, there are
no queuing issues in the study network, except for the northbound left at the intersection of 34th Street N &
Ideal Avenue N, which could extend out of the turn lane taper. This movement should be monitored and if
projected volumes are realized, restriping may be necessary to provide adequate storage. Pavement
expansion is not expected.
6.9 MITIGATION PLAN
The following provides a summary of mitigation improvements that were identified as part of the traffic
analysis for the NorthPoint Industrial Park.
Existing (2021) Conditions
•No Mitigation Necessary
Opening Year (2025) No-Build Conditions
•No Mitigation Necessary
Opening Year (2025) Build Scenarios 1-3 Conditions
•Install eastbound right and westbound left turn lanes on 34th Street N at site access 1.
•Side-Street stop control at all accesses.
Horizon Year (2040) No -Build Conditions
•Addition of a southbound left -turn lane at the intersection of Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard
N
•Signal timing modification at the intersection of 34th Street N & Ideal Avenue N
Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1 Conditions
•All Modifications from Horizon Year (2040) No -Build Conditions
•Install eastbound left, eastbound right, westbound left, and westbound right turn lanes on 34th Street
N at site access 1.
•Side-Street stop control at all accesses.
•Monitor 34th Street & site access 1 as development continues to determine if a signal is warranted.
Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2 Conditions
•All Modifications from Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Conditions
•Expansion of 34th Street N to a four-lane cross-section at its intersection with Jamaca Avenue N
•Monitor the roundabout at 34th Street N & Jamaca Avenue N and add a second through lane for the
eastbound and westbound movements if necessary.
•Addition of southbound left-turn lane to site access 1 on 34th Street N
39 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
• Install eastbound left, eastbound right, westbound left, and westbound right turn lanes on 34th Street
N at site access 1
• Monitor 34th Street & site access 1 as development continues to determine if a signal is warranted.
Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3 Conditions
• All Modifications from Horizon Year (2040) No -Build Conditions
• Install eastbound left, eastbound right, westbound left, and westbound right turn lanes on 34th Street
N at site access 1
• Monitor 34th Street & Site Access 1 as development continues to determine if a signal is warranted.
Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4 Conditions
• All Modifications from Horizon Year (2040) No -Build Conditions
• Install eastbound left, eastbound right, westbound left, and westbound right turn lanes on 34th Street
N at site access 1
• Side-Street stop control at all accesses.
• Monitor 34th Street & Site Access 1 as development continues to determine if a signal is warranted.
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
40
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: EXHIBITS
APPENDIX B: TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
APPENDIX C: SITE PLAN
APPENDIX D: NORTHPOINT DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION STUDY
APPENDIX E: EXISTING YEAR (2021) SIMTRAFFIC REPORT
APPENDIX F : OPENING YEAR (2025) NO-BUILD SIMTRAFFIC REPORT
APPENDIX G: OPENING YEAR (2025) BUILD SCENARIO 1-4 SIMTRAFFIC REPORT
APPENDIX H: HORIZON YEAR (2040) NO-BUILD SIMTRAFFIC REPORT
APPENDIX I: HORIZON YEAR (2040) NO-BUILD MITIGATED SIMTRAFFIC REPORT
APPENDIX J: HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 1 SIMTRAFFIC REPORT
APPENDIX K: HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 2 SIMTRAFFIC REPORT
APPENDIX L: HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 2 MITIGATED SIMTRAFFIC REPORT
APPENDIX M : HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 3 SIMTRAFFIC REPORT
APPENDIX N: HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 4 SIMTRAFFIC REPORT
41 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
Appendix A:
Exhibits
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 1
PROJECT SITE LOCATION AND STUDY AREA
LEGEND
Proposed 2025 Industrial Development
Proposed 2040 Mixed-use Development
Study Intersection
Proposed Site Driveway
694
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 2
EXISTING GEOMETRY AND INTERSECTION CONTROL
LEGEND
Project Site Location
Study Intersections
Existing Signal Control
Existing Stop Control
Existing Roundabout
Channelized Right Turn
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 3
EXISTING YEAR (2021)
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (X X)
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 4
OPENING YEAR (2025) NO-BUILD
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (X X)
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 5
HORIZON YEAR (2040) NO-BUILD
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (X X)
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 6
SOUTHERN BUSINESS PARK
PASSENGER VEHICLE TRIP DISTRIBUTION
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
Site Traffic Distribution
Inbound Site Traffic
Outbound Site Traffic
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 7
NORTHERN BUSINESS PARK
PASSENGER VEHICLE TRIP DISTRIBUTION
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
Site Traffic Distribution
Inbound Site Traffic
Outbound Site Traffic
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 8
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
PASSENGER VEHICLE TRIP DISTRIBUTION
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
Site Traffic Distribution
Inbound Site Traffic
Outbound Site Traffic
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 9
COMMERCIAL/SHOPPING PLAZA DEVELOPMENT
PASSENGER VEHICLE TRIP DISTRIBUTION
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
Site Traffic Distribution
Inbound Site Traffic
Outbound Site Traffic
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 10
SOUTHERN BUSINESS PARK
TRUCK TRIP DISTRIBUTION
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
Site Traffic Distribution
Inbound Site Traffic
Outbound Site Traffic
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 11
NORTHERN BUSINESS PARK
TRUCK TRIP DISTRIBUTION
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
Site Traffic Distribution
Inbound Site Traffic
Outbound Site Traffic
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 12
OPENING YEAR (2025) BUILD SCENARIO 1, 2, 3, & 4
TOTAL PROJECT TRAFFIC
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (X X)
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 13
OPENING YEAR (2025) BUILD SCENARIO 1, 2, 3, & 4
TRUCK TRAFFIC
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (X X)
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 14
HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 1
TOTAL PROJECT TRAFFIC
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (X X)
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 15
HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 1
TRUCK TRAFFIC
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (X X)
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 16
HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 2
TOTAL PROJECT TRAFFIC
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (X X)
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 17
HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 2
TRUCK TRAFFIC
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (X X)
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 18
HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 3
TOTAL PROJECT TRAFFIC
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (X X)
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 19
HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 3
TRUCK TRAFFIC
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (X X)
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 20
HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 4
TOTAL PROJECT TRAFFIC
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (X X)
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 21
HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 4
TRUCK TRAFFIC
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (X X)
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 22
OPENING YEAR (2025) BUILD SCENARIOS 1, 2, 3, & 4
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (X X)
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 23
HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 1
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (X X)
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 24
HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 2
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (X X)
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 25
HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 3
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (X X)
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 26
HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 4
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (X X)
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
42
Appendix B:
Turning Movement Counts
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & 34th St NSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 1Turning Movement DataStart TimeEastbound 34th StreetWestbound 34th StreetNorthbound Ideal AvenueSouthbound Ideal AvenueEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalInt. Total12:00 AM 1 2 1 105 0 0 0 000 1 0 0 001 0 0 3 003 912:15 AM 1 2 3 006 0 0 0 000 1 1 0 002 0 1 0 001 912:30 AM 0 2 0 204 0 2 0 002 4 0 0 004 0 0 0 000 1012:45 AM 0 1 7 008 0 2 0 002 2 0 0 002 0 2 1 003 15Hourly Total 2 7 11 3023 0 4 0 004 8 1 0 009 0 3 4 007 431:00 AM 0 1 2 003 0 0 0 000 4 0 0 004 0 0 0 000 71:15 AM 0 1 3 004 0 0 0 000 2 0 0 002 1 0 0 001 71:30 AM 0 1 0 001 0 0 0 000 0 1 0 001 0 0 1 001 31:45 AM 1 0 1 103 0 0 0 000 1 1 0 002 0 0 2 002 7Hourly Total 1 3 6 1011 0 0 0 000 7 2 0 009 1 0 3 004 242:00 AM 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 000 1 1 0 002 0 1 1 002 42:15 AM 1 0 2 003 1 1 0 002 0 1 0 001 0 0 1 001 72:30 AM 0 1 1 103 0 0 0 000 1 1 0 002 0 0 1 001 62:45 AM 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 000 1 0 0 001 0 0 1 001 2Hourly Total 1 1 3 106 1 1 0 002 3 3 0 006 0 1 4 005 193:00 AM 0 0 0 000 0 1 0 001 0 0 0 000 0 1 0 001 23:15 AM 0 0 1 001 0 1 0 001 0 0 0 000 0 1 1 002 43:30 AM 0 1 0 001 0 4 0 004 4 0 0 004 0 0 2 002 113:45 AM 0 2 1 003 0 2 1 003 3 0 0 003 1 1 0 002 11Hourly Total 0 3 2 005 0 8 1 009 7 0 0 007 1 3 3 007 284:00 AM 0 1 1 002 0 1 0 001 2 0 0 002 0 0 0 000 54:15 AM 0 4 0 004 0 3 0 003 4 0 0 004 0 0 2 002 134:30 AM 0 3 0 003 0 7 0 007 10 0 0 0010 0 1 0 001 214:45 AM 0 2 2 004 0 6 0 006 7 0 0 007 0 0 1 001 18Hourly Total 0 10 3 0013 0 17 0 0017 23 0 0 0023 0 1 3 004 575:00 AM 0 6 0 006 0 16 0 0016 12 0 0 0012 0 0 1 001 355:15 AM 0 6 1 007 1 22 0 0023 9 0 0 009 0 0 3 003 425:30 AM 0 16 1 0017 4 33 0 0037 20 1 0 0021 1 5 6 0012 875:45 AM 1 9 3 0013 2 24 0 0026 17 0 2 0019 2 3 8 0013 71Hourly Total 1 37 5 0043 7 95 0 00102 58 1 2 0061 3 8 18 0029 2356:00 AM 1 7 2 1011 4 36 1 0041 14 0 1 0015 3 1 7 0011 786:15 AM 4 13 5 1023 2 32 1 0035 24 2 0 0026 3 2 12 0017 1016:30 AM 4 32 8 0044 1 31 11 0043 28 0 1 0029 2 5 13 0020 1366:45 AM 2 45 7 1055 7 45 6 0058 39 3 2 0044 6 7 10 0023 180Hourly Total 11 97 22 30133 14 144 19 00177 105 5 4 00114 14 15 42 0071 4957:00 AM 1 32 9 2044 2 40 3 0045 19 1 2 0022 2 10 9 0021 1327:15 AM 1 34 10 1146 2 62 0 0064 21 0 1 0022 2 4 6 0012 1447:30 AM 3 42 14 0059 4 74 1 0079 41 1 2 0044 4 8 11 0023 205
7:45 AM 3 42 18 3066 6 65 3 0074 49 1 7 0057 9 15 23 0047 244Hourly Total 8 150 51 61215 14 241 7 00262 130 3 12 00145 17 37 49 00103 7258:00 AM 2 47 17 2068 5 67 0 0072 29 3 8 0040 4 14 19 0037 2178:15 AM 4 32 16 1053 8 61 2 0071 33 0 3 0036 10 11 15 0036 1968:30 AM 0 46 17 0063 10 56 2 0068 34 1 1 0036 8 6 17 0031 1988:45 AM 5 44 19 0068 3 54 2 0059 39 1 3 0043 5 6 9 0020 190Hourly Total 11 169 69 30252 26 238 6 00270 135 5 15 00155 27 37 60 00124 8019:00 AM 1 42 13 1057 3 41 3 0047 28 0 2 0030 4 13 11 1029 1639:15 AM 1 42 15 1059 3 62 0 0065 23 3 2 0028 6 7 11 0024 1769:30 AM 4 48 15 2069 1 55 1 0057 19 1 5 0025 4 12 15 0031 1829:45 AM 6 42 8 0056 4 46 4 0054 12 2 5 0019 4 9 17 0030 159Hourly Total 12 174 51 40241 11 204 8 00223 82 6 14 00102 18 41 54 10114 68010:00 AM 0 42 16 1259 5 39 2 0046 17 1 0 0018 2 10 12 0024 14710:15 AM 1 35 12 4052 2 48 1 0051 31 2 5 0038 2 15 18 0035 17610:30 AM 5 48 12 1066 3 53 4 0060 29 1 1 0031 4 12 16 0032 18910:45 AM 0 41 21 3065 3 46 2 0051 30 7 6 0043 4 7 19 0030 189Hourly Total 6 166 61 92242 13 186 9 00208 107 11 12 00130 12 44 65 00121 70111:00 AM 3 44 22 0069 7 57 4 0068 20 4 3 0027 11 9 18 0038 20211:15 AM 4 43 15 1063 14 43 4 0061 31 4 5 0040 4 15 18 0037 20111:30 AM 4 39 24 3070 11 58 2 0071 30 1 6 0037 11 13 17 0041 21911:45 AM 4 45 14 1064 6 45 10 0061 19 2 5 0026 8 18 25 0051 202Hourly Total 15 171 75 50266 38 203 20 00261 100 11 19 00130 34 55 78 00167 82412:00 PM 1 49 26 1077 5 53 4 0062 31 2 4 0037 6 16 18 0040 21612:15 PM 4 59 24 0087 6 60 1 0067 31 7 6 0044 10 17 23 0050 24812:30 PM 5 45 31 0081 7 53 0 0060 33 0 6 0039 5 12 16 0033 21312:45 PM 4 50 19 1074 6 37 1 0044 33 3 6 0042 6 5 15 0026 186Hourly Total 14 203 100 20319 24 203 6 00233 128 12 22 00162 27 50 72 00149 8631:00 PM 2 31 26 2161 5 41 3 0049 30 1 4 0035 5 10 12 0027 1721:15 PM 1 51 18 1071 5 38 4 0047 23 3 5 0031 4 10 15 0029 1781:30 PM 4 44 24 0072 5 49 1 0055 30 2 7 0039 6 14 11 0031 1971:45 PM 3 43 23 2071 6 45 3 0054 38 4 6 0048 2 16 9 0027 200Hourly Total 10 169 91 51275 21 173 11 00205 121 10 22 00153 17 50 47 00114 7472:00 PM 5 44 25 1075 7 26 3 0036 24 4 7 0035 8 15 15 0038 1842:15 PM 2 48 30 1081 3 42 0 0045 32 6 5 0043 6 14 12 0032 2012:30 PM 1 66 27 2096 5 56 2 0163 28 1 5 0034 5 20 12 0037 2302:45 PM 3 54 29 1087 10 63 5 0078 32 2 4 0038 7 14 12 0033 236Hourly Total 11 212 111 50339 25 187 10 01222 116 13 21 00150 26 63 51 00140 8513:00 PM 2 67 36 34108 12 48 4 0064 37 3 4 0044 5 18 29 0452 2683:15 PM 2 61 31 3097 6 74 0 0080 29 3 7 0039 7 18 8 0033 2493:30 PM 6 66 27 10100 6 62 0 0068 39 5 3 0047 16 12 16 0044 2593:45 PM 5 81 49 50140 5 58 3 0066 43 2 10 0055 10 21 17 0048 309Hourly Total 15 275 143 124445 29 242 7 00278 148 13 24 00185 38 69 70 04177 10854:00 PM 4 73 45 30125 2 64 4 0070 41 2 7 0050 9 16 19 0044 2894:15 PM 1 100 54 20157 7 67 0 1075 48 2 10 0060 4 24 18 0046 3384:30 PM 5 82 49 20138 8 78 0 0086 43 3 8 0054 5 23 20 0048 3264:45 PM 3 91 42 20138 5 80 3 0088 60 1 11 0072 9 11 15 0035 333Hourly Total 13 346 190 90558 22 289 7 10319 192 8 36 00236 27 74 72 00173 12865:00 PM 4 77 36 30120 6 59 6 0071 47 2 7 0056 6 27 21 0054 3015:15 PM 3 66 36 00105 5 50 3 0058 60 3 11 0074 7 15 18 0040 2775:30 PM 3 53 37 1194 5 55 3 0063 72 7 10 0089 9 15 21 0045 2915:45 PM 1 61 29 0091 5 49 1 0055 59 12 8 0079 8 17 24 0049 274Hourly Total 11 257 138 41410 21 213 13 00247 238 24 36 00298 30 74 84 00188 1143
6:00 PM 4 65 46 01115 4 40 0 0044 46 3 5 0054 10 21 13 0044 2576:15 PM 8 55 30 5098 4 50 1 1056 41 5 11 0057 6 8 15 0029 2406:30 PM 3 53 17 1074 4 36 3 0043 32 5 6 0043 10 11 14 0035 1956:45 PM 2 46 28 2078 9 33 1 0143 26 3 6 0035 6 10 15 0031 187Hourly Total 17 219 121 81365 21 159 5 11186 145 16 28 00189 32 50 57 00139 8797:00 PM 1 35 28 0064 5 33 2 0040 24 1 4 0029 1 14 7 0022 1557:15 PM 4 29 25 0058 10 38 3 0051 22 3 3 0028 3 11 14 0028 1657:30 PM 5 39 13 1058 4 28 0 0032 22 2 4 0028 2 11 13 0026 1447:45 PM 3 19 22 0044 4 29 5 0038 20 0 2 0022 4 5 12 0021 125Hourly Total 13 122 88 10224 23 128 10 00161 88 6 13 00107 10 41 46 0097 5898:00 PM 5 28 21 1055 6 41 1 0048 19 7 7 0033 3 7 18 0028 1648:15 PM 2 20 34 3059 5 33 1 0039 24 5 4 0033 2 11 16 0029 1608:30 PM 2 17 13 4136 2 19 0 0021 25 3 3 0031 1 7 13 0021 1098:45 PM 0 24 14 1039 2 22 1 0025 8 1 0 009 1 6 8 0015 88Hourly Total 9 89 82 91189 15 115 3 00133 76 16 14 00106 7 31 55 0093 5219:00 PM 3 17 19 0039 1 18 0 0019 19 1 2 0022 7 6 9 0022 1029:15 PM 0 17 20 1038 2 20 0 0022 7 2 4 0013 1 3 2 006 799:30 PM 0 16 7 1024 2 17 0 0019 8 0 0 008 2 6 3 0011 629:45 PM 0 22 12 1035 1 7 1 009 6 0 1 007 1 2 2 005 56Hourly Total 3 72 58 30136 6 62 1 0069 40 3 7 0050 11 17 16 0044 29910:00 PM 1 12 13 0026 1 6 0 007 5 1 2 008 0 0 3 003 4410:15 PM 0 17 10 1028 0 9 0 009 7 1 0 008 1 1 2 004 4910:30 PM 0 13 8 0021 0 11 0 0011 3 0 0 003 0 0 0 000 3510:45 PM 1 8 9 0018 0 2 0 002 4 0 0 004 0 3 1 004 28Hourly Total 2 50 40 1093 1 28 0 0029 19 2 2 0023 1 4 6 0011 15611:00 PM 1 3 3 108 0 5 1 006 3 0 1 004 2 2 2 006 2411:15 PM 0 5 9 0014 1 4 0 005 1 0 0 001 0 0 0 000 2011:30 PM 1 6 5 0012 0 3 0 003 3 0 0 003 0 1 1 002 2011:45 PM 0 2 3 005 0 1 0 001 3 0 0 003 1 1 0 002 11Hourly Total 2 16 20 1039 1 13 1 0015 10 0 1 0011 3 4 3 0010 75Grand Total 188 3018 1541 95114842 333 3153 144 223632 2086 171 304 002561 356 772 962 142091 13126Approach % 3.9 62.3 31.8 2.0-- 9.2 86.8 4.0 0.1-- 81.5 6.7 11.9 0.0-- 17.0 36.9 46.0 0.0-- -Total % 1.4 23.0 11.7 0.7-36.9 2.5 24.0 1.1 0.0-27.7 15.9 1.3 2.3 0.0-19.5 2.7 5.9 7.3 0.0-15.9 -Lights 174 2945 1517 90-4726 332 3069 138 2-3541 2068 159 300 0-2527 322 755 914 1-1992 12786% Lights 92.6 97.6 98.4 94.7-97.6 99.7 97.3 95.8 100.0-97.5 99.1 93.0 98.7 --98.7 90.4 97.8 95.0 100.0-95.3 97.4Mediums 8 55 18 3-84 0 62 6 0-68 12 12 4 0-28 30 16 36 0-82 262% Mediums 4.3 1.8 1.2 3.2-1.7 0.0 2.0 4.2 0.0-1.9 0.6 7.0 1.3 --1.1 8.4 2.1 3.7 0.0-3.9 2.0Articulated Trucks 6 18 6 2-32 1 22 0 0-23 6 0 0 0-6 4 1 12 0-17 78% ArticulatedTrucks3.2 0.6 0.4 2.1-0.7 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.0-0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 --0.2 1.1 0.1 1.2 0.0-0.8 0.6Bicycles onCrosswalk- - - -10- - - - -2- - - - -0- - - - -4- -% Bicycles onCrosswalk- - - -90.9- - - - -100.0- - - - --- - - - -100.0- -Pedestrians - - - -1- - - - -0- - - - -0- - - - -0- -% Pedestrians - - - -9.1- - - - -0.0- - - - --- - - - -0.0- -
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & 34th St NSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 408/10/2021 12:00 AMEnding At08/11/2021 12:00 AMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on CrosswalkPedestriansSouthbound Ideal AvenueOut In Total472 1992 246426 82 1086 17 230 0 00 0 0504 2091 2595914 755 322 1 036 16 30 0 012 1 4 0 00 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 0962 772 356 1 4R T L U P
3680
0
0
22
89
3569
Out
3632
0
0
23
68
3541
In
7312
0
0
45
157
7110
Total
Westbound 34th Street [WB
R
144
0
0
0
6
138
T
3153
0
0
22
62
3069
L
333
0
0
1
0
332
U
2
0
0
0
0
2
P
2
0
2
0
0
0
2604 2527 513134 28 628 6 140 0 00 0 02646 2561 5207Out In TotalNorthbound Ideal AvenueU L T R P0 2068 159 300 00 12 12 4 00 6 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 2086 171 304 0Eastbound 34th Street [EB]Total10867197740011138In47268432004842Out61411134200629690320095U1748600188L29455518003018T1517186001541R00010111PTurning Movement Data Plot
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & 34th St NSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 5Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:30 AM)Start TimeEastbound 34th StreetWestbound 34th StreetNorthbound Ideal AvenueSouthbound Ideal AvenueEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalInt. Total7:30 AM 3 42 14 0059 4 74 1 0079 41 1 2 0044 4 8 11 0023 2057:45 AM 3 42 18 3066 6 65 3 0074 49 1 7 0057 9 15 23 0047 2448:00 AM 2 47 17 2068 5 67 0 0072 29 3 8 0040 4 14 19 0037 2178:15 AM 4 32 16 1053 8 61 2 0071 33 0 3 0036 10 11 15 0036 196Total12 163 65 60246 23 267 6 00296 152 5 20 00177 27 48 68 00143 862Approach % 4.9 66.3 26.4 2.4-- 7.8 90.2 2.0 0.0-- 85.9 2.8 11.3 0.0-- 18.9 33.6 47.6 0.0-- -Total % 1.4 18.9 7.5 0.7-28.5 2.7 31.0 0.7 0.0-34.3 17.6 0.6 2.3 0.0-20.5 3.1 5.6 7.9 0.0-16.6 -PHF 0.750 0.867 0.903 0.500-0.904 0.719 0.902 0.500 0.000-0.937 0.776 0.417 0.625 0.000-0.776 0.675 0.800 0.739 0.000-0.761 0.883Lights12 153 62 3-230 23 258 6 0-287 151 3 19 0-173 23 46 61 0-130 820% Lights 100.0 93.9 95.4 50.0-93.5 100.0 96.6 100.0 --97.0 99.3 60.0 95.0 --97.7 85.2 95.8 89.7 --90.9 95.1Mediums 0 8 3 3-14 0 9 0 0-9 1 2 1 0-4 4 2 7 0-13 40% Mediums 0.0 4.9 4.6 50.0-5.7 0.0 3.4 0.0 --3.0 0.7 40.0 5.0 --2.3 14.8 4.2 10.3 --9.1 4.6Articulated Trucks 0 2 0 0-2 0 0 0 0-0 0 0 0 0-0 0 0 0 0-0 2% ArticulatedTrucks0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0-0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 --0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --0.0 0.2Bicycles onCrosswalk- - - -0- - - - -0- - - - -0- - - - -0- -% Bicycles onCrosswalk- - - --- - - - --- - - - --- - - - --- -Pedestrians - - - -0- - - - -0- - - - -0- - - - -0- -% Pedestrians - - - --- - - - --- - - - --- - - - --- -
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & 34th St NSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 6Peak Hour Data08/10/2021 7:30 AMEnding At08/10/2021 8:30 AMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on CrosswalkPedestriansSouthbound Ideal AvenueOut In Total21 130 1512 13 150 0 00 0 00 0 023 143 16661 46 23 0 07 2 4 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 068 48 27 0 0R T L U P
210
0
0
2
13
195
Out
296
0
0
0
9
287
In
506
0
0
2
22
482
Total
Westbound 34th Street [WB
R
6
0
0
0
0
6
T
267
0
0
0
9
258
L
23
0
0
0
0
23
U
0
0
0
0
0
0
P
0
0
0
0
0
0
131 173 3045 4 90 0 00 0 00 0 0136 177 313Out In TotalNorthbound Ideal AvenueU L T R P0 151 3 19 00 1 2 1 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 152 5 20 0Eastbound 34th Street [EB]Total70334200739In23014200246Out47320000493330006U12000012L1538200163T62300065R000000PTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:30 AM)
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & 34th St NSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 7Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:15 PM)Start TimeEastbound 34th StreetWestbound 34th StreetNorthbound Ideal AvenueSouthbound Ideal AvenueEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalInt. Total4:15 PM 1 100 54 20157 7 67 0 1075 48 2 10 0060 4 24 18 0046 3384:30 PM 5 82 49 20138 8 78 0 0086 43 3 8 0054 5 23 20 0048 3264:45 PM 3 91 42 20138 5 80 3 0088 60 1 11 0072 9 11 15 0035 3335:00 PM 4 77 36 30120 6 59 6 0071 47 2 7 0056 6 27 21 0054 301Total13 350 181 90553 26 284 9 10320 198 8 36 00242 24 85 74 00183 1298Approach % 2.4 63.3 32.7 1.6-- 8.1 88.8 2.8 0.3-- 81.8 3.3 14.9 0.0-- 13.1 46.4 40.4 0.0-- -Total % 1.0 27.0 13.9 0.7-42.6 2.0 21.9 0.7 0.1-24.7 15.3 0.6 2.8 0.0-18.6 1.8 6.5 5.7 0.0-14.1 -PHF 0.650 0.875 0.838 0.750-0.881 0.813 0.888 0.375 0.250-0.909 0.825 0.667 0.818 0.000-0.840 0.667 0.787 0.881 0.000-0.847 0.960Lights13 346 180 9-548 25 276 9 1-311 198 8 36 0-242 23 85 69 0-177 1278% Lights 100.0 98.9 99.4 100.0-99.1 96.2 97.2 100.0 100.0-97.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 --100.0 95.8 100.0 93.2 --96.7 98.5Mediums 0 4 1 0-5 0 7 0 0-7 0 0 0 0-0 1 0 3 0-4 16% Mediums 0.0 1.1 0.6 0.0-0.9 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0-2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 --0.0 4.2 0.0 4.1 --2.2 1.2Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0-0 1 1 0 0-2 0 0 0 0-0 0 0 2 0-2 4% ArticulatedTrucks0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0-0.0 3.8 0.4 0.0 0.0-0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 --0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 --1.1 0.3Bicycles onCrosswalk- - - -0- - - - -0- - - - -0- - - - -0- -% Bicycles onCrosswalk- - - --- - - - --- - - - --- - - - --- -Pedestrians - - - -0- - - - -0- - - - -0- - - - -0- -% Pedestrians - - - --- - - - --- - - - --- - - - --- -
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & 34th St NSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 8Peak Hour Data08/10/2021 4:15 PMEnding At08/10/2021 5:15 PMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on CrosswalkPedestriansSouthbound Ideal AvenueOut In Total30 177 2070 4 40 2 20 0 00 0 030 183 21369 85 23 0 03 0 1 0 02 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 074 85 24 0 0R T L U P
411
0
0
0
5
406
Out
320
0
0
2
7
311
In
731
0
0
2
12
717
Total
Westbound 34th Street [WB
R
9
0
0
0
0
9
T
284
0
0
1
7
276
L
26
0
0
1
0
25
U
1
0
0
0
0
1
P
0
0
0
0
0
0
290 242 5321 0 11 0 10 0 00 0 0292 242 534Out In TotalNorthbound Ideal AvenueU L T R P0 198 8 36 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 198 8 36 0Eastbound 34th Street [EB]Total1100153001118In5485000553Out55210300565900009U13000013L3464000350T1801000181R000000PTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:15 PM)
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & 32nd StreetSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 1Turning Movement DataStart TimeEastbound 32nd StreetSouthbound Ideal AvenueSouthbound Ideal AvenueEastboundNorthboundSouthboundLeftRight U-Turn Peds App. Total LeftThru U-Turn Peds App. Total Thru Right U-Turn Peds App. Total Int. Total7:00 AM13004111900301730020547:15 AM0700772400311070017557:30 AM05005144700612140025917:45 AM490013165100673640040120Hourly Total524002948141001898418001023208:00 AM6110017103200423260038978:15 AM01000102136005732500371048:30 AM0110011123700492170028888:45 AM39001213400053209002994Hourly Total941005056145002011052700132383*** BREAK ***----------------4:00 PM93100403245007754600601774:15 PM732003917460063731200851874:30 PM530003532530085741200862064:45 PM10320042355900945160057193Hourly Total31125001561162030031925236002887635:00 PM64200482950007952800601875:15 PM53402392269009159900681985:30 PM224012632940012647600532055:45 PM52200272569009440110051172Hourly Total1812203140108282003901983400232762Grand Total6331203375328771001099639115007542228Approach %16.883.20.0--29.870.20.0--84.715.30.0---Total %2.814.00.0-16.814.734.60.0-49.328.75.20.0-33.8-Lights623090-3713267660-10926281110-7392202% Lights98.499.0--98.999.499.4--99.498.396.5--98.098.8Mediums030-3250-71000-1020% Mediums0.01.0--0.80.60.6--0.61.60.0--1.30.9Articulated Trucks100-1000-0140-56% Articulated Trucks1.60.0--0.30.00.0--0.00.23.5--0.70.3Bicycles on Crosswalk---3----0----0--% Bicycles on Crosswalk ---100.0------------Pedestrians---0----0----0--% Pedestrians---0.0------------
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & 32nd StreetSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 208/10/2021 7:00 AMEnding At08/10/2021 6:00 PMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on CrosswalkPedestriansSouthbound Ideal AvenueOut In Total828 739 15675 10 151 5 60 0 00 0 0834 754 1588111 628 0 00 10 0 04 1 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0115 639 0 0R T U P937 1092 202913 7 201 0 10 0 00 0 0951 1099 2050Out In TotalSouthbound Ideal AvenueU L T P0 326 766 00 2 5 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 328 771 0Eastbound 32nd Street [EB]Total8085500818In3713100375Out4372400443000000U62010063L3093000312R000303PTurning Movement Data Plot
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & 32nd StreetSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 3Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:30 AM)Start TimeEastbound 32nd StreetSouthbound Ideal AvenueSouthbound Ideal AvenueEastboundNorthboundSouthboundLeftRight U-Turn Peds App. Total LeftThru U-Turn Peds App. Total Thru Right U-Turn Peds App. Total Int. Total7:30 AM05005144700612140025917:45 AM4900131651006736400401208:00 AM6110017103200423260038978:15 AM0100010213600573250037104Total1035004561166002271211900140412Approach %22.277.80.0--26.973.10.0--86.413.60.0---Total %2.48.50.0-10.914.840.30.0-55.129.44.60.0-34.0-PHF0.417 0.795 0.000-0.662 0.726 0.814 0.000-0.847 0.840 0.792 0.000-0.875 0.858Lights10350-45611630-224115190-134403% Lights100.0 100.0--100.0 100.0 98.2--98.795.0 100.0--95.797.8Mediums000-0030-3600-69% Mediums0.00.0--0.00.01.8--1.35.00.0--4.32.2Articulated Trucks000-0000-0000-00% Articulated Trucks0.00.0--0.00.00.0--0.00.00.0--0.00.0Bicycles on Crosswalk---0----0----0--% Bicycles on Crosswalk ----------------Pedestrians---0----0----0--% Pedestrians----------------
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & 32nd StreetSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 4Peak Hour Data08/10/2021 7:30 AMEnding At08/10/2021 8:30 AMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on CrosswalkPedestriansSouthbound Ideal AvenueOut In Total173 134 3073 6 90 0 00 0 00 0 0176 140 31619 115 0 00 6 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 019 121 0 0R T U P150 224 3746 3 90 0 00 0 00 0 0156 227 383Out In TotalSouthbound Ideal AvenueU L T P0 61 163 00 0 3 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 61 166 0Eastbound 32nd Street [EB]Total1250000125In45000045Out80000080000000U10000010L35000035R000000PTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:30 AM)
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & 32nd StreetSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 5Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:30 PM)Start TimeEastbound 32nd StreetSouthbound Ideal AvenueSouthbound Ideal AvenueEastboundNorthboundSouthboundLeftRight U-Turn Peds App. Total LeftThru U-Turn Peds App. Total Thru Right U-Turn Peds App. Total Int. Total4:30 PM530003532530085741200862064:45 PM103200423559009451600571935:00 PM64200482950007952800601875:15 PM5340239226900915990068198Total2613802164118231003492363500271784Approach %15.984.10.0--33.866.20.0--87.112.90.0---Total %3.317.60.0-20.915.129.50.0-44.530.14.50.0-34.6-PHF0.650 0.821 0.000-0.854 0.843 0.837 0.000-0.928 0.797 0.729 0.000-0.788 0.951Lights251370-1621182310-349235350-270781% Lights96.299.3--98.8 100.0 100.0--100.0 99.6 100.0--99.699.6Mediums010-1000-0100-12% Mediums0.00.7--0.60.00.0--0.00.40.0--0.40.3Articulated Trucks100-1000-0000-01% Articulated Trucks3.80.0--0.60.00.0--0.00.00.0--0.00.1Bicycles on Crosswalk---2----0----0--% Bicycles on Crosswalk ---100.0------------Pedestrians---0----0----0--% Pedestrians---0.0------------
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & 32nd StreetSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 6Peak Hour Data08/10/2021 4:30 PMEnding At08/10/2021 5:30 PMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on CrosswalkPedestriansSouthbound Ideal AvenueOut In Total256 270 5260 1 11 0 10 0 00 0 0257 271 52835 235 0 00 1 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 035 236 0 0R T U P372 349 7212 0 20 0 00 0 00 0 0374 349 723Out In TotalSouthbound Ideal AvenueU L T P0 118 231 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 118 231 0Eastbound 32nd Street [EB]Total3151100317In1621100164Out1530000153000000U25010026L1371000138R000202PTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:30 PM)
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & 31st StreetSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 1Turning Movement DataStart TimeEastbound 31st StreetNorthbound Ideal AvenueSouthbound Ideal AvenueEastboundNorthboundSouthboundLeftRight U-Turn Peds App. Total LeftThru U-Turn Peds App. Total Thru Right U-Turn Peds App. Total Int. Total7:00 AM3201502700272300023557:15 AM3201503100311900019557:30 AM6200815600572410025907:45 AM3000306400644100041108Hourly Total15602211178001791071001083088:00 AM4000403600363820040808:15 AM50015154005539200411018:30 AM6101714500462660032858:45 AM100110530053320003286Hourly Total16103172188001901351000145352*** BREAK ***----------------4:00 PM33006267006985400891644:15 PM2106316200631022001041704:30 PM340270820082985001031924:45 PM5300868800947850083185Hourly Total1311082492990030836316003797115:00 PM52007275007787500921765:15 PM850713280008285700921875:30 PM3301631280013163700702075:45 PM2201429300956020062161Hourly Total181209309376003852952100316731Grand Total62300229221104100106290048009482102Approach %67.432.60.0--2.098.00.0--94.95.10.0---Total %2.91.40.0-4.41.049.50.0-50.542.82.30.0-45.1-Lights61290-902010350-1055888480-9362081% Lights98.496.7--97.895.299.4--99.398.7 100.0--98.799.0Mediums110-2160-71100-1120% Mediums1.63.3--2.24.80.6--0.71.20.0--1.21.0Articulated Trucks000-0000-0100-11% Articulated Trucks0.00.0--0.00.00.0--0.00.10.0--0.10.0Bicycles on Crosswalk---10----0----0--% Bicycles on Crosswalk ---45.5------------Pedestrians---12----0----0--% Pedestrians---54.5------------
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & 31st StreetSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 208/10/2021 7:00 AMEnding At08/10/2021 6:00 PMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on CrosswalkPedestriansSouthbound Ideal AvenueOut In Total1096 936 20327 11 180 1 10 0 00 0 01103 948 205148 888 0 00 11 0 00 1 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 048 900 0 0R T U P917 1055 197212 7 191 0 10 0 00 0 0930 1062 1992Out In TotalNorthbound Ideal AvenueU L T P0 20 1035 00 1 6 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 21 1041 0Eastbound 31st Street [EB]Total1583000161In90200092Out68100069000000U61100062L29100030R000101222PTurning Movement Data Plot
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & 31st StreetSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 3Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:30 AM)Start TimeEastbound 31st StreetNorthbound Ideal AvenueSouthbound Ideal AvenueEastboundNorthboundSouthboundLeftRight U-Turn Peds App. Total LeftThru U-Turn Peds App. Total Thru Right U-Turn Peds App. Total Int. Total7:30 AM6200815600572410025907:45 AM30003064006441000411088:00 AM4000403600363820040808:15 AM5001515400553920041101Total1820120221000212142500147379Approach %90.010.00.0--0.999.10.0--96.63.40.0---Total %4.70.50.0-5.30.555.40.0-55.937.51.30.0-38.8-PHF0.750 0.250 0.000-0.625 0.500 0.820 0.000-0.828 0.866 0.625 0.000-0.896 0.877Lights1720-1922080-21013750-142371% Lights94.4 100.0--95.0 100.0 99.0--99.196.5 100.0--96.697.9Mediums100-1020-2400-47% Mediums5.60.0--5.00.01.0--0.92.80.0--2.71.8Articulated Trucks000-0000-0100-11% Articulated Trucks0.00.0--0.00.00.0--0.00.70.0--0.70.3Bicycles on Crosswalk---0----0----0--% Bicycles on Crosswalk ---0.0------------Pedestrians---1----0----0--% Pedestrians---100.0------------
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & 31st StreetSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 4Peak Hour Data08/10/2021 7:30 AMEnding At08/10/2021 8:30 AMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on CrosswalkPedestriansSouthbound Ideal AvenueOut In Total225 142 3673 4 70 1 10 0 00 0 0228 147 3755 137 0 00 4 0 00 1 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 05 142 0 0R T U P139 210 3494 2 61 0 10 0 00 0 0144 212 356Out In TotalNorthbound Ideal AvenueU L T P0 2 208 00 0 2 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 2 210 0Eastbound 31st Street [EB]Total26100027In19100020Out700007000000U17100018L200002R000011PTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:30 AM)
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & 31st StreetSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 5Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:45 PM)Start TimeEastbound 31st StreetNorthbound Ideal AvenueSouthbound Ideal AvenueEastboundNorthboundSouthboundLeftRight U-Turn Peds App. Total LeftThru U-Turn Peds App. Total Thru Right U-Turn Peds App. Total Int. Total4:45 PM53008688009478500831855:00 PM52007275007787500921765:15 PM850713280008285700921875:30 PM330163128001316370070207Total2113083413371003843132400337755Approach %61.838.20.0--3.496.60.0--92.97.10.0---Total %2.81.70.0-4.51.749.10.0-50.941.53.20.0-44.6-PHF0.656 0.650 0.000-0.654 0.542 0.725 0.000-0.733 0.899 0.857 0.000-0.916 0.912Lights21130-34133710-384312240-336754% Lights100.0 100.0--100.0 100.0 100.0--100.0 99.7 100.0--99.799.9Mediums000-0000-0100-11% Mediums0.00.0--0.00.00.0--0.00.30.0--0.30.1Articulated Trucks000-0000-0000-00% Articulated Trucks0.00.0--0.00.00.0--0.00.00.0--0.00.0Bicycles on Crosswalk---4----0----0--% Bicycles on Crosswalk ---50.0------------Pedestrians---4----0----0--% Pedestrians---50.0------------
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & 31st StreetSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 6Peak Hour Data08/10/2021 4:45 PMEnding At08/10/2021 5:45 PMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on CrosswalkPedestriansSouthbound Ideal AvenueOut In Total392 336 7280 1 10 0 00 0 00 0 0392 337 72924 312 0 00 1 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 024 313 0 0R T U P325 384 7091 0 10 0 00 0 00 0 0326 384 710Out In TotalNorthbound Ideal AvenueU L T P0 13 371 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 13 371 0Eastbound 31st Street [EB]Total71000071In34000034Out37000037000000U21000021L13000013R000448PTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:45 PM)
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & StillwaterBoulevardSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 1Turning Movement DataStart TimeEastbound Stillwater BoulevardWestbound Stillwater BoulevardNorthbound Ideal AvenueSouthbound Ideal AvenueEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalInt. Total7:00 AM 7 17 2 0126 2 11 9 0022 0 18 3 0021 15 3 7 0025 947:15 AM 6 17 1 0024 3 9 12 0024 2 12 7 0021 14 7 3 0024 937:30 AM 12 22 0 0034 3 16 20 0039 2 19 2 0023 8 7 4 0019 1157:45 AM 11 13 0 0024 1 10 30 0041 0 25 5 0030 22 11 12 0045 140Hourly Total 36 69 3 01108 9 46 71 00126 4 74 17 0095 59 28 26 00113 4428:00 AM 10 5 1 0016 3 9 18 0030 3 9 2 0014 16 10 10 0136 968:15 AM 19 13 2 0034 4 14 22 0040 4 16 3 0023 19 16 5 0040 1378:30 AM 11 14 0 0325 2 16 13 0031 0 16 5 0021 10 9 7 0026 1038:45 AM 10 17 0 0227 0 14 25 1040 2 23 4 0029 12 16 4 0032 128Hourly Total 50 49 3 05102 9 53 78 10141 9 64 14 0087 57 51 26 01134 464*** BREAK *** - - - --- - - - --- - - - --- - - - --- -4:00 PM 20 32 2 0054 4 35 33 0072 4 28 2 0034 34 34 18 0086 2464:15 PM 10 25 3 0738 7 34 35 0076 2 19 9 0030 48 29 31 00108 2524:30 PM 12 37 6 0055 8 28 43 0079 3 26 7 0036 39 31 23 0093 2634:45 PM 18 27 7 0252 8 26 46 0080 3 29 4 0036 33 38 19 0090 258Hourly Total 60 121 18 09199 27 123 157 00307 12 102 22 00136 154 132 91 00377 10195:00 PM 21 23 3 0047 6 35 26 0067 3 24 5 0032 32 36 22 0090 2365:15 PM 7 21 5 0533 8 29 40 0077 2 42 5 0049 46 23 15 0084 2435:30 PM 17 26 4 0147 7 34 63 00104 2 45 10 0057 28 25 20 0073 2815:45 PM 11 25 3 0039 8 26 60 0094 3 25 3 0031 29 20 11 0060 224Hourly Total 56 95 15 06166 29 124 189 00342 10 136 23 00169 135 104 68 00307 984Grand Total 202 334 39 021575 74 346 495 10916 35 376 76 00487 405 315 211 01931 2909Approach % 35.1 58.1 6.8 0.0-- 8.1 37.8 54.0 0.1-- 7.2 77.2 15.6 0.0-- 43.5 33.8 22.7 0.0-- -Total % 6.9 11.5 1.3 0.0-19.8 2.5 11.9 17.0 0.0-31.5 1.2 12.9 2.6 0.0-16.7 13.9 10.8 7.3 0.0-32.0 -Lights 199 331 39 0-569 73 339 491 1-904 35 374 76 0-485 399 312 206 0-917 2875% Lights 98.5 99.1 100.0 --99.0 98.6 98.0 99.2 100.0-98.7 100.0 99.5 100.0 --99.6 98.5 99.0 97.6 --98.5 98.8Mediums 3 3 0 0-6 1 7 4 0-12 0 2 0 0-2 5 3 5 0-13 33% Mediums 1.5 0.9 0.0 --1.0 1.4 2.0 0.8 0.0-1.3 0.0 0.5 0.0 --0.4 1.2 1.0 2.4 --1.4 1.1Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0-0 0 0 0 0-0 0 0 0 0-0 1 0 0 0-1 1% ArticulatedTrucks0.0 0.0 0.0 --0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0-0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 --0.1 0.0Bicycles onCrosswalk- - - -6- - - - -0- - - - -0- - - - -0- -% Bicycles onCrosswalk- - - -28.6- - - - --- - - - --- - - - -0.0- -Pedestrians - - - -15- - - - -0- - - - -0- - - - -1- -% Pedestrians - - - -71.4- - - - --- - - - --- - - - -100.0- -
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & StillwaterBoulevardSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 208/10/2021 7:00 AMEnding At08/10/2021 6:00 PMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on CrosswalkPedestriansSouthbound Ideal AvenueOut In Total1064 917 19819 13 220 1 10 0 00 0 01073 931 2004206 312 399 0 05 3 5 0 00 0 1 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 1211 315 405 0 1R T L U P
816
0
0
1
8
807
Out
916
0
0
0
12
904
In
1732
0
0
1
20
1711
Total
Westbound Stillwater Boule
R
495
0
0
0
4
491
T
346
0
0
0
7
339
L
74
0
0
0
1
73
U
1
0
0
0
0
1
P
0
0
0
0
0
0
424 485 9094 2 60 0 00 0 00 0 0428 487 915Out In TotalNorthbound Ideal AvenueU L T R P0 35 374 76 00 0 2 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 35 376 76 0Eastbound Stillwater BoulevTotal1149180001167In5696000575Out58012000592000000U1993000202L3313000334T39000039R00061521PTurning Movement Data Plot
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & StillwaterBoulevardSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 3Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:30 AM)Start TimeEastbound Stillwater BoulevardWestbound Stillwater BoulevardNorthbound Ideal AvenueSouthbound Ideal AvenueEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalInt. Total7:30 AM 12 22 0 0034 3 16 20 0039 2 19 2 0023 8 7 4 0019 1157:45 AM 11 13 0 0024 1 10 30 0041 0 25 5 0030 22 11 12 0045 1408:00 AM 10 5 1 0016 3 9 18 0030 3 9 2 0014 16 10 10 0136 968:15 AM 19 13 2 0034 4 14 22 0040 4 16 3 0023 19 16 5 0040 137Total52 53 3 00108 11 49 90 00150 9 69 12 0090 65 44 31 01140 488Approach % 48.1 49.1 2.8 0.0-- 7.3 32.7 60.0 0.0-- 10.0 76.7 13.3 0.0-- 46.4 31.4 22.1 0.0-- -Total % 10.7 10.9 0.6 0.0-22.1 2.3 10.0 18.4 0.0-30.7 1.8 14.1 2.5 0.0-18.4 13.3 9.0 6.4 0.0-28.7 -PHF 0.684 0.602 0.375 0.000-0.794 0.688 0.766 0.750 0.000-0.915 0.563 0.690 0.600 0.000-0.750 0.739 0.688 0.646 0.000-0.778 0.871Lights51 52 3 0-106 11 45 87 0-143 9 69 12 0-90 64 42 29 0-135 474% Lights 98.1 98.1 100.0 --98.1 100.0 91.8 96.7 --95.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 --100.0 98.5 95.5 93.5 --96.4 97.1Mediums 1 1 0 0-2 0 4 3 0-7 0 0 0 0-0 1 2 2 0-5 14% Mediums 1.9 1.9 0.0 --1.9 0.0 8.2 3.3 --4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 --0.0 1.5 4.5 6.5 --3.6 2.9Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0-0 0 0 0 0-0 0 0 0 0-0 0 0 0 0-0 0% ArticulatedTrucks0.0 0.0 0.0 --0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --0.0 0.0Bicycles onCrosswalk- - - -0- - - - -0- - - - -0- - - - -0- -% Bicycles onCrosswalk- - - --- - - - --- - - - --- - - - -0.0- -Pedestrians - - - -0- - - - -0- - - - -0- - - - -1- -% Pedestrians - - - --- - - - --- - - - --- - - - -100.0- -
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & StillwaterBoulevardSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 4Peak Hour Data08/10/2021 7:30 AMEnding At08/10/2021 8:30 AMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on CrosswalkPedestriansSouthbound Ideal AvenueOut In Total207 135 3424 5 90 0 00 0 00 0 0211 140 35129 42 64 0 02 2 1 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 131 44 65 0 1R T L U P
130
0
0
0
2
128
Out
150
0
0
0
7
143
In
280
0
0
0
9
271
Total
Westbound Stillwater Boule
R
90
0
0
0
3
87
T
49
0
0
0
4
45
L
11
0
0
0
0
11
U
0
0
0
0
0
0
P
0
0
0
0
0
0
56 90 1462 0 20 0 00 0 00 0 058 90 148Out In TotalNorthbound Ideal AvenueU L T R P0 9 69 12 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 9 69 12 0Eastbound Stillwater BoulevTotal1898000197In1062000108Out83600089000000U51100052L52100053T300003R000000PTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:30 AM)
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & StillwaterBoulevardSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 5Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:00 PM)Start TimeEastbound Stillwater BoulevardWestbound Stillwater BoulevardNorthbound Ideal AvenueSouthbound Ideal AvenueEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalInt. Total4:00 PM 20 32 2 0054 4 35 33 0072 4 28 2 0034 34 34 18 0086 2464:15 PM 10 25 3 0738 7 34 35 0076 2 19 9 0030 48 29 31 00108 2524:30 PM 12 37 6 0055 8 28 43 0079 3 26 7 0036 39 31 23 0093 2634:45 PM 18 27 7 0252 8 26 46 0080 3 29 4 0036 33 38 19 0090 258Total60 121 18 09199 27 123 157 00307 12 102 22 00136 154 132 91 00377 1019Approach % 30.2 60.8 9.0 0.0-- 8.8 40.1 51.1 0.0-- 8.8 75.0 16.2 0.0-- 40.8 35.0 24.1 0.0-- -Total % 5.9 11.9 1.8 0.0-19.5 2.6 12.1 15.4 0.0-30.1 1.2 10.0 2.2 0.0-13.3 15.1 13.0 8.9 0.0-37.0 -PHF 0.750 0.818 0.643 0.000-0.905 0.844 0.879 0.853 0.000-0.959 0.750 0.879 0.611 0.000-0.944 0.802 0.868 0.734 0.000-0.873 0.969Lights59 120 18 0-197 27 121 157 0-305 12 102 22 0-136 152 132 90 0-374 1012% Lights 98.3 99.2 100.0 --99.0 100.0 98.4 100.0 --99.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 --100.0 98.7 100.0 98.9 --99.2 99.3Mediums 1 1 0 0-2 0 2 0 0-2 0 0 0 0-0 1 0 1 0-2 6% Mediums 1.7 0.8 0.0 --1.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 --0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 --0.0 0.6 0.0 1.1 --0.5 0.6Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0-0 0 0 0 0-0 0 0 0 0-0 1 0 0 0-1 1% ArticulatedTrucks0.0 0.0 0.0 --0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 --0.3 0.1Bicycles onCrosswalk- - - -4- - - - -0- - - - -0- - - - -0- -% Bicycles onCrosswalk- - - -44.4- - - - --- - - - --- - - - --- -Pedestrians - - - -5- - - - -0- - - - -0- - - - -0- -% Pedestrians - - - -55.6- - - - --- - - - --- - - - --- -
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & StillwaterBoulevardSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 6Peak Hour Data08/10/2021 4:00 PMEnding At08/10/2021 5:00 PMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on CrosswalkPedestriansSouthbound Ideal AvenueOut In Total318 374 6921 2 30 1 10 0 00 0 0319 377 69690 132 152 0 01 0 1 0 00 0 1 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 091 132 154 0 0R T L U P
297
0
0
1
2
294
Out
307
0
0
0
2
305
In
604
0
0
1
4
599
Total
Westbound Stillwater Boule
R
157
0
0
0
0
157
T
123
0
0
0
2
121
L
27
0
0
0
0
27
U
0
0
0
0
0
0
P
0
0
0
0
0
0
177 136 3130 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 0177 136 313Out In TotalNorthbound Ideal AvenueU L T R P0 12 102 22 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 12 102 22 0Eastbound Stillwater BoulevTotal4205000425In1972000199Out2233000226000000U59100060L1201000121T18000018R000459PTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:00 PM)
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Stillwater Boulevard RoundaboutNBRSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 1Direction (Northbound)Start TimeLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksTotal7:00 AM2210237:15 AM3200327:30 AM3220347:45 AM2500258:00 AM2200228:15 AM2200228:30 AM2300238:45 AM2800284:00 PM5600564:15 PM4700474:30 PM7710784:45 PM6100615:00 PM5500555:15 PM5900595:30 PM7500755:45 PM550055Total69140695Total %99.40.60.0100.0AM Times7:00 AM7:00 AM7:00 AM7:00 AMAM Peaks11130114PM Times4:30 PM4:00 PM4:00 PM4:30 PMPM Peaks25210253
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Stillwater Boulevard RoundaboutNBRSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 2
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Jamaca Avenue Roundabout SBRSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 1Direction (Southbound)Start TimeLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksTotal7:00 AM70077:15 AM1600167:30 AM81097:45 AM1000108:00 AM1400148:15 AM1400148:30 AM910108:45 AM80084:00 PM1300134:15 PM90094:30 PM60064:45 PM60065:00 PM30035:15 PM50055:30 PM70075:45 PM7007Total14220144Total %98.61.40.0100.0AM Times7:15 AM7:00 AM7:00 AM7:15 AMAM Peaks481049PM Times4:00 PM4:00 PM4:00 PM4:00 PMPM Peaks340034
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Jamaca Avenue Roundabout SBRSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 2
43 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
Appendix C :
Site Plan
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 7 January 2022
Scenario 1, Scenario 2, and Scenario 3 Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 evaluate the same anticipated development of the AUAR study area lying south of 34th Street N, which is the area the project proposer plans to develop. Construction of the parcels south of 34th Street N is anticipated to begin in 2022 and built over two phases with construction complete by 2024. The AUAR study area lying north of 34th Street N will be developed later and there are no known development plans. To account for the unknown plans for the north area, different land use patterns with varying densities are evaluated in Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 and are based on the City’s completed Master Plan process. Roadway infrastructure supporting Scenarios 1, 2, and 3
includes access from 34th Street N and Ideal Avenue N. The scenario plans identify three access points into the area south of 34th Street N and two access points into the northern portion of the study area. The AUAR study area will be connected to the public municipal water and regional sanitary sewer systems. Stormwater management will be provided locally onsite as part of any development.
Scenario 4
Scenario 4 is consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan which permits the development of the parcels south of 34th Street N for Business Park uses and the parcels north of 34th Street N for rural residential uses, continued agriculture, and the public works facility.
Table 1: Development Scenarios
Land Use Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4
Business Park ~1.1 million square feet ~1.1 million square feet ~2.2 million square feet ~1.1 million square feet
Mixed-Use Business Park
400 residential units 653,400 square feet business/light industrial
210 residential units 457,380 square feet business/light industrial
-- --
Commercial 91,500 square feet 178,596 square feet 91,500 square feet --
Rural Area Development (Residential) 10 residential units
Low Density Residential -- 56 residential units 56 residential units --
Medium Density Residential -- 124 residential units -- --
Existing Public Works Building 7.4 acres 7.4 acres 7.4 acres 7.4
Park 8 acres 8 acres 8 acres 0 acres
Ponding 15 acres 15 acres 15 acres 0 acres
Right-of-Way 6 acres 6 acres 6 acres 6 acres
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 8 January 2022
Figure 3: Development Scenario 1
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 9 January 2022
Figure 4: Development Scenario 2
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 10 January 2022
Figure 5: Development Scenario 3
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 11 January 2022
Figure 6: Development Scenario 4
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
44
Appendix D:
NorthPoint Development Trip
Generation Study
NORTHPOINT DEVELOPMENT
TRAFFIC TRIP GENERATION
ANALYSIS
December 30, 2019
Prepared For:
NorthPoint Development
4825 NW 41st Street, Suite 500
Riverside, MO 64150
Prepared By:
Priority Engineers, Inc.
PO Box 563
Garden City, MO 64747
December 30, 2019
Mr. Chris Chancellor, P.E.
Northpoint Development
4825 NW 41st Street, Suite 500
Riverside, MO 64150
RE: NorthPoint Trip Generation Traffic Study - Edgerton KS, Kansas City
MO, Birmingham MO, Riverside MO and Hazelwood MO Northpoint Facilities
Dear Mr. Chancellor:
In response to your request, Priority Engineers, Inc. has completed a traffic
impact analysis for the above referenced project. The purpose of the analysis is to
determine the most appropriate traffic trip generation rates for NorthPoint developments
based upon these five existing operational NorthPoint developments. The following
report documents our analysis and recommendations.
We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. Please contact
us with any questions or if you require additional information.
Sincerely,
PRIORITY ENGINEERS, INC.
Jesse J Skinner, P.E., PTOE
Senior Traffic Engineer
Priority Engineers, Inc.
PO Box 563
Garden City, MO 64747
816.738.4400
Table of Contents
Section Page No.
1) INTRODUCTION 1
2) DATA 1
3) DATA ANALYSIS 1
4) TRIP GENERATION RATES (SQ. FT. GFA) 3
5) TRIP GENERATION RATES (EMPLOYEES) 9
6) TRUCK TRAFFIC 14
7) CONCLUSIONS 14
APPENDIX I
ITE LAND USE DESCRIPTIONS
APPENDIX II
REAR LOADING DOCK BUILDINGS
APPENDIX III
LARGE CROSS DOCK BUILDINGS
APPENDIX IV
SMALLER CROSS DOCK BUILDINGS
APPENDIX V
ALL CROSS DOCK BUILDINGS
APPENDIX VI
ALL BUILDINGS
December 30, 2019
NorthPoint Development Trip Generation Study
1
1) INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study is to determine more specific trip generation data for the similar land
uses within NorthPoint Development properties. As part of this study, five sites were evaluated.
These sites were located in Edgerton KS, Kansas City MO, Birmingham MO, Riverside MO, and
Hazelwood MO.
2) DATA
The data was collected on “average weekdays” in May, June, and July of 2019. For the
purposes of this study, only data collected on Tuesdays through Thursdays was utilized. Data
was not collected near national holidays. Data was not collected when there was a potential
conflict with major local events.
Data was collected via traffic cameras and analyzed with additional software with the exception
of one location where a tube counter was utilized. Individual entrances into buildings were
collected for 24 hours in 15-minute time intervals. Traffic was classified as passenger vehicle
and truck traffic. Passenger vehicles include motorcycles, cars, and some pick-up trucks (FHWA
class 1, 2, and some class 3) whereas truck traffic was selected for vehicles most likely
requiring a commercial drivers license (some FWHA class 3, all class 4 and above).
There were 28 buildings total that had data for each entrance collected. These buildings ranged
in size between 50,000 sq. ft. and 927,112 sq. ft. NorthPoint Development was able to provide
the number of employees for 26 of the buildings studied.
3) DATA ANALYSIS
Regression analysis was applied to the data using methodologies similar to those used in the
ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. The data analysis includes truck specific analysis not
found in ITE’s Trip Generation Manual. Users of this data are encouraged to apply the same
guidance as found in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition in regards to determining if
the fitted curve, the average rate, or additional local data needs to be collected before using a
specific time period and independent variable’s trip generation rate.
While several of the study locations (most notably Edgerton KS, and Hazelwood MO) had public
transportation stops located within the study site, there was not a significant amount of
pedestrian traffic observed. The majority of pedestrians appeared to be recreational in nature as
opposed to commuting.
The most logical nearby street was selected for each study site and an AM and PM Peak Count
was also performed to determine when the peak period of the adjacent street occurred. Table 1
shows the relationship between the adjacent street Peak Hours and the Peak Hour of the
Generator for each building within the five study areas.
December 30, 2019
NorthPoint Development Trip Generation Study
2
Table1: Peak Hour Comparison
Location
Building
Designation
(NorthPoint)
AM Peak
Period (Gen)
PM Peak
Period (Gen)
AM Peak
Period (Adj
Street)
PM Peak
Period (Adj
Street)
Hazelwood
I 6:30-7:30 15:15-16:15 7:00-8:00 16:45-17:45
II 5:15-6:15 14:15-15:15 7:00-8:00 16:45-17:45
III 1:45-2:45 18:30-19:30 7:00-8:00 16:45-17:45
IV 10:45-11:30 12:15-13:15 7:00-8:00 16:45-17:45
V 7:45-8:45 13:15-14:15 7:00-8:00 16:45-17:45
VI 7:30-8:30 16:45-17:45 7:00-8:00 16:45-17:45
VII 10:45-11:45 14:45-15:45 7:00-8:00 16:45-17:45
Three Trails
TT1 12:00-1:00 16:30-17:30 07:15-08:15 17:00-180:00
TT2 11:00-12:00 16:30-17:30 07:15-08:15 17:00-180:00
TT3 06:15-07:15 14:00-15:00 07:15-08:15 17:00-180:00
NLP
NLPI 7:15-8:15 14:45-15:45 7:00-8:00 16:30-17:30
NLPII 6:15-7:15 16:15-17:15 7:00-8:00 16:30-17:30
NLPIII 5:30-6:30 13:30-14:30 7:00-8:00 16:30-17:30
LPKC
II 11:15-12:15 14:15-15:15 06:00-0:700 15:00-16:00
IV 7:45-8:45 16:30-17:30 06:00-0:700 15:00-16:00
V 11:00-12:00 14:00-15:00 06:00-0:700 15:00-16:00
XI 05:00-06:00 14:30-15:30 06:00-0:700 15:00-16:00
XII 06:00-07:00 17:45-18:45 06:00-0:700 15:00-16:00
XIV 06:15-07:15 17:30-18:30 06:00-0:700 15:00-16:00
XV 11:00-12:00 15:00-16:00 06:00-0:700 15:00-16:00
XXXI 11:30-12:30 14:15-15:15 06:00-0:700 15:00-16:00
XXXII 11:30-12:30 14:15-15:15 06:00-0:700 15:00-16:00
XXXIII 04:00-05:00 15:00-16:00 06:00-0:700 15:00-16:00
Horizons
H1 7:30-8:30 16:45-17:45 7:15-8:15 16:45-17:45
H2 6:15-7:15 16:00-17:00 7:15-8:15 16:45-17:45
H4 5:45-6:45 16:15-17:15 7:15-8:15 16:45-17:45
H5 6:15-7:15 15:00-16:00 7:15-8:15 16:45-17:45
Gallagher 11:15-12:15 16:15-17:15 7:15-8:15 16:45-17:45
December 30, 2019
NorthPoint Development Trip Generation Study
3
In general, the Kansas City Metropolitan Area’s Peak Hours can be categorized as most often
occurring between 06:30 and 09:30 and 15:30 and 18:00. Factors that commonly affect Peak
Hour variability includes the amount of commuter traffic and the distance of the commute, the
amount of retail destinations near the study area, and the presence of schools near the study
area. While the individual land uses within the study sites are similar, the Peak Hour for each
business varied greatly depending upon the specifics of each business such as staffing
schedules and if the business had a large number of the trucks entering or exiting the building in
a short period of time. The majority of the buildings had the Peak Hours of the generator
occurring at times other than the Peak Hour of the adjacent street.
4) TRIP GENERATION RATES (SQ. FT. AS INDEPENDENT VARIABLE)
NorthPoint Development’s study areas typically have buildings with loading docks located in the
back of the building or along one or two of the longer sides of the building. Buildings with rear
loading docks tended to be smaller in size (108,273 sq. ft to 243,230 sq. ft.). Buildings with
docks located on one or more of the long sides of the building tended to have a larger range,
and all but one of them are in excess of 325,000 sq. ft. in size and ranging in size up to 927,112
sq. ft.
Trip rates were analyzed for the following building types:
• rear loading docks (7 buildings)
• smaller cross dock (less than 600,000 sq. ft, 15 buildings)
• larger cross dock buildings (6 buildings)
• all cross dock buildings (21 buildings)
• overall aggregate of all 28 buildings
While less common than the cross-dock buildings and smaller in size, the rear loading dock
buildings tended to have a significantly higher trip rate generation than buildings with cross
docks. Table 2 below summarizes the Trip Generation Rates for rear loading cross dock
facilities and compares them to similar ITE Land Uses. Land uses used for comparison are as
follows:
• Land Use 130 = Industrial Park
• Land Use 140 = Manufacturing
• Land Use 150 = Warehousing
• Land Use 154 = High-Cube Transload and Short-Term Storage Warehouse
ITE Land Use descriptions are provided in Appendix I. Raw data and graphs associated with
data analysis are also contained in Appendix II-VI.
December 30, 2019
NorthPoint Development Trip Generation Study
4
Table 2: Trip Generation Rate - Rear Loading Dock Buildings
Weighted Average Rate (1000 Sq. Ft.) Equation R^2
Weekday
Land Use 130 3.37 Ln(T) = 0.52 Ln(X) + 4.45 0.58
Land Use 140 3.93 T = 3.16(X) + 160.04 0.82
Land Use 150 1.74 T = 1.58(X) + 45.54 0.93
Land Use 154 1.4 Not Provided Not Provided
Rear Loading Dock 6.2 y = 0.0021x2.4517 = 0.5209
AM Peak Hour Adj. St.
Land Use 130 0.4 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 140 0.62 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 150 0.17 T = 0.12(X) + 25.32 0.69
Land Use 154 0.08 Not Provided Not Provided
Rear Loading Dock 0.55 Not Provided Not Provided
PM Peak Hour Adj. St.
Land Use 130 0.4 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 140 0.67 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 150 0.19 T = 0.12(X) + 27.82 0.65
Land Use 154 0.1 Not Provided Not Provided
Rear Loading Dock 0.42 Not Provided Not Provided
AM Peak Hour Generator
Land Use 130 0.41 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 140 .81 T = 0.61(X) + 34.25 .80
Land Use 150 .85 T = 0.11(X) + 30.07 .85
Land Use 154 .12 Not Provided Not Provided
Rear Loading Dock 0.67 Not Provided Not Provided
PM Peak Hour Generator
Land Use 130 0.40 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 140 .79 T = 0.62(X) + 29.00 .76
Land Use 150 .24 T = 0.15(X) + 22.52 .91
Land Use 154 .16 Not Provided Not Provided
Rear Loading Dock 0.66 Not Provided Not Provided
December 30, 2019
NorthPoint Development Trip Generation Study
5
While large cross dock buildings are large in size, their associated trip generation was
significantly smaller than the rear loading dock buildings or the majority of the comparative ITE
land uses as displayed in Table 3 Below. Overall, large cross dock facilities generate similar
Peak Hour trip generation rates to Land Use 154 with fewer total trips during a weekday. Raw
data is contained in Appendix III.
Table 3: Trip Generation Rate - Large Cross Dock Buildings
Weighted Average Rate (1000 Sq. Ft.) Equation R^2
Weekday
Land Use 130 3.37 Ln(T) = 0.52 Ln(X) +4.45 0.58
Land Use 140 3.93 T = 3.16(X) + 160.04 0.82
Land Use 150 1.74 T = 1.58(X) + 45.54 0.93
Land Use 154 1.4 Not Provided Not Provided
Large Cross Dock .961 Not Provided Not Provided
AM Peak Hour Adj. St.
Land Use 130 0.4 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 140 0.62 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 150 0.17 T = 0.12(X) + 25.32 0.69
Land Use 154 0.08 Not Provided Not Provided
Large Cross Dock .08 Not Provided Not Provided
PM Peak Hour Adj. St.
Land Use 130 0.4 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 140 0.67 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 150 0.19 T = 0.12(X) + 27.82 0.65
Land Use 154 0.1 Not Provided Not Provided
Large Cross Dock .11 T = 0.7336x - 474.02 .50
AM Peak Hour Generator
Land Use 130 0.41 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 140 .81 T = 0.61(X) + 34.25 .80
Land Use 150 .85 T = 0.11(X) + 30.07 .85
Land Use 154 .12 Not Provided Not Provided
Large Cross Dock .08 Not Provided Not Provided
PM Peak Hour Generator
Land Use 130 0.40 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 140 .79 T = 0.62(X) + 29.00 .76
Land Use 150 .24 T = 0.15(X) + 22.52 .91
Land Use 154 .16 Not Provided Not Provided
Large Cross Dock 0.17 Not Provided Not Provided
December 30, 2019
NorthPoint Development Trip Generation Study
6
Smaller cross dock facilities were the most commonly encountered building type within the five
study sites. Like larger cross dock facilities, facilities under 600,000 sq. ft. tend to have trip
generation rates that are lower than likely comparable ITE land uses. While the smaller cross
dock facilities had a slightly higher weekday trip generation rate than large cross dock facilities,
they tend to have a lesser trip generation rate in the Peak Hours. Trip Rates are shown in Table
4 and raw data can be found in Appendix IV.
Table 4: Trip Generation Rate - Smaller Cross Dock Buildings
Weighted Average Rate (1000 Sq. Ft.) Equation R^2
Weekday
Land Use 130 3.37 Ln(T) = 0.52 Ln(X) +4.45 0.58
Land Use 140 3.93 T = 3.16(X) + 160.04 0.82
Land Use 150 1.74 T = 1.58(X) + 45.54 0.93
Land Use 154 1.4 Not Provided Not Provided
Smaller Cross Dock 1.32 Not Provided Not Provided
AM Peak Hour Adj. St.
Land Use 130 0.4 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 140 0.62 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 150 0.17 T = 0.12(X) + 25.32 0.69
Land Use 154 0.08 Not Provided Not Provided
Smaller Cross Dock .06 Not Provided Not Provided
PM Peak Hour Adj. St.
Land Use 130 0.4 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 140 0.67 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 150 0.19 T = 0.12(X) + 27.82 0.65
Land Use 154 0.1 Not Provided Not Provided
Smaller Cross Dock .06 Not Provided Not Provided
AM Peak Hour Generator
Land Use 130 0.41 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 140 .81 T = 0.61(X) + 34.25 .80
Land Use 150 .85 T = 0.11(X) + 30.07 .85
Land Use 154 .12 Not Provided Not Provided
Smaller Cross Dock .146 Not Provided Not Provided
PM Peak Hour Generator
Land Use 130 0.40 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 140 .79 T = 0.62(X) + 29.00 .76
Land Use 150 .24 T = 0.15(X) + 22.52 .91
Land Use 154 .16 Not Provided Not Provided
Smaller Cross Dock .15 Not Provided Not Provided
December 30, 2019
NorthPoint Development Trip Generation Study
7
When the cross dock facilities are aggregated into a single land use, the trip generation rates
are most similar to ITE Land Use 154. The associated rates are shown below in Table 5 with the
associated raw data being found in Appendix V.
Table 5: Trip Generation Rate - All Cross Dock Buildings
Weighted Average Rate (1000 Sq. Ft.) Equation R^2
Weekday
Land Use 130 3.37 Ln(T) = 0.52 Ln(X) + 4.45 0.58
Land Use 140 3.93 T = 3.16(X) + 160.04 0.82
Land Use 150 1.74 T = 1.58(X) + 45.54 0.93
Land Use 154 1.4 Not Provided Not Provided
All Cross Dock 1.16 Not Provided Not Provided
AM Peak Hour Adj. St.
Land Use 130 0.4 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 140 0.62 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 150 0.17 T = 0.12(X) + 25.32 0.69
Land Use 154 0.08 Not Provided Not Provided
All Cross Dock .07 Not Provided Not Provided
PM Peak Hour Adj. St.
Land Use 130 0.4 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 140 0.67 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 150 0.19 T = 0.12(X) + 27.82 0.65
Land Use 154 0.1 Not Provided Not Provided
All Cross Dock .09 Not Provided Not Provided
AM Peak Hour Generator
Land Use 130 0.41 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 140 .81 T = 0.61(X) + 34.25 .80
Land Use 150 .85 T = 0.11(X) + 30.07 .85
Land Use 154 .12 Not Provided Not Provided
All Cross Dock .13 Not Provided Not Provided
PM Peak Hour Generator
Land Use 130 0.40 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 140 .79 T = 0.62(X) + 29.00 .76
Land Use 150 .24 T = 0.15(X) + 22.52 .91
Land Use 154 .16 Not Provided Not Provided
All Cross Dock .13 Not Provided Not Provided
December 30, 2019
NorthPoint Development Trip Generation Study
8
When both rear loading dock buildings and cross dock buildings are combined the trip
generation rates are as shown in Table 6 with the raw data associated with these numbers
being found in Appendix VI.
Table 6: Trip Generation Rate - All building types
Weighted Average Rate (1000 Sq. Ft.) Equation R^2
Weekday
Land Use 130 3.37 Ln(T) = 0.52 Ln(X) + 4.45 0.58
Land Use 140 3.93 T = 3.16(X) + 160.04 0.82
Land Use 150 1.74 T = 1.58(X) + 45.54 0.93
Land Use 154 1.4 Not Provided Not Provided
All Buildings 1.75 Not Provided Not Provided
AM Peak Hour Adj. St.
Land Use 130 0.4 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 140 0.62 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 150 0.17 T = 0.12(X) + 25.32 0.69
Land Use 154 0.08 Not Provided Not Provided
All Buildings .12 Not Provided Not Provided
PM Peak Hour Adj. St.
Land Use 130 0.4 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 140 0.67 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 150 0.19 T = 0.12(X) + 27.82 0.65
Land Use 154 0.1 Not Provided Not Provided
All Buildings .20 Not Provided Not Provided
AM Peak Hour Generator
Land Use 130 0.41 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 140 .81 T = 0.61(X) + 34.25 .80
Land Use 150 .85 T = 0.11(X) + 30.07 .85
Land Use 154 .12 Not Provided Not Provided
All Buildings .19 Not Provided Not Provided
PM Peak Hour Generator
Land Use 130 0.40 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 140 .79 T = 0.62(X) + 29.00 .76
Land Use 150 .24 T = 0.15(X) + 22.52 .91
Land Use 154 .16 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 130 0.40 Not Provided Not Provided
All Buildings .21 Not Provided Not Provided
December 30, 2019
NorthPoint Development Trip Generation Study
9
5) TRIP GENERATION RATES (EMPLOYEES AS INDEPENDENT VARIABLE)
Similar analysis to the what was performed in section 4 of this report was performed for the
previously discussed building types with the number of employees as the independent variable.
The trip generation rates for rear loading dock buildings is shown in Table 7 below and the raw
data is contained in Appendix II.
Table 7: Trip Generation Rate - Rear Loading Dock Buildings
Employees Equation R^2
Weekday
Land Use 130 2.91 Ln(T) = 0.68 Ln(X) + 3.34 0.81
Land Use 140 2.47 Ln(T) = 0.89 Ln(X) + 1.69 .95
Land Use 150 5.05 Ln(T) = 0.82 Ln(X) + 2.33 .88
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
Rear Loading Dock 17.1 Not Provided Not Provided
AM Peak Hour Adj. St.
Land Use 130 0.44 Ln(T) = 0.82 Ln(X) + 0.39 .87
Land Use 140 .37 T = 0.26(X) + 32.97 .79
Land Use 150 .61 T = 0.52(X) + 4.93 .91
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
Rear Loading Dock .77 T = 1.6882x + 0.8087 .54
PM Peak Hour Adj. St.
Land Use 130 0.42 Ln(T) = 0.74 Ln(X) + 0.93 .90
Land Use 140 .33 T = 0.19(X) + 41.22 .88
Land Use 150 .66 T = 0.52(X) + 4.93 .74
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
Rear Loading Dock 1.36 T = 1.3944x .43
AM Peak Hour Generator
Land Use 130 .42 Ln(T) = 0.83 Ln(X) + 0.36 0.90
Land Use 140 .43 = 0.33(X) + 39.35 .94
Land Use 150 .68 Ln(T) = 0.67 Ln(X) + 0.99 .87
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
Rear Loading Dock 2.27 T = 1.4671x + 27.806 .41
PM Peak Hour Generator
Land Use 130 .42 Ln(T) = 0.75 Ln(X) + 0.90 .89
Land Use 140 .45 T = 0.38(X) + 24.71 .94
Land Use 150 .68 Ln(T) = 0.79 Ln(X) + 0.49 .80
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
Rear Loading Dock .31 Not Provided Not Provided
December 30, 2019
NorthPoint Development Trip Generation Study
10
The results of the analysis for larger cross dock buildings trip generation based upon employees
is shown in Table 8 below with the raw data being contained in Appendix III.
Table 8: Trip Generation Rate - Large Cross Dock Buildings
Employees Equation R^2
Weekday
Land Use 130 2.91 Ln(T) = 0.68 Ln(X) + 3.34 0.81
Land Use 140 2.47 Ln(T) = 0.89 Ln(X) + 1.69 .95
Land Use 150 5.05 Ln(T) = 0.82 Ln(X) + 2.33 .88
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
Large Cross Dock 2.69 T = 1.7893x + 246.6 .94
AM Peak Hour Adj. St.
Land Use 130 0.44 Ln(T) = 0.82 Ln(X) + 0.39 .87
Land Use 140 .37 T = 0.26(X) + 32.97 .79
Land Use 150 .61 T = 0.52(X) + 4.93 .91
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
Large Cross Dock .23 T = 0.2594x - 9.4162 .78
PM Peak Hour Adj. St.
Land Use 130 0.42 Ln(T) = 0.74 Ln(X) + 0.93 .90
Land Use 140 .33 T = 0.19(X) + 41.22 .88
Land Use 150 .66 T = 0.52(X) + 4.93 .74
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
Large Cross Dock .32 Not Provided Not Provided
AM Peak Hour Generator
Land Use 130 .42 Ln(T) = 0.83 Ln(X) + 0.36 0.90
Land Use 140 .43 = 0.33(X) + 39.35 .94
Land Use 150 .68 Ln(T) = 0.67 Ln(X) + 0.99 .87
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
Large Cross Dock .35 T = 0.2865x + 16.347 .93
PM Peak Hour Generator
Land Use 130 .42 Ln(T) = 0.75 Ln(X) + 0.90 .89
Land Use 140 .45 T = 0.38(X) + 24.71 .94
Land Use 150 .68 Ln(T) = 0.79 Ln(X) + 0.49 .80
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
Large Cross Dock .31 T = 57.164ln(x) - 159.03 .61
December 30, 2019
NorthPoint Development Trip Generation Study
11
The results of the analysis for smaller cross dock buildings trip generation based upon
employees is shown in Table 9 below with the raw data being contained in Appendix IV.
Table 9: Trip Generation Rate - Smaller Cross Dock Buildings
Employees Equation R^2
Weekday
Land Use 130 2.91 Ln(T) = 0.68 Ln(X) + 3.34 00.81
Land Use 140 2.47 Ln(T) = 0.89 Ln(X) + 1.69 .95
Land Use 150 5.05 Ln(T) = 0.82 Ln(X) + 2.33 .88
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
Smaller Cross Dock 6.63 Not Provided Not Provided
AM Peak Hour Adj. St.
Land Use 130 0.44 Ln(T) = 0.82 Ln(X) + 0.39 .87
Land Use 140 .37 T = 0.26(X) + 32.97 .79
Land Use 150 .61 T = 0.52(X) + 4.93 .91
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
Smaller Cross Dock .37 Not Provided Not Provided
PM Peak Hour Adj. St.
Land Use 130 0.42 Ln(T) = 0.74 Ln(X) + 0.93 .90
Land Use 140 .33 T = 0.19(X) + 41.22 .88
Land Use 150 .66 T = 0.52(X) + 4.93 .74
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
Smaller Cross Dock .35 Not Provided Not Provided
AM Peak hour Generator
Land Use 130 .42 Ln(T) = 0.83 Ln(X) + 0.36 0.90
Land Use 140 .43 = 0.33(X) + 39.35 .94
Land Use 150 .68 Ln(T) = 0.67 Ln(X) + 0.99 .87
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
Smaller Cross Dock .77 Not Provided Not Provided
PM Peak Hour Generator
Land Use 130 .42 Ln(T) = 0.75 Ln(X) + 0.90 .89
Land Use 140 .45 T = 0.38(X) + 24.71 .94
Land Use 150 .68 Ln(T) = 0.79 Ln(X) + 0.49 .80
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
Smaller Cross Dock .76 Not Provided Not Provided
December 30, 2019
NorthPoint Development Trip Generation Study
12
The results of the analysis for combined cross dock buildings trip generation based upon
employees is shown in Table 10 below with the raw data being contained in Appendix V.
Table 10: Trip Generation Rate - All Cross Dock Buildings
Employees Equation R^2
Weekday
Land Use 130 2.91 Ln(T) = 0.68 Ln(X) + 3.34 0.81
Land Use 140 2.47 Ln(T) = 0.89 Ln(X) + 1.69 .95
Land Use 150 5.05 Ln(T) = 0.82 Ln(X) + 2.33 .88
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
All Cross Dock 4.14 T= 1.6896x + 317.92 .46
AM Peak Hour Adj. St.
Land Use 130 0.44 Ln(T) = 0.82 Ln(X) + 0.39 .87
Land Use 140 .37 T = 0.26(X) + 32.97 .79
Land Use 150 .61 T = 0.52(X) + 4.93 .91
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
All Cross Dock .28 Not Provided Not Provided
PM Peak Hour Adj. St.
Land Use 130 0.42 Ln(T) = 0.74 Ln(X) + 0.93 .90
Land Use 140 .33 T = 0.19(X) + 41.22 .88
Land Use 150 .66 T = 0.52(X) + 4.93 .74
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
All Cross Dock .33 Not Provided Not Provided
AM Peak Hour Generator
Land Use 130 .42 Ln(T) = 0.83 Ln(X) + 0.36 0.90
Land Use 140 .43 = 0.33(X) + 39.35 .94
Land Use 150 .68 Ln(T) = 0.67 Ln(X) + 0.99 .87
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
All Cross Dock .50 T= 0.2188x + 44.829 .45
PM Peak Hour Generator
Land Use 130 .42 Ln(T) = 0.75 Ln(X) + 0.90 .89
Land Use 140 .45 T = 0.38(X) + 24.71 .94
Land Use 150 .68 Ln(T) = 0.79 Ln(X) + 0.49 .80
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
All Cross Dock .59 y = 0.4436x .42
December 30, 2019
NorthPoint Development Trip Generation Study
13
The results of the analysis for the aggregate of all buildings combined trip generation, based
upon employees, is shown in Table 11 below with the raw data being contained in Appendix VI.
Table 11: Trip Generation Rate - All Buildings
Employees Equation R^2
Weekday
Land Use 130 2.91 Ln(T) = 0.68 Ln(X) + 3.34 0.81
Land Use 140 2.47 Ln(T) = 0.89 Ln(X) + 1.69 .95
Land Use 150 5.05 Ln(T) = 0.82 Ln(X) + 2.33 .88
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
All Buildings 5.1 Not Provided Not Provided
AM Peak Hour Adj. St.
Land Use 130 0.44 Ln(T) = 0.82 Ln(X) + 0.39 .87
Land Use 140 .37 T = 0.26(X) + 32.97 .79
Land Use 150 .61 T = 0.52(X) + 4.93 .91
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
All Buildings .38 Not Provided Not Provided
PM Peak Hour Adj. St.
Land Use 130 0.42 Ln(T) = 0.74 Ln(X) + 0.93 .90
Land Use 140 .33 T = 0.19(X) + 41.22 .88
Land Use 150 .66 T = 0.52(X) + 4.93 .74
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
All Buildings .41 Not Provided Not Provided
AM Peak Hour Generator
Land Use 130 .42 Ln(T) = 0.83 Ln(X) + 0.36 0.90
Land Use 140 .43 = 0.33(X) + 39.35 .94
Land Use 150 .68 Ln(T) = 0.67 Ln(X) + 0.99 .87
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
All Buildings .63 T = 0.2188x + 44.829 .45
PM Peak Hour Generator
Land Use 130 .42 Ln(T) = 0.75 Ln(X) + 0.90 .89
Land Use 140 .45 T = 0.38(X) + 24.71 .94
Land Use 150 .68 Ln(T) = 0.79 Ln(X) + 0.49 .80
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
All Buildings .67 Not Provided Not Provided
December 30, 2019
NorthPoint Development Trip Generation Study
14
6) TRUCK TRAFFIC
The percent of truck traffic for NorthPoint Development’s study sites is summarized in Table 12
below.
Table 12: Percent Truck Traffic
Building Type Weekday AM PEAK
Generator
PM PEAK
Generator
AM PEAK
Adj. St.
AM PEAK
Adj. St.
Rear Loading Dock 15% 16% 9% 17% 10%
Large Cross Dock 19% 9% 7% 7% 9%
Smaller Cross Dock 24% 20% 13% 22% 21%
All Cross Dock 22% 16% 10% 15% 14%
Overall Aggregate 19% 16% 10% 16% 12%
7) CONCLUSIONS
As previously discussed, rear loading dock buildings had trip generation rates higher than the
comparative ITE Land Uses in the analysis. The sample size for this type of building was
relatively small, seven sites at two locations. Overall there were only eight of the twenty-eight
buildings in the complete study that had a weekday trip generation greater than nine hundred
vehicles. Three of these eight buildings were rear loading facilities. It is recommended that
additional sites be evaluated to determine if the typical user of a rear loading facility has a
significantly higher rate than cross dock facilities. Until such additional analysis is performed,
using ITE Land USE 140 for Peak Hour trip generation rates and the rear loading weekday trip
rate should provide a conservative estimate of trip generation when square footage GFA is used
as the independent variable. Until additional rear loading dock sites can be evaluated, no
additional recommendations are being made for using employees as the independent variable
beyond providing the observed trip generation rates for the limited sample size.
The analysis of trip generation rates for all sizes of cross dock facilities correlate very well with
ITE Land USE 154 when evaluating square footage GFA as the independent variable. Given the
robust data set (five study locations in two states with twenty-one individual sites) traffic
engineers should have confidence in using either ITE Land Use 154 or the NorthPoint specific
trip generation rates to give an accurate estimate of potential trips generated.
ITE has not yet disseminated trip generation data on an employee basis for Land Use 154 yet. If
the number of employees is to be used as the independent variable, the evaluated land use with
the closest correlation is Land Use 140. Using a Northpoint specific trip generation based upon
the combined cross dock trip generation rates (Table 10) should provide a reasonable estimate
of the trips generated.
45 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
Appendix E:
Existing Year (2021) SimTraffic Report
SimTraffic Performance Report Existing (2021) Traffic Volumes
AM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4 0.1 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)19.8 8.4 2.2 20.3 9.2 2.6 11.0 6.7 2.1 12.9 15.8 6.8
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)9.7
2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)6.4 2.6 2.0 0.2 4.1 3.7 2.2
3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N 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)6.4 3.3 3.0 1.6 0.3 0.3 1.3
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.1 3.7 0.5 0.4 3.5 0.2 0.2 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)4.7 9.6 2.2 4.4 9.4 3.0 4.5 8.6 2.0 4.8 8.1 1.9
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)5.8
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N 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 0.4 0.2 3.3 0.2 0.2 4.1
Total Del/Veh (s)2.7 5.5 2.7 4.5 9.3 4.6 2.2 4.8 1.7 2.3 5.4 1.5
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)5.5
SimTraffic Performance Report Existing (2021) Traffic Volumes
AM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 4.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 1.3
Total Del/Veh (s)5.1 1.8 5.5 2.0 1.6 1.0 0.5 0.1 1.3
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.2
Total Del/Veh (s)14.2
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing (2021) Traffic Volumes
AM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T T R L T T R L TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 16 26 53 48 34 47 82 89 25 118 67 69
Average Queue (ft)2 7 17 9 1 15 29 37 4 55 16 19
95th Queue (ft)11 20 41 31 18 38 62 74 20 100 48 51
Link Distance (ft)3570 3570 4196 4196 768
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)400 400 275 225 250 200 275
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement SB SB
Directions Served T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 84 54
Average Queue (ft)26 16
95th Queue (ft)59 40
Link Distance (ft)1252 1252
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N
Movement EB EB NB SB
Directions Served L R L R
Maximum Queue (ft) 24 48 38 4
Average Queue (ft)7 14 12 0
95th Queue (ft)24 34 36 5
Link Distance (ft)885
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)160 175 275
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing (2021) Traffic Volumes
AM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection: 3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 52 17
Average Queue (ft)15 1
95th Queue (ft)40 7
Link Distance (ft)712
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)120
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R LT R LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 52 22 59 52 59 24 62 60
Average Queue (ft)28 4 27 28 27 7 32 21
95th Queue (ft)43 17 47 46 48 24 55 45
Link Distance (ft)1000 1456 1259 509
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)225 225 225 225
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LT R LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 55 38 26 33 26
Average Queue (ft)14 7 2 3 7
95th Queue (ft)41 25 14 20 25
Link Distance (ft)908 2662 1828 1170
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing (2021) Traffic Volumes
AM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection: 6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served LT LTR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 33 31 12
Average Queue (ft)9 6 1
95th Queue (ft)31 25 6
Link Distance (ft)682 328
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)265
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report Existing (2021) Traffic Volumes
PM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.2 0.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)45.0 13.1 3.8 45.6 11.0 1.8 31.5 31.8 6.2 26.3 38.3 8.8
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)17.8
2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)11.1 4.6 3.8 0.3 6.0 5.1 4.2
3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N 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)9.5 3.8 4.6 1.8 0.8 0.6 1.4
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.3 3.8 0.5 0.5 3.3 0.2 0.3 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)8.5 13.0 3.5 8.0 13.1 5.0 7.0 11.2 3.9 10.6 13.5 3.6
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)9.5
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N 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 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.7 3.1 0.2 0.1 4.0
Total Del/Veh (s)8.5 12.4 8.7 6.5 11.1 5.7 3.7 7.7 3.3 3.6 6.0 1.4
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)8.5
SimTraffic Performance Report Existing (2021) Traffic Volumes
PM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5 3.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 1.6
Total Del/Veh (s)4.9 2.1 5.2 2.5 1.5 1.9 0.6 0.1 1.6
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3
Total Del/Veh (s)22.8
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing (2021) Traffic Volumes
PM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T T R L T T R L TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 35 48 104 110 64 78 94 98 25 195 112 76
Average Queue (ft)6 8 43 43 10 25 38 41 3 101 30 18
95th Queue (ft)22 29 86 89 44 61 80 77 17 161 73 51
Link Distance (ft)3570 3570 4196 4196 768
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)400 400 275 225 250 200 275
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement SB SB
Directions Served T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 146 60
Average Queue (ft)73 20
95th Queue (ft)131 47
Link Distance (ft)1252 1252
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N
Movement EB EB NB SB
Directions Served L R L R
Maximum Queue (ft) 56 72 61 13
Average Queue (ft)17 30 26 0
95th Queue (ft)42 57 51 6
Link Distance (ft)885
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)160 175 275
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing (2021) Traffic Volumes
PM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection: 3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 38 30
Average Queue (ft)15 3
95th Queue (ft)38 19
Link Distance (ft)712
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)120
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R LT R LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 82 26 89 68 74 48 157 72
Average Queue (ft)43 11 42 36 37 16 65 28
95th Queue (ft)70 29 70 58 62 39 117 52
Link Distance (ft)1000 1456 1259 509
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)225 225 225 225
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LT R LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 163 113 32 49 46
Average Queue (ft)58 25 9 19 12
95th Queue (ft)131 69 29 54 35
Link Distance (ft)908 2662 1828 1170
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing (2021) Traffic Volumes
PM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection: 6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served LT LTR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 28 35 23
Average Queue (ft)10 10 2
95th Queue (ft)32 34 13
Link Distance (ft)682 328
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)265
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
46
Appendix F :
Opening Year (2025) No-Build
SimTraffic Report
SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year (2025) No-Build Traffic Projections
AM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.5 0.1 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)20.1 10.7 2.4 24.9 11.9 1.8 11.0 8.9 3.1 14.0 17.1 7.8
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)11.3
2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)7.4 2.6 2.1 0.2 4.2 4.0 2.3
3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N 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 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)6.3 3.6 2.9 1.6 0.4 0.3 1.3
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 3.8 0.5 0.4 3.4 0.1 0.2 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)5.1 9.7 1.6 4.5 10.3 3.3 4.0 8.6 2.4 5.2 8.5 1.8
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)6.1
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N 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 0.4 0.3 3.2 0.1 0.2 4.1
Total Del/Veh (s)2.9 5.4 2.1 4.7 9.3 4.2 1.8 4.9 1.8 1.8 5.4 1.6
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)5.5
SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year (2025) No-Build Traffic Projections
AM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 3.9 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.2 3.7 1.5
Total Del/Veh (s)5.3 2.0 5.8 1.9 1.8 1.3 0.4 0.1 1.4
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3
Total Del/Veh (s)15.7
Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2025) No-Build Traffic Projections
AM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T T R L T T R L TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 38 34 63 63 35 52 82 92 30 97 68 71
Average Queue (ft)7 8 21 15 2 17 35 41 6 52 22 21
95th Queue (ft)24 24 49 44 17 41 68 80 24 87 57 54
Link Distance (ft)3570 3570 4196 4196 768
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)400 400 275 225 250 200 275
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement SB SB
Directions Served T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 80 76
Average Queue (ft)28 30
95th Queue (ft)62 62
Link Distance (ft)1252 1252
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N
Movement EB EB NB
Directions Served L R L
Maximum Queue (ft) 32 44 39
Average Queue (ft)7 16 11
95th Queue (ft)26 32 35
Link Distance (ft)885
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)160 175
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2025) No-Build Traffic Projections
AM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection: 3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 43 23
Average Queue (ft)14 1
95th Queue (ft)37 9
Link Distance (ft)712
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)120
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R LT R LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 59 23 71 59 56 24 82 46
Average Queue (ft)30 3 30 30 29 9 34 15
95th Queue (ft)47 15 54 48 49 26 60 36
Link Distance (ft)1000 1456 1259 509
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)225 225 225 225
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LT R LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 55 48 25 42 31
Average Queue (ft)13 7 2 3 6
95th Queue (ft)37 29 14 21 24
Link Distance (ft)908 2662 1828 1170
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2025) No-Build Traffic Projections
AM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection: 6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served LT LT L
Maximum Queue (ft) 31 26 22
Average Queue (ft)13 6 2
95th Queue (ft)37 23 13
Link Distance (ft)684 315
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)265
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year (2025) No-Build Traffic Projections
PM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3 0.2 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)42.4 15.2 3.9 47.9 16.2 2.4 34.7 34.0 10.5 27.3 42.3 11.1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)21.8
2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7
Total Del/Veh (s)11.3 4.5 4.1 0.4 6.0 5.7 4.1
3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N 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 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)8.2 3.6 4.2 1.8 0.9 0.6 1.4
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.3 3.6 0.6 0.6 3.3 0.2 0.3 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)9.4 14.1 4.1 9.3 14.4 5.7 7.6 11.3 4.2 12.6 15.0 3.4
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)10.6
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N 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 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 3.0 0.2 0.1 4.1
Total Del/Veh (s)8.9 13.4 9.3 7.1 11.7 7.2 4.3 7.6 3.2 3.2 6.3 1.5
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)9.0
SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year (2025) No-Build Traffic Projections
PM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5 3.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.8 1.4
Total Del/Veh (s)7.1 2.3 5.0 3.8 1.5 1.6 0.6 0.1 2.0
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3
Total Del/Veh (s)26.0
Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2025) No-Build Traffic Projections
PM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T T R L T T R L TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 112 87 99 127 81 77 112 123 48 235 188 83
Average Queue (ft)49 35 45 51 9 22 49 56 9 115 38 21
95th Queue (ft)97 74 86 105 44 56 95 106 33 197 85 57
Link Distance (ft)3570 3570 4196 4196 768
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)400 400 275 225 250 200 275
Storage Blk Time (%)2
Queuing Penalty (veh)1
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement SB SB
Directions Served T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 168 91
Average Queue (ft)88 31
95th Queue (ft)153 69
Link Distance (ft)1252 1252
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N
Movement EB EB NB SB
Directions Served L R L R
Maximum Queue (ft) 50 70 66 23
Average Queue (ft)18 30 27 2
95th Queue (ft)42 57 54 13
Link Distance (ft)885
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)160 175 275
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2025) No-Build Traffic Projections
PM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection: 3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 44 29
Average Queue (ft)14 2
95th Queue (ft)38 14
Link Distance (ft)712
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)120
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R LT R LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 92 29 89 83 71 63 178 62
Average Queue (ft)48 11 42 38 36 15 76 27
95th Queue (ft)78 29 71 65 59 40 136 47
Link Distance (ft)1000 1456 1259 509
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)225 225 225 225
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Intersection: 5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LT R LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 173 97 48 70 40
Average Queue (ft)66 29 10 19 11
95th Queue (ft)143 73 34 56 33
Link Distance (ft)908 2662 1828 1170
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2025) No-Build Traffic Projections
PM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection: 6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N
Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT R LT L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 39 26 26 73 4
Average Queue (ft)11 2 7 14 0
95th Queue (ft)35 26 25 46 0
Link Distance (ft)684 315 1010
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)350 265
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 1
47 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
Appendix G :
Opening Year (2025) Build Scenarios
1-4 SimTraffic Report
SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year (2025) Build Scenarios 1-3 Traffic Projections
AM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4 0.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)23.1 10.2 2.6 27.2 11.9 2.0 12.8 8.0 2.6 14.8 17.9 8.1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)11.5
2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 4.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)6.3 2.5 3.3 1.6 0.3 0.1 6.2 4.8 4.4 2.6
3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)6.8 2.6 3.7 1.6 1.4 1.5 0.5 0.2 1.4
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 4.1 0.5 0.4 3.6 0.1 0.2 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)5.1 10.1 2.8 4.1 9.8 3.0 5.4 8.7 2.3 4.9 8.4 1.9
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.0
Total Del/Veh (s)6.0
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N 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 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 3.1 0.1 0.3 4.0
Total Del/Veh (s)3.0 5.6 3.2 5.1 9.4 4.1 1.7 5.1 1.9 2.6 5.2 1.5
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)5.7
SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year (2025) Build Scenarios 1-3 Traffic Projections
AM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6 3.9 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.2 3.9 1.6
Total Del/Veh (s)5.4 2.0 5.8 2.2 1.8 1.1 0.4 0.1 1.4
7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)3.0 2.2 3.2 0.4 6.9 1.7
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.2
Total Del/Veh (s)15.6
Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2025) Build Scenarios 1-3 Traffic Projections
AM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T T R L T T R L TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 38 60 54 62 23 52 91 90 27 121 81 75
Average Queue (ft)7 10 19 18 1 15 36 43 4 62 19 23
95th Queue (ft)22 32 44 47 12 40 72 82 20 104 55 57
Link Distance (ft)3570 3570 1713 1713 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)400 400 275 225 250 200 275
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement SB SB
Directions Served T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 101 85
Average Queue (ft)30 28
95th Queue (ft)69 62
Link Distance (ft)1252 1252
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2
Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT R LTR L LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 24 36 31 25 37
Average Queue (ft)8 14 9 8 5
95th Queue (ft)26 31 32 26 23
Link Distance (ft)886 296 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)160 175
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2025) Build Scenarios 1-3 Traffic Projections
AM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection: 3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LTR L LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 40 16 26
Average Queue (ft)15 1 2
95th Queue (ft)39 8 12
Link Distance (ft)712 788
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)120
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R LT R LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 67 22 67 60 64 24 76 44
Average Queue (ft)33 5 29 29 29 8 32 17
95th Queue (ft)55 19 53 47 48 25 56 37
Link Distance (ft)1000 1456 1259 503
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)225 225 225 225
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LT R LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 47 50 24 42 26
Average Queue (ft)15 9 2 3 7
95th Queue (ft)39 33 13 21 24
Link Distance (ft)908 2662 1828 1170
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2025) Build Scenarios 1-3 Traffic Projections
AM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection: 6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served LT LT L
Maximum Queue (ft) 35 26 29
Average Queue (ft)11 3 3
95th Queue (ft)35 17 17
Link Distance (ft)684 315
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)265
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N
Movement WB NB
Directions Served L LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 21 27
Average Queue (ft)2 6
95th Queue (ft)15 23
Link Distance (ft)530
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year (2025) Build Scenarios 1-3 Traffic Projections
PM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4 0.2 1.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)44.2 18.2 4.4 52.1 17.9 2.6 35.5 29.5 8.1 29.6 46.9 10.7
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)23.4
2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6 3.8 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)17.3 5.2 14.6 7.3 4.2 0.7 10.9 6.6 5.8 5.0
3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)12.5 4.3 8.7 7.0 5.0 1.8 1.8 6.4 1.1 0.8 1.8
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.3 3.7 0.7 0.6 3.3 0.1 0.2 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)9.6 14.3 3.9 9.2 14.3 5.8 8.2 11.7 4.6 14.0 16.7 4.4
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)11.1
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N 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 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.7 3.0 0.2 0.2 4.0
Total Del/Veh (s)9.7 13.9 10.4 6.7 11.5 6.5 4.0 7.8 3.5 3.3 6.1 1.5
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)9.0
SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year (2025) Build Scenarios 1-3 Traffic Projections
PM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7 3.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.5 1.4
Total Del/Veh (s)7.7 2.3 8.1 4.0 1.5 1.8 0.7 0.1 2.2
7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBT NBL NBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)2.6 2.6 0.6 9.8 6.2 1.9
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3
Total Del/Veh (s)27.4
Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2025) Build Scenarios 1-3 Traffic Projections
PM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T T R L T T R L TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 116 90 120 124 114 76 123 117 39 258 151 76
Average Queue (ft)49 37 52 55 16 23 56 62 8 131 36 18
95th Queue (ft)98 76 101 105 66 60 105 110 29 218 92 52
Link Distance (ft)3570 3570 1713 1713 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)400 400 275 225 250 200 275
Storage Blk Time (%)2
Queuing Penalty (veh)2
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement SB SB
Directions Served T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 227 91
Average Queue (ft)103 30
95th Queue (ft)190 65
Link Distance (ft)1252 1252
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Intersection: 2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2
Movement EB EB WB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LTR L LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 74 77 57 62 48 17
Average Queue (ft)19 31 20 22 5 1
95th Queue (ft)49 57 49 49 27 8
Link Distance (ft)886 296 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)160 175 275
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2025) Build Scenarios 1-3 Traffic Projections
PM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection: 3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 43 48 27 32
Average Queue (ft)14 20 3 2
95th Queue (ft)37 46 18 14
Link Distance (ft)712 317 788
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)120
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R LT R LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 97 26 87 86 73 45 213 76
Average Queue (ft)49 11 44 39 36 16 82 30
95th Queue (ft)80 28 71 65 61 37 160 56
Link Distance (ft)1000 1456 1259 503
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)225 225 225 225
Storage Blk Time (%)1
Queuing Penalty (veh)1
Intersection: 5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LT R LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 189 106 40 65 36
Average Queue (ft)74 30 11 21 12
95th Queue (ft)153 72 32 59 34
Link Distance (ft)908 2662 1828 1170
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2025) Build Scenarios 1-3 Traffic Projections
PM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection: 6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served LT LT L
Maximum Queue (ft) 52 26 59
Average Queue (ft)14 7 15
95th Queue (ft)41 26 46
Link Distance (ft)684 315
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)265
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N
Movement WB NB
Directions Served T LR
Maximum Queue (ft)4 27
Average Queue (ft)0 12
95th Queue (ft)3 30
Link Distance (ft)2413 530
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 3
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
48
Appendix H :
Horizon Year (2040) No-Build
SimTraffic Report
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Traffic Projections
AM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.5 0.1 1.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)25.6 17.0 3.1 31.8 22.3 3.1 17.0 12.7 5.2 16.6 19.9 15.7
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)17.7
2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)9.1 3.1 2.8 0.4 4.4 4.4 2.7
3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N 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)7.8 2.9 3.2 1.7 0.5 0.4 1.4
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 4.1 0.5 0.5 3.4 0.2 0.2 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)6.0 11.7 3.2 5.5 10.6 4.0 5.7 9.3 3.1 6.4 9.6 2.3
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)7.0
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N 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 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 3.2 0.2 0.2 4.0
Total Del/Veh (s)4.0 6.7 4.1 5.7 10.4 5.3 2.8 6.3 2.1 3.4 6.3 1.7
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)6.3
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Traffic Projections
AM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9 3.7 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 3.3 1.6
Total Del/Veh (s)8.0 3.9 7.1 3.2 1.9 1.5 0.9 0.2 2.4
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4
Total Del/Veh (s)21.2
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Traffic Projections
AM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T T R L T T R L TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 80 66 90 105 40 64 136 131 32 171 99 100
Average Queue (ft)27 26 29 31 3 24 66 66 10 73 31 32
95th Queue (ft)60 57 64 74 24 53 109 105 31 134 77 75
Link Distance (ft)3570 3570 4196 4196 768
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)400 400 275 225 250 200 275
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement SB SB
Directions Served T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 110 187
Average Queue (ft)42 69
95th Queue (ft)84 134
Link Distance (ft)1252 1252
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N
Movement EB EB NB SB
Directions Served L R L R
Maximum Queue (ft) 28 40 44 4
Average Queue (ft)9 16 18 0
95th Queue (ft)28 33 45 3
Link Distance (ft)885
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)160 175 275
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Traffic Projections
AM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection: 3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 56 18
Average Queue (ft)18 1
95th Queue (ft)45 11
Link Distance (ft)712
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)120
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R LT R LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 79 23 66 67 65 25 80 48
Average Queue (ft)37 6 33 32 29 12 43 21
95th Queue (ft)62 21 56 53 48 30 71 39
Link Distance (ft)1000 1456 1259 509
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)225 225 225 225
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LT R LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 78 54 30 44 40
Average Queue (ft)25 12 4 6 12
95th Queue (ft)58 38 20 30 34
Link Distance (ft)908 2662 1828 1170
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Traffic Projections
AM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection: 6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N
Movement EB EB WB NB
Directions Served LT R LT L
Maximum Queue (ft) 48 175 26 58
Average Queue (ft)13 32 4 14
95th Queue (ft)39 132 18 42
Link Distance (ft)684 315
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)350 265
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Traffic Projections
PM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4 0.3 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)41.3 21.7 5.2 47.6 27.9 4.8 33.9 28.3 12.9 28.6 41.0 16.6
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)26.3
2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)19.6 6.9 6.9 0.5 6.6 5.9 5.3
3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N 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)47.4 51.1 7.1 2.0 18.6 4.1 11.6
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 0.3 3.8 0.7 0.8 3.1 0.3 0.3 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)23.9 26.3 5.3 17.3 21.5 11.7 14.7 19.1 5.8 93.7 92.5 12.5
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)39.1
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N 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 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.8 2.9 0.3 0.2 4.0
Total Del/Veh (s)16.5 20.6 14.2 14.4 18.7 14.0 4.6 9.6 4.1 4.1 6.8 1.7
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)14.1
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Traffic Projections
PM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.0 3.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.5 1.2
Total Del/Veh (s)17.5 3.7 14.9 7.5 2.0 1.9 1.3 0.2 3.9
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4
Total Del/Veh (s)45.3
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Traffic Projections
PM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T T R L T T R L TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 210 156 144 162 107 83 147 149 48 264 195 94
Average Queue (ft)117 83 65 75 24 30 82 83 18 132 67 30
95th Queue (ft)185 138 123 139 76 69 134 133 41 225 140 65
Link Distance (ft)3570 3570 4196 4196 768
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)400 400 275 225 250 200 275
Storage Blk Time (%)3 0
Queuing Penalty (veh)3 0
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement SB SB
Directions Served T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 220 158
Average Queue (ft)116 62
95th Queue (ft)193 115
Link Distance (ft)1252 1252
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Intersection: 2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N
Movement EB EB NB SB SB
Directions Served L R L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 48 104 100 4 22
Average Queue (ft)21 41 41 0 2
95th Queue (ft)45 77 80 0 11
Link Distance (ft)885 768
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)160 175 275
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Traffic Projections
PM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection: 3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N
Movement EB NB SB SB
Directions Served LR L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 62 29 344 209
Average Queue (ft)22 6 97 33
95th Queue (ft)63 24 372 200
Link Distance (ft)712 792
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)120 200
Storage Blk Time (%)15
Queuing Penalty (veh)7
Intersection: 4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R LT R LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 204 40 138 146 142 45 504 373
Average Queue (ft)87 16 65 58 55 18 340 200
95th Queue (ft)170 36 114 109 99 41 615 537
Link Distance (ft)1000 1456 1259 509
Upstream Blk Time (%)8
Queuing Penalty (veh)48
Storage Bay Dist (ft)225 225 225 225
Storage Blk Time (%)2 0 60
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 94
Intersection: 5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LT R LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 287 287 53 67 32
Average Queue (ft)125 87 15 25 15
95th Queue (ft)239 218 41 64 35
Link Distance (ft)908 2662 1828 1170
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Traffic Projections
PM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection: 6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N
Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT R LT L R
Maximum Queue (ft) 47 175 34 134 5
Average Queue (ft)15 19 9 50 0
95th Queue (ft)41 105 29 102 3
Link Distance (ft)684 315
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)350 265 275
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 153
49 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
Appendix I :
Horizon Year (2040) No-Build
Mitigated SimTraffic Report
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Mitigated Traffic Projections
AM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4 0.1 1.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)26.9 16.2 2.9 31.2 21.7 3.0 18.6 14.3 4.9 17.7 20.7 15.8
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)18.0
2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)8.8 3.2 2.5 0.4 4.5 4.2 2.7
3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N 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 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)6.9 3.4 3.1 1.6 0.5 0.3 1.4
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 3.8 0.4 0.4 3.4 0.2 0.2 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)6.7 11.4 2.6 5.9 10.3 3.7 6.0 9.7 3.1 5.5 8.6 2.2
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)6.7
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N 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 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 3.2 0.2 0.3 4.0
Total Del/Veh (s)3.9 6.9 4.0 6.3 11.2 5.8 2.7 5.9 2.0 4.1 6.8 1.8
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)6.8
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Mitigated Traffic Projections
AM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8 3.7 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.4 3.7 1.6
Total Del/Veh (s)9.2 6.1 8.2 3.6 1.5 1.1 0.9 0.2 3.2
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4
Total Del/Veh (s)21.7
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Mitigated Traffic Projections
AM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T T R L T T R L TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 73 74 78 76 44 79 125 128 36 179 100 99
Average Queue (ft)28 31 31 28 2 22 67 68 10 84 30 30
95th Queue (ft)63 63 67 61 20 56 114 109 32 140 74 73
Link Distance (ft)3570 3570 4196 4196 768
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)400 400 275 225 250 200 275
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement SB SB
Directions Served T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 116 198
Average Queue (ft)47 71
95th Queue (ft)98 142
Link Distance (ft)1252 1252
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N
Movement EB EB NB SB
Directions Served L R L R
Maximum Queue (ft) 24 45 39 8
Average Queue (ft)9 17 16 0
95th Queue (ft)28 34 40 4
Link Distance (ft)885
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)160 175 275
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Mitigated Traffic Projections
AM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection: 3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 48 24
Average Queue (ft)18 1
95th Queue (ft)41 9
Link Distance (ft)712
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)120
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R LT R L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 79 24 64 61 71 36 77 71 52
Average Queue (ft)38 6 31 31 31 12 33 28 23
95th Queue (ft)63 21 52 50 56 33 58 52 41
Link Distance (ft)1000 1456 1259 509
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)225 225 225 200 225
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LT R LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 92 104 39 43 53
Average Queue (ft)24 20 5 6 13
95th Queue (ft)59 62 23 30 36
Link Distance (ft)908 2662 1828 1170
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Mitigated Traffic Projections
AM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection: 6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N
Movement EB EB WB NB
Directions Served LT R LT L
Maximum Queue (ft) 133 218 25 53
Average Queue (ft)18 29 4 15
95th Queue (ft)87 154 20 41
Link Distance (ft)684 315
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)350 265
Storage Blk Time (%)1
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Mitigated Traffic Projections
PM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3 0.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)40.9 21.5 5.1 42.6 28.4 4.5 32.3 29.0 12.4 28.5 41.9 18.2
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)26.4
2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)22.5 7.0 5.4 0.5 6.6 6.5 5.3
3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N 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)12.4 4.8 5.0 2.0 1.1 0.7 1.7
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 0.3 3.6 0.7 0.8 3.2 0.3 0.3 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)16.8 20.9 5.4 15.8 19.9 9.6 12.9 18.6 6.0 16.2 12.9 4.7
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)14.4
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N 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 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 2.9 0.2 0.2 4.0
Total Del/Veh (s)15.7 19.9 15.6 14.5 19.4 14.4 5.7 9.1 4.2 4.5 6.4 1.6
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)14.1
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Mitigated Traffic Projections
PM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9 3.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.5 1.2
Total Del/Veh (s)15.2 5.3 14.7 7.5 1.9 1.8 1.2 0.2 4.3
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4
Total Del/Veh (s)33.7
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Mitigated Traffic Projections
PM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T T R L T T R L TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 223 168 151 176 89 85 166 152 59 254 176 78
Average Queue (ft)118 79 66 72 21 28 84 85 20 133 68 29
95th Queue (ft)190 137 125 132 67 66 138 138 48 209 134 65
Link Distance (ft)3570 3570 4196 4196 768
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)400 400 275 225 250 200 275
Storage Blk Time (%)2 0
Queuing Penalty (veh)3 0
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement SB SB
Directions Served T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 219 153
Average Queue (ft)108 69
95th Queue (ft)189 126
Link Distance (ft)1252 1252
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Intersection: 2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N
Movement EB EB NB SB
Directions Served L R L R
Maximum Queue (ft) 68 99 73 22
Average Queue (ft)22 41 34 2
95th Queue (ft)53 76 62 11
Link Distance (ft)885
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)160 175 275
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Mitigated Traffic Projections
PM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection: 3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 44 30
Average Queue (ft)15 5
95th Queue (ft)38 23
Link Distance (ft)712
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)120
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R LT R L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 162 43 131 132 137 51 148 93 68
Average Queue (ft)74 15 62 54 56 18 71 49 30
95th Queue (ft)130 35 103 93 101 43 124 80 53
Link Distance (ft)1000 1456 1259 509
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)225 225 225 200 225
Storage Blk Time (%)0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Intersection: 5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LT R LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 305 314 60 76 40
Average Queue (ft)119 86 18 25 14
95th Queue (ft)244 249 47 63 37
Link Distance (ft)908 2662 1828 1170
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Mitigated Traffic Projections
PM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection: 6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N
Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT R LT L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 52 220 34 98 4
Average Queue (ft)16 42 9 49 0
95th Queue (ft)43 166 28 89 3
Link Distance (ft)684 315 1010
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)350 265
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 3
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
50
Appendix J :
Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1
SimTraffic Report
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1
AM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4 0.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)31.2 20.9 3.3 33.8 24.9 3.6 21.6 17.4 6.5 20.0 24.0 21.1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)21.6
2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 4.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)9.8 3.4 3.4 2.5 0.5 0.3 6.5 5.4 4.7 3.3
3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)9.3 3.5 3.2 1.8 1.6 2.7 0.7 0.4 1.6
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 3.9 0.3 0.5 3.4 0.2 0.2 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)7.2 11.1 2.9 4.6 10.9 4.0 6.6 10.0 2.8 5.6 8.2 2.4
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)6.8
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N 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 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 3.2 0.3 0.3 4.0
Total Del/Veh (s)4.4 7.4 4.1 6.5 11.2 6.7 2.7 6.4 2.2 2.9 6.0 1.7
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)7.0
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1
AM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N/Site Access 4 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7 3.7 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.4 1.4
Total Del/Veh (s)8.5 8.1 10.5 3.7 1.6 1.4 1.2 0.1 4.6
7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL SBL SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)9.5 4.4 4.0 3.3 0.8 0.3 24.1 20.6 5.6 4.1
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3
Total Del/Veh (s)25.4
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1
AM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T T R L T T R L TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 86 102 112 120 60 86 150 137 35 196 114 100
Average Queue (ft)36 44 53 49 5 29 82 81 10 93 32 32
95th Queue (ft)75 86 93 99 32 67 133 128 31 159 80 73
Link Distance (ft)3570 3570 1718 1718 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)400 400 275 225 250 200 275
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement SB SB
Directions Served T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 157 232
Average Queue (ft)56 100
95th Queue (ft)113 178
Link Distance (ft)1252 1252
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2
Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT R LTR L LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 28 50 35 46 34
Average Queue (ft)10 18 8 16 6
95th Queue (ft)29 39 30 37 25
Link Distance (ft)886 296 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)160 175
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1
AM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection: 3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LTR L LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 56 15 46
Average Queue (ft)17 1 4
95th Queue (ft)44 6 23
Link Distance (ft)712 788
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)120
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R LT R L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 80 23 67 60 71 29 59 74 60
Average Queue (ft)36 6 33 31 32 9 32 29 26
95th Queue (ft)62 21 58 50 56 27 53 55 47
Link Distance (ft)1000 1456 1259 503
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)225 225 225 200 225
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LT R LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 86 72 35 45 46
Average Queue (ft)26 19 7 4 11
95th Queue (ft)61 55 27 24 33
Link Distance (ft)908 2662 1828 1170
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1
AM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection: 6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N/Site Access 4
Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT R LT L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 87 249 99 49 13
Average Queue (ft)16 56 36 16 0
95th Queue (ft)61 195 68 41 6
Link Distance (ft)684 315 1010
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)350 265
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Intersection: 7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N
Movement EB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L L R LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 72 24 13 31 99
Average Queue (ft)27 2 0 8 35
95th Queue (ft)58 13 4 26 69
Link Distance (ft)530 262
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1
PM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3 0.4 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)47.1 29.3 7.0 47.0 36.7 7.3 39.4 27.2 15.4 29.5 45.7 25.1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)32.6
2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5 3.8 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)27.3 7.4 24.0 8.2 5.9 0.7 12.2 7.3 7.0 6.0
3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)18.4 5.9 17.4 8.0 5.5 1.9 1.9 7.5 1.3 1.0 2.1
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 0.4 3.6 0.8 0.8 3.2 0.3 0.3 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)24.0 27.7 6.0 16.3 22.4 12.1 18.1 20.0 5.9 19.8 14.5 5.8
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)17.1
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N 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 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.8 2.9 0.2 0.2 4.0
Total Del/Veh (s)20.2 24.0 17.9 22.9 27.6 22.8 6.7 9.5 4.4 4.2 8.1 1.7
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)19.4
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1
PM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N/Site Access 4 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7 3.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.5 1.1
Total Del/Veh (s)14.8 6.5 19.3 7.6 2.2 2.1 1.4 0.2 5.3
7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)10.8 4.1 4.0 1.1 1.3 18.1 9.4 27.0 18.9 7.1
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3
Total Del/Veh (s)42.2
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1
PM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T T R L T T R L TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 242 220 227 214 139 90 201 211 49 355 183 75
Average Queue (ft)137 120 120 116 30 39 133 138 19 168 65 27
95th Queue (ft)221 191 194 190 97 79 194 197 45 284 131 60
Link Distance (ft)3570 3570 1718 1718 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)400 400 275 225 250 200 275
Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 0 8 0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 0 11 0
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement SB SB
Directions Served T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 252 237
Average Queue (ft)135 109
95th Queue (ft)218 203
Link Distance (ft)1252 1252
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Intersection: 2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2
Movement EB EB WB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LTR L LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 69 103 55 84 52 29
Average Queue (ft)23 42 19 34 7 2
95th Queue (ft)54 78 49 62 33 14
Link Distance (ft)886 296 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)160 175 275
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1
PM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection: 3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 49 52 28 37
Average Queue (ft)18 21 4 2
95th Queue (ft)44 48 21 15
Link Distance (ft)712 317 788
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)120
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R LT R L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 218 50 151 157 148 51 169 128 87
Average Queue (ft)92 16 68 62 55 18 80 54 41
95th Queue (ft)170 38 123 117 104 39 143 96 73
Link Distance (ft)1000 1456 1259 503
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)225 225 225 200 225
Storage Blk Time (%)1 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0
Intersection: 5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LT R LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 364 474 55 68 60
Average Queue (ft)147 149 21 31 17
95th Queue (ft)303 374 46 67 45
Link Distance (ft)908 2662 1828 1170
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1
PM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection: 6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N/Site Access 4
Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT R LT L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 48 263 95 119 4
Average Queue (ft)14 45 36 48 0
95th Queue (ft)41 182 73 99 4
Link Distance (ft)684 315 1010
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)350 265
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Intersection: 7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L T T T T R LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 117 6 9 23 30 17 39 245
Average Queue (ft)47 0 0 2 4 1 15 95
95th Queue (ft)97 5 5 12 18 7 35 188
Link Distance (ft)1718 1718 2408 2408 530 262
Upstream Blk Time (%)1
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 12
51 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
Appendix K :
Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2
SimTraffic Report
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2
AM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.6 0.2 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)29.2 19.5 3.1 35.4 23.9 4.0 21.1 16.5 4.5 18.8 23.3 21.7
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)21.1
2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 4.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)8.4 3.0 3.3 2.7 0.4 0.4 6.4 5.3 4.7 3.2
3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)8.0 3.5 4.3 1.7 1.3 2.4 0.7 0.4 1.6
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 4.1 0.5 0.4 3.5 0.3 0.2 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)6.3 11.2 2.4 4.9 10.5 3.9 5.8 9.5 2.9 5.2 7.9 2.4
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)6.5
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N 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 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 3.2 0.4 0.3 4.0
Total Del/Veh (s)6.2 8.0 5.5 6.3 11.2 6.8 2.5 5.6 2.2 3.7 6.7 1.6
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)7.2
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2
AM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N/Site Access 4 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7 3.7 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 3.4 1.4
Total Del/Veh (s)9.4 8.1 11.2 3.9 1.9 1.3 1.1 0.2 4.6
7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL SBL SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)8.8 4.3 3.3 2.1 0.8 0.4 15.0 18.7 6.0 3.9
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3
Total Del/Veh (s)24.8
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2
AM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T T R L T T R L TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 94 90 109 110 51 78 160 163 34 197 111 110
Average Queue (ft)36 36 49 44 5 25 82 81 10 88 32 35
95th Queue (ft)77 72 97 89 30 63 137 132 31 152 79 82
Link Distance (ft)3570 3570 1718 1718 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)400 400 275 225 250 200 275
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement SB SB
Directions Served T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 152 276
Average Queue (ft)55 99
95th Queue (ft)111 194
Link Distance (ft)1252 1252
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2
Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT R LTR L LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 24 39 36 49 38
Average Queue (ft)8 17 9 15 5
95th Queue (ft)26 33 31 39 24
Link Distance (ft)886 296 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)160 175
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2
AM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection: 3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LTR L LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 48 21 31
Average Queue (ft)18 1 3
95th Queue (ft)44 11 18
Link Distance (ft)712 788
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)120
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R LT R L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 63 23 72 62 62 29 69 57 56
Average Queue (ft)35 6 34 32 31 11 31 27 26
95th Queue (ft)55 21 57 54 53 30 54 50 48
Link Distance (ft)1000 1456 1259 503
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)225 225 225 200 225
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LT R LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 127 67 26 45 46
Average Queue (ft)34 20 5 6 11
95th Queue (ft)87 53 20 30 34
Link Distance (ft)908 2662 1828 1170
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2
AM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection: 6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N/Site Access 4
Movement EB EB WB NB
Directions Served LT R LT L
Maximum Queue (ft) 44 270 77 62
Average Queue (ft)16 54 33 18
95th Queue (ft)41 202 62 48
Link Distance (ft)684 315
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)350 265
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Intersection: 7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N
Movement EB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L L R LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 78 24 4 35 90
Average Queue (ft)25 1 0 8 36
95th Queue (ft)59 10 3 27 73
Link Distance (ft)530 262
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2
PM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3 0.4 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)48.0 29.2 6.6 50.4 38.6 8.4 38.8 33.4 14.7 27.7 46.3 24.8
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)33.0
2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6 3.7 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)22.4 7.7 17.5 8.0 6.0 0.7 12.1 7.4 7.0 5.8
3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)20.5 5.8 15.1 7.7 6.3 2.0 1.8 5.9 1.2 0.9 2.0
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 0.3 3.5 0.8 0.7 3.1 0.4 0.3 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)24.8 28.8 5.7 15.8 22.3 11.2 15.7 19.4 6.4 20.0 13.4 5.6
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)16.9
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N 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 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.8 2.9 0.2 0.2 4.0
Total Del/Veh (s)40.4 45.9 43.5 37.2 40.6 40.0 6.1 10.3 4.2 5.2 7.2 1.8
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)32.5
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2
PM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N/Site Access 4 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8 3.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.6 1.1
Total Del/Veh (s)17.5 6.5 18.7 8.0 2.1 2.3 1.5 0.3 5.3
7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 11.8 14.2 2.7
Total Del/Veh (s)11.8 4.1 3.6 1.2 1.4 20.7 9.3 61.0 48.8 14.5
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)2.1
Total Del/Veh (s)50.0
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2
PM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T T R L T T R L TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 264 256 226 221 122 111 236 227 58 302 192 84
Average Queue (ft)137 124 124 124 32 40 150 153 19 164 77 28
95th Queue (ft)223 205 207 206 87 82 219 219 45 267 154 65
Link Distance (ft)3570 3570 1718 1718 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)400 400 275 225 250 200 275
Storage Blk Time (%)1 0 7 0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 9 1
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement SB SB
Directions Served T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 264 203
Average Queue (ft)133 105
95th Queue (ft)235 174
Link Distance (ft)1252 1252
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Intersection: 2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2
Movement EB EB WB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LTR L LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 55 110 59 81 51 18
Average Queue (ft)24 47 23 33 5 2
95th Queue (ft)50 88 50 64 29 12
Link Distance (ft)886 296 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)160 175 275
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2
PM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection: 3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 44 57 27 26
Average Queue (ft)17 18 4 1
95th Queue (ft)39 47 21 12
Link Distance (ft)712 317 788
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)120
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R LT R L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 213 40 149 143 123 54 172 101 84
Average Queue (ft)97 14 66 59 56 17 81 48 38
95th Queue (ft)191 35 118 108 101 41 149 81 67
Link Distance (ft)1000 1456 1259 503
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)225 225 225 200 225
Storage Blk Time (%)2 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 1
Intersection: 5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LT R LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 579 636 60 65 55
Average Queue (ft)272 256 22 30 17
95th Queue (ft)550 572 49 65 42
Link Distance (ft)908 2662 1828 1170
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2
PM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection: 6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N/Site Access 4
Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT R LT L R
Maximum Queue (ft) 53 286 90 121 5
Average Queue (ft)15 50 34 51 0
95th Queue (ft)43 193 68 105 4
Link Distance (ft)684 315
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)350 265 275
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Intersection: 7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L T T T T R LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 141 16 5 21 21 28 44 296
Average Queue (ft)57 1 0 2 2 2 14 187
95th Queue (ft)109 9 4 11 13 14 35 334
Link Distance (ft)1718 1718 2408 2408 530 262
Upstream Blk Time (%)27
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 13
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
52
Appendix L :
Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2
Mitigated SimTraffic Report
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2 with Mitigation
PM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3 0.4 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)48.8 28.5 6.4 49.7 39.6 8.1 46.8 31.2 19.4 29.6 44.6 28.4
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)34.6
2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6 3.8 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)29.2 7.9 18.5 7.8 6.2 0.8 11.7 7.1 6.9 6.1
3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)16.5 5.9 15.0 8.1 5.5 2.0 2.0 5.5 1.2 0.9 2.0
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.4 3.5 0.8 0.7 3.2 0.3 0.3 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)25.5 28.9 5.8 17.2 22.3 11.5 16.0 21.2 6.2 20.4 12.9 5.5
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)17.3
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N 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 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.7 2.9 0.3 0.3 3.9
Total Del/Veh (s)5.5 8.9 4.2 6.8 9.6 3.3 7.5 10.9 4.3 4.5 7.6 1.9
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7
Total Del/Veh (s)7.4
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2 with Mitigation
PM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N/Site Access 4 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.0 3.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.5 1.1
Total Del/Veh (s)19.5 6.5 17.2 7.8 2.3 2.2 1.4 0.2 5.3
7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)10.0 3.6 2.9 1.4 1.5 18.1 9.7 24.7 9.1 6.1
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.2
Total Del/Veh (s)38.2
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2 with Mitigation
PM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T T R L T T R L TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 257 228 228 216 137 113 244 272 57 322 358 98
Average Queue (ft)145 125 118 119 29 43 154 158 19 180 104 31
95th Queue (ft)230 200 191 190 92 89 226 239 44 319 292 73
Link Distance (ft)3570 3570 1707 1707 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)400 400 275 225 250 200 275
Storage Blk Time (%)0 1 1 12 0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 0 18 0
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement SB SB
Directions Served T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 238 276
Average Queue (ft)122 118
95th Queue (ft)211 227
Link Distance (ft)1252 1252
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Intersection: 2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2
Movement EB EB WB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LTR L LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 88 105 48 76 62 21
Average Queue (ft)27 44 22 35 7 1
95th Queue (ft)62 80 48 64 33 9
Link Distance (ft)886 296 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)160 175 275
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2 with Mitigation
PM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection: 3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 40 41 29 21
Average Queue (ft)15 16 4 2
95th Queue (ft)37 42 21 14
Link Distance (ft)712 317 788
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)120
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R LT R L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 234 42 158 130 147 51 196 90 91
Average Queue (ft)96 16 66 62 59 19 81 49 39
95th Queue (ft)198 35 121 108 109 41 155 79 69
Link Distance (ft)1000 1456 1259 503
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)225 225 225 200 225
Storage Blk Time (%)3 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 4
Intersection: 5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT TR LT TR LT R LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 88 15 94 15 70 59 51 20
Average Queue (ft)36 1 28 1 24 24 17 1
95th Queue (ft)71 9 68 9 54 61 41 10
Link Distance (ft)908 908 2668 2668 1828 1170
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150 150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2 with Mitigation
PM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection: 6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N/Site Access 4
Movement EB EB WB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 53 235 98 130 5 4
Average Queue (ft)15 48 33 47 0 0
95th Queue (ft)45 185 69 102 4 3
Link Distance (ft)684 315 1010
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)350 265 275
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB WB WB WB NB SB SB
Directions Served L T T T R LTR LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 109 12 23 30 17 49 140 106
Average Queue (ft)42 1 2 3 1 15 55 47
95th Queue (ft)87 6 13 18 7 39 112 79
Link Distance (ft)1707 2408 2408 530 556 556
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 24
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2 with Mitigation
AM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.5 0.2 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)29.8 21.2 3.3 34.7 24.5 3.7 21.6 19.5 5.6 20.3 22.5 18.6
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)20.8
2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 4.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)11.6 3.2 3.9 2.6 0.5 0.2 6.8 5.3 4.7 3.3
3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)8.1 3.0 3.4 1.8 1.9 2.3 0.8 0.3 1.6
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 3.8 0.5 0.5 3.4 0.2 0.2 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)6.4 11.7 3.0 5.4 11.2 4.1 6.7 9.8 2.8 5.5 8.4 2.4
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)6.7
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N 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 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.3 3.2 0.3 0.3 3.9
Total Del/Veh (s)2.6 5.1 1.9 4.7 8.0 2.6 2.8 6.9 2.2 3.6 5.7 1.9
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7
Total Del/Veh (s)5.1
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2 with Mitigation
AM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N/Site Access 4 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8 3.6 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 3.7 1.4
Total Del/Veh (s)8.8 5.6 9.9 3.8 1.8 1.5 1.1 0.1 3.8
7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL SBL SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)8.7 4.1 3.6 2.9 0.8 0.3 19.5 19.6 3.8 3.7
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.2
Total Del/Veh (s)23.4
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2 with Mitigation
AM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T T R L T T R L TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 82 88 148 130 49 86 149 162 37 188 124 87
Average Queue (ft)36 41 50 45 5 30 84 82 8 87 36 30
95th Queue (ft)75 82 103 96 29 66 143 137 28 151 90 71
Link Distance (ft)3570 3570 1707 1707 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)400 400 275 225 250 200 275
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement SB SB
Directions Served T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 118 225
Average Queue (ft)52 95
95th Queue (ft)101 172
Link Distance (ft)1252 1252
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2
Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT R LTR L LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 38 44 36 50 38
Average Queue (ft)11 17 9 16 5
95th Queue (ft)33 34 33 39 24
Link Distance (ft)886 296 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)160 175
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2 with Mitigation
AM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection: 3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LTR L LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 66 27 45
Average Queue (ft)20 2 4
95th Queue (ft)48 12 25
Link Distance (ft)712 788
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)120
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R LT R L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 70 25 70 77 74 24 64 70 48
Average Queue (ft)35 6 30 32 34 10 32 29 24
95th Queue (ft)57 21 55 55 60 28 51 53 43
Link Distance (ft)1000 1456 1259 503
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)225 225 225 200 225
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT TR LT LT R LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 41 4 48 27 37 44 22
Average Queue (ft)11 0 11 6 4 11 2
95th Queue (ft)32 2 32 22 24 33 14
Link Distance (ft)908 908 2668 1828 1170
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150 150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2 with Mitigation
AM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection: 6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N/Site Access 4
Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT R LT L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 39 224 80 60 4
Average Queue (ft)15 34 34 16 0
95th Queue (ft)41 151 66 44 3
Link Distance (ft)684 315 1010
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)350 265
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N
Movement EB WB WB NB SB SB
Directions Served L L R LTR LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 84 20 8 26 60 56
Average Queue (ft)19 1 0 6 23 23
95th Queue (ft)50 11 4 23 52 44
Link Distance (ft)530 556 556
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
53 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
Appendix M :
Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3
SimTraffic Report
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3
AM Peak Hour
01/25/2022 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4 0.2 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)29.5 19.5 3.2 32.1 25.2 3.0 19.8 15.1 5.6 19.1 22.2 17.7
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)20.0
2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 4.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)8.7 3.1 3.5 2.4 0.4 0.3 5.9 5.1 5.3 3.1
3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)6.9 3.3 3.8 1.7 1.6 2.3 0.8 0.3 1.5
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 3.9 0.4 0.4 3.5 0.3 0.2 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)6.8 11.2 3.0 5.2 11.1 3.9 6.6 9.8 2.8 5.5 8.3 2.4
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)6.7
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N 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 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.4 3.1 0.2 0.2 4.0
Total Del/Veh (s)4.7 8.0 4.6 6.5 11.0 6.0 2.5 6.1 2.2 3.6 6.5 1.8
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)7.0
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3
AM Peak Hour
01/25/2022 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N/Site Access 4 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7 3.7 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 3.2 1.5
Total Del/Veh (s)8.0 3.9 8.7 3.9 1.7 1.3 1.0 0.2 2.7
7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL SBL SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)8.9 4.4 3.3 1.4 0.8 0.4 18.0 21.7 7.8 4.1
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3
Total Del/Veh (s)23.5
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3
AM Peak Hour
01/25/2022 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T T R L T T R L TR L
Maximum Queue (ft)89 89 115 109 56 86 158 156 31 192 116 103
Average Queue (ft)34 37 48 47 4 28 76 79 9 88 32 32
95th Queue (ft)72 75 92 94 27 65 127 129 30 147 80 76
Link Distance (ft)3570 3570 1718 1718 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 400 400 275 225 250 200 275
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement SB SB
Directions Served T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 136 204
Average Queue (ft)51 83
95th Queue (ft)98 150
Link Distance (ft)1252 1252
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2
Movement EB EB WB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LTR L LT R
Maximum Queue (ft)33 57 36 45 49 4
Average Queue (ft)10 18 9 14 6 0
95th Queue (ft)30 39 33 36 29 5
Link Distance (ft)886 296 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)160 175 275
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3
AM Peak Hour
01/25/2022 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection: 3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LTR L LT
Maximum Queue (ft)40 16 31
Average Queue (ft)16 1 3
95th Queue (ft)41 9 17
Link Distance (ft)712 788
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)120
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R LT R L T R
Maximum Queue (ft)74 24 68 66 80 29 67 83 66
Average Queue (ft)39 6 35 33 33 11 33 30 25
95th Queue (ft)64 21 58 53 61 29 55 57 48
Link Distance (ft)1000 1456 1259 503
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)225 225 225 200 225
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LT R LT
Maximum Queue (ft)90 85 29 41 45
Average Queue (ft)30 19 6 5 12
95th Queue (ft)71 56 23 27 36
Link Distance (ft)908 2662 1828 1170
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3
AM Peak Hour
01/25/2022 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection: 6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N/Site Access 4
Movement EB EB WB NB
Directions Served LT R LT L
Maximum Queue (ft)35 166 55 64
Average Queue (ft)16 29 18 17
95th Queue (ft)41 124 43 46
Link Distance (ft)684 315
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)350 265
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB WB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L T L T R LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)86 5 10 10 12 43 95
Average Queue (ft)27 0 1 0 1 11 31
95th Queue (ft)63 3 7 5 6 33 67
Link Distance (ft)1718 2408 530 262
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3
PM Peak Hour
01/25/2022 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3 0.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)43.5 27.5 6.0 43.8 36.1 8.5 38.5 34.4 16.9 28.7 46.3 23.5
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)31.4
2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6 3.7 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)23.4 7.2 16.4 7.9 5.4 0.7 11.3 7.3 6.4 5.7
3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)16.9 6.4 16.1 8.1 5.6 1.9 1.6 7.8 1.2 1.0 2.0
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 0.3 3.6 0.7 0.8 3.2 0.3 0.3 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)16.6 21.1 4.9 14.2 19.7 9.1 11.2 16.1 6.0 15.7 12.9 5.0
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)13.7
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N 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 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.9 2.9 0.1 0.3 4.0
Total Del/Veh (s)25.4 28.6 25.4 21.2 26.1 20.7 6.4 10.0 4.4 3.8 7.3 1.6
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)20.2
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3
PM Peak Hour
01/25/2022 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N/Site Access 4 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.0 3.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.5 1.2
Total Del/Veh (s)16.9 7.0 17.6 7.6 2.1 1.9 1.4 0.2 5.3
7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)9.7 3.8 2.8 1.0 1.0 17.3 10.3 28.8 18.4 6.8
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3
Total Del/Veh (s)40.4
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3
PM Peak Hour
01/25/2022 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T T R L T T R L TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 223 201 190 200 105 94 210 210 60 312 263 79
Average Queue (ft)131 103 105 107 26 41 130 134 21 167 80 31
95th Queue (ft)199 171 170 173 77 80 191 193 49 277 180 67
Link Distance (ft)3570 3570 1718 1718 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 400 400 275 225 250 200 275
Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 6 0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 8 0
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement SB SB
Directions Served T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 245 208
Average Queue (ft)123 95
95th Queue (ft)209 170
Link Distance (ft)1252 1252
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Intersection: 2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2
Movement EB EB WB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LTR L LT R
Maximum Queue (ft)70 88 56 85 57 28
Average Queue (ft)24 41 22 30 6 2
95th Queue (ft)54 72 49 58 32 13
Link Distance (ft)886 296 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)160 175 275
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3
PM Peak Hour
01/25/2022 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection: 3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3
Movement EB WB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L LT R
Maximum Queue (ft)48 52 28 22 4
Average Queue (ft)17 20 5 1 0
95th Queue (ft)41 48 21 11 3
Link Distance (ft)712 317 788
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)120 200
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R LT R L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 170 37 137 120 99 52 154 96 72
Average Queue (ft)75 13 62 53 47 19 72 47 33
95th Queue (ft)133 32 109 91 80 44 131 79 57
Link Distance (ft)1000 1456 1259 503
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)225 225 225 200 225
Storage Blk Time (%)0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Intersection: 5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LT R LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 442 406 61 64 44
Average Queue (ft)169 139 22 33 16
95th Queue (ft)370 328 47 67 37
Link Distance (ft)908 2662 1828 1170
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3
PM Peak Hour
01/25/2022 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection: 6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N/Site Access 4
Movement EB EB WB NB
Directions Served LT R LT L
Maximum Queue (ft)44 246 76 127
Average Queue (ft)17 50 27 50
95th Queue (ft)43 195 58 104
Link Distance (ft)684 315
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)350 265
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Intersection: 7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB WB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L T T T R LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)84 5 16 30 9 43 218
Average Queue (ft)39 0 1 2 0 15 95
95th Queue (ft)72 4 9 17 5 36 180
Link Distance (ft)1718 2408 2408 530 262
Upstream Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 9
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis
January 2022
54
Appendix N :
Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4
SimTraffic Report
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4
AM Peak Hour
01/25/2022 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.5 0.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)24.9 16.5 3.1 35.3 21.1 2.8 17.5 13.5 4.4 17.6 20.4 15.6
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)17.3
2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 4.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)8.7 3.0 4.0 2.6 0.5 0.2 6.4 5.3 5.0 3.2
3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)7.4 3.0 4.0 1.7 1.7 2.3 0.6 0.5 1.5
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.3 3.7 0.4 0.4 3.4 0.2 0.2 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)6.7 11.4 2.5 5.4 10.4 4.0 5.6 9.3 2.8 5.2 8.5 2.2
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)6.6
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N 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 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 3.2 0.3 0.3 4.0
Total Del/Veh (s)4.8 6.9 4.9 5.5 10.4 6.1 1.6 5.0 2.0 2.7 5.7 1.7
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)6.3
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4
AM Peak Hour
01/25/2022 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7 3.7 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.3 3.6 1.6
Total Del/Veh (s)9.6 4.2 8.0 3.3 1.8 1.2 0.9 0.2 2.6
7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)3.6 2.8 2.9 0.4 10.9 2.1
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4
Total Del/Veh (s)20.8
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4
AM Peak Hour
01/25/2022 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T T R L T T R L TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 79 67 90 90 36 60 122 120 33 182 103 95
Average Queue (ft)28 23 34 33 2 21 63 65 11 79 28 30
95th Queue (ft)60 54 74 72 19 51 104 106 32 140 70 73
Link Distance (ft)3570 3570 1718 1718 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)400 400 275 225 250 200 275
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement SB SB
Directions Served T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 139 190
Average Queue (ft)46 71
95th Queue (ft)98 136
Link Distance (ft)1252 1252
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2
Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT R LTR L LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 33 41 35 53 43
Average Queue (ft)10 17 9 14 6
95th Queue (ft)30 34 32 37 28
Link Distance (ft)886 296 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)160 175
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4
AM Peak Hour
01/25/2022 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection: 3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LTR L LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 43 21 37
Average Queue (ft)16 1 3
95th Queue (ft)39 9 19
Link Distance (ft)712 788
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)120
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R LT R L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 87 23 66 77 67 24 59 63 61
Average Queue (ft)38 6 31 35 32 10 31 28 21
95th Queue (ft)65 22 52 57 53 28 50 51 44
Link Distance (ft)1000 1456 1259 503
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)225 225 225 200 225
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LT R LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 83 60 25 48 43
Average Queue (ft)26 12 4 7 9
95th Queue (ft)64 42 17 31 30
Link Distance (ft)908 2662 1828 1170
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4
AM Peak Hour
01/25/2022 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection: 6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N
Movement EB EB WB NB
Directions Served LT R LT L
Maximum Queue (ft) 39 207 30 48
Average Queue (ft)15 20 8 13
95th Queue (ft)40 134 28 37
Link Distance (ft)684 315
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)350 265
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Intersection: 7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N
Movement WB NB
Directions Served L LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 24 26
Average Queue (ft)2 7
95th Queue (ft)13 25
Link Distance (ft)530
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4
PM Peak Hour
01/25/2022 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4 0.3 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)42.7 23.8 6.1 48.9 30.1 4.3 39.0 29.1 14.0 30.2 45.8 19.2
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)28.8
2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5 3.8 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
Total Del/Veh (s)20.2 7.1 20.6 9.2 5.5 0.7 10.9 7.1 6.7 5.6
3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)14.9 5.0 14.6 9.2 5.2 1.9 1.6 6.8 1.2 0.7 2.0
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.3 3.7 0.7 0.8 3.1 0.2 0.3 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)16.9 20.5 5.2 12.4 19.4 9.2 14.9 17.7 5.7 16.6 12.4 5.0
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)13.9
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N 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 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.9 3.0 0.2 0.2 4.1
Total Del/Veh (s)16.9 20.7 18.1 12.4 17.4 10.9 5.6 9.1 4.1 4.1 7.1 1.7
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)13.7
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4
PM Peak Hour
01/25/2022 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.0 3.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.7 1.2
Total Del/Veh (s)17.6 5.3 16.0 8.1 2.0 1.6 1.4 0.2 4.6
7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBT NBL NBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)3.1 2.9 0.8 10.0 7.1 2.3
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4
Total Del/Veh (s)35.2
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4
PM Peak Hour
01/25/2022 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T T R L T T R L TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 239 201 140 145 148 91 163 154 60 305 210 88
Average Queue (ft)131 90 70 77 33 29 86 88 19 167 70 31
95th Queue (ft)210 163 124 131 103 69 136 138 47 275 142 71
Link Distance (ft)3570 3570 1718 1718 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)400 400 275 225 250 200 275
Storage Blk Time (%)7 0
Queuing Penalty (veh)9 0
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement SB SB
Directions Served T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 238 179
Average Queue (ft)126 76
95th Queue (ft)208 143
Link Distance (ft)1252 1252
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Intersection: 2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2
Movement EB EB WB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LTR L LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 59 111 66 78 44 22
Average Queue (ft)24 42 25 33 5 2
95th Queue (ft)49 83 56 61 26 12
Link Distance (ft)886 296 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)160 175 275
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4
PM Peak Hour
01/25/2022 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection: 3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 44 48 28 33
Average Queue (ft)16 20 5 2
95th Queue (ft)38 46 22 14
Link Distance (ft)712 317 788
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)120
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R LT R L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 159 48 124 127 120 50 176 97 70
Average Queue (ft)72 16 59 55 52 18 73 49 32
95th Queue (ft)131 37 101 98 95 40 136 80 58
Link Distance (ft)1000 1456 1259 503
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)225 225 225 200 225
Storage Blk Time (%)0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1
Intersection: 5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LT R LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 297 267 50 50 50
Average Queue (ft)119 74 17 25 15
95th Queue (ft)245 212 43 61 39
Link Distance (ft)908 2662 1828 1170
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4
PM Peak Hour
01/25/2022 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection: 6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N
Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT R LT L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 53 230 51 154 4
Average Queue (ft)15 41 11 58 0
95th Queue (ft)42 162 35 120 3
Link Distance (ft)684 315 1010
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)350 265
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N
Movement NB
Directions Served LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 34
Average Queue (ft)13
95th Queue (ft)32
Link Distance (ft)530
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 10
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR March 2022
Appendix D
Oakdale Sewer Service Agreement
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR March 2022
Appendix E
Responses to Agency and Public Comments
1. Introduction
Pursuant to Minnesota Rules, part 4410.3610, subpart 5c, the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) shall revise the environmental analysis
document based on comments received during the comment period. The RGU shall include in the document a section specifically
responding to each timely, substantive comment received that indicates in what way the comment has been addressed.
The 30-day Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) comment period began February 1, 2022, and comments were accepted through
March 3, 2022. Five comment letters were received from government agencies and eight comment letters from the public. Responses to
those comments are included in the following sections, and copies of the comment letters are included in Appendix F.
2. Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office
Comment Response
Historic Properties (Item 14)
Based on our review of the project information, we conclude that there are no
properties listed in the National or State Registers of Historic Places, and no known or
suspected archaeological properties located in the area will be affected by this project.
Comment noted.
3. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Comment Response
Land Use (Item 9)
Page 16, Lake Elmo 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Please note that the reconstruction of
the sanitary sewer lift station will need a separate DNR Water Appropriation Permit if
the dewatering for the reconstruction will exceed 10,000 gallons per day, or one milli on
gallons per year. The DNR Permit Application should be submitted electronically using
the Minnesota Permitting and Reporting System (MPARS) website at:
https://webapps11.dnr.state.mn.us/mpars/public/authentication/login
Comment noted. A DNR Water Appropriation
Permit will be applied for, if necessary.
Page 17, Water Supply Plan. We appreciate that the development of this area has been
reflected in Part 1 of the City of Lake Elmo Water Supply Plan. Comment noted.
Comment Response
Water Resources (Item 11)
Page 32, Wastewater. If Scenario 4 is ultimately selected and the use of Subsurface
Sewage Treatment Systems (SSTS) becomes necessary, please be aware that
groundwater mounding can occur beneath septic system drain fields and poses a risk
similar to infiltration basins within areas prone to surface karst feature development.
Comment noted.
Page 33, Stormwater. The DNR recommends that stormwater features be used to
irrigate landscaping in the AUAR area as a means to reduce groundwater use, especially
in an area with known groundwater contamination. For example, please refer to the
Cities of Hugo, Medina, and Minnetrista, all of which successfully reuse stormwater for
irrigation purposes. Please note that the use of stormwater from constructed
stormwater features does not require a DNR Water Appropriation Permit.
Comment noted. Water reuse to irrigate lawn
and landscaping features will be considered for
future development in the area.
Page 33, Stormwater. We recommend that the proposed developments use native seed
mixes and plants in stormwater features and landscaping in order to provide pollinator
habitat. This is especially important since the federally endangered Rusty-patched
Bumble Bee has been documented within the vicinity of the project area. The Board of
Soil and Water Resources’ website contains many great resources for choosing seed
mixes and establishing native plants.
Comment noted. The project proposers will be
encouraged to use native seed mixes and plants
to promote pollinator habitat within the
landscaped areas.
Comment Response
Page 33, Stormwater. The planned increase in impervious surfaces will also increase the
amount of road salt used in the project rea. Chloride released into local lakes and
streams does not break down, and instead accumulates in the environment, potentially
reaching levels that are toxic to aquatic wildlife and plants. Consider promoting local
business and city participation in the Smart Salting Training offered through the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. There are a variety of classes available for road
applicators, sidewalk applicators, and property managers. More information and
resources can be found at this website. Many winter maintenance staff who have
attended the Smart Salting training – both from cities and counties and from private
companies – have used their knowledge to reduce salt use and save money for their
organizations.
We also encourage cities and counties to consider how they may participate in the
Statewide Chloride Management Plan and provide public outreach to reduce the
overuse of chloride. Here are some educational resources for residents as well as a
sample ordinance regarding chloride use.
The developer will look for methods to minimize
chloride use and improve treatment of
stormwater runoff to minimize potential impacts
to downstream waters. The project will comply
with all city, watershed district, county, and state
rules for stormwater management, and chloride
use will be addressed in the Stormwater
Management Plan that will be reviewed by the
City for compliance.
Page 34, Water Appropriation. Please note that the details of the future of the water
supply system for the City of Lake Elmo will be subject to the decisions of the Ramsey
County Court and the State Legislature concerning the White Bear Lake Court Decision.
Comment noted.
Page 37, Stormwater. Because the project area is located in an area prone to surface
karst feature development, we urge caution regarding the use of infiltration basins. If
infiltration basins are found to be suitable, we recommend verifying infiltration design
rates by performing an infiltration test at each location prior to construction of the
stormwater feature in order to reduce the chance of infiltration basin failure. We
appreciate that the construction of infiltration basins will only take place on dry soils
and that measures will be taken to preserve soil structure and reduce compaction.
Comment noted.
Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources (Item 13)
Comment Response
Page 46, Rare Features. The DNR concurs that impacts to rare features are unlikely to
occur as a result of this project. While impacts to rare features are not anticipated, there
is the potential to retain wildlife habitat and reduce fragmentation and loss of habitat
by retaining existing groups of trees and wetlands. Opportunities include: the small
group of trees on the eastern side of the property that are proposed to be incorporated
into a park, the rectangular small chunk of forest on the northwest side of the project
area, the small groupings of trees on the south side of 34th Street N along the eastern
part of the property (especially nearest to the pond), and the small, younger patch of
woods in the northeast corner of the property.
In the metro area, retaining forest, even the small and isolated remnants on the
landscape, is especially important for wildlife habitat, clean water, and for the
recreation/aesthetic values to the residents of Lake Elmo. We encourage the City to
learn more about the DNR’s School Forest Program, which provides and opportunity to
use some of the retained forest as an outdoor classroom in one or more of its schools.
Comment noted.
Page 49, Rare Features. We appreciate that the development will use native seed mixes
and plants in landscaping and encourage the City to utilize native plantings to the
greatest degree possible.
Comment noted.
Air (Item 16)
Page 51, Dust and Odors. Should water for dust control be taken from a lake, wetland,
river, or stream in volumes that exceed 10,000 gallons of water in a single day, then a
DNR Water Appropriation Permit will be needed for the taking of water. Please do not
use products containing chloride for dust control in areas that drain to Public Waters.
Comment noted. A DNR Water Appropriation
Permit will be applied for, if necessary. Products
containing chloride will not be used in areas that
drain to Public Waters.
4. Metropolitan Council
Comment Response
Project Description (Item 6)
Wastewater (Roger Janzig, 651-602-1119). The AUAR states that of the 190-acre study
area, 110 acres lie to the north of 34th Street North. This area is not within the current
2030 MUSA and therefore, not available for extension of wastewater service through the
Metropolitan Disposal System.
The AUAR refers to an intercommunity wastewater flow agreement with the City of
Oakdale for full development of the AUAR to be served with regional sanitary sewer
through Oakdale. A copy of the intercommunity wastewater flow agreement should be
included in the AUAR.
Comment noted. A copy of the intercommunity
wastewater flow agreement will be included in
the final AUAR.
Comment Response
Forecasts (Todd Graham, 651-602-1322). The AUAR discusses four development
scenarios:
• Scenario 1 includes 1.8 million square feet of nonresidential space (mostly
business park) and 400 apartments in mixed use development.
• Scenario 2 includes 1.7 million square feet of nonresidential space (mostly
business park), 210 apartments in mixed use development, and 180 units in low-
and medium density residential.
• Scenario 3 includes 2.3 million square feet of nonresidential space (mostly
business park) and 56 houses in low-density residential.
• Scenario 4, consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan, includes 1.1 million
square feet of nonresidential space (business park) on the southern half, and 10
houses, rural residential, on the northern half.
The AUAR study site is part of the Transportation Analysis Zone #2351 (north of 34 th
Avenue) and TAZ #2389 (south of 34th Avenue). TAZ allocations for 2040 have been
prepared by the City and were updated following a 2021 plan amendment for the
southern portion of the subject site. The TAZ allocation describes:
• TAZ #2351 will grow by +4 households and will have zero employment during
2020-2040.
• TAZ #2389 will lose -96 households and -310 population; and will grow by +800
jobs during 2020-2040.
Should the City pursue scenarios 1, 2, or 3, Lake Elmo would need to request MUSA
extension and amend its comprehensive plan. The Metropolitan Council would also
expect a households, population, and employment forecast increase; and revised
forecast allocations for Transportation Analysis Zones #2351 and #2389. (None of this is
needed for Scenario 4).
Comment noted. If the City pursues Scenarios 1,
2, or 3, a MUSA extension and adjustments to
forecasts will be requested, and the City will
amend its comprehensive plan.
Comment Response
Land Use (Jake Reilly, 651-602-1822). As stated in the AUAR, scenarios 1 through 3 are
not consistent with the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. In order to pursue those
scenarios, the City would need to submit an amendment to the City’s Land Use Plan
along with a request for a MUSA extension and adjustments (increases) to forecasts. A
Master Plan for the AUAR study area was completed by the City in 2020. Development
Scenarios 2 and 3 propose land use changes to the area, including increased density of
residential uses. Because the City of Cottage Grove is a Suburban Edge community as
described in Thrive MSP 2040, residential densities for new development and
redevelopment must be built at a minimum of three units per acre.
Comment noted. If the City pursues Scenarios 1,
2, or 3, the City will submit an amendment to the
Land Use Plan and a request for a MUSA
extension and adjustments to forecasts.
Natural Resources (Eric Wojchik, 651-602-1330). The development layout in Scenario 2
represents a more compact, efficient use of land and infrastructure, with a mix of uses,
therefore preserving areas of open space for wildlife habitat and recreation. The three
other scenarios would likely create higher VMT and emissions due to reduced traffic
connectivity and less efficient use of the land. These environmental and infrastructure
considerations should be taken into account in determining the appropriate
development scenario.
Comment noted.
Comment Response
Transit (Stephanie Baisden, 612-349-7361). No bus stops are located within walking
distance of any residential land uses proposed within the various development
scenarios and the AUAR does not include enough information to identify if pedestrian
facilities are proposed within the development. Additional sidewalks should be
considered, as well as providing sidewalks within the proposed development site to
facilitate safe pedestrian access. Right-of-way should be set aside for the eventual
construction of sidewalks if they are not planned to be constructed with the proposed
development.
Long-term, the METRO Gold Line is planned to offer all-day transit service between
downtown Saint Paul and Woodbury; 3.5 miles south at the Helmo Avenue Station.
Additional expansion of the transit system will be considered by means of connecting
local bus routes within Lake Elmo to the METRO Gold Line.
Given the current and planned transit investments in the area and the lower residential
density that exists in this area now, this draft AUAR may have a marginal impact on the
existing transit network depending on which development scenario is chosen (but not
enough to warrant implementation of new transit service). This draft AUAR should not
expect additional expansion of the existing transit network.
Comment noted. As redevelopment proposals
come forth for the northern half of the AUAR
study area, pedestrian and bicycle facilities will
be considered in relation to future development
and transit considerations. The City and Project
Proposers will coordinate transit options with
Met Council as development progresses in the
area.
Geology, Soils, and Topography/Land Forms (Item 10)
Eric Wojchik, 651-602-1330. Item 10b states that earthwork on the study area south of
34th Street North is anticipated to generally balance and be kept onsite. The proposed
project will require approximately 500,000 total cubic yards of excavation. This se ction
of the EAW does not include detail or mitigation regarding the steep slopes (12-18%
gradient, with some areas exceeding 18% gradient) on the parcel south of 34th Street,
which drains to the east. The EAW should consider mitigation to avoid or minimize
slope erosion, ensure establishment or retention of stabilizing vegetation, and avoid
placement of structures or land alterations near steep slopes. These measures should
apply to all four development scenarios.
Comment noted. The proposed development
within the study area south of 34th Street N will
require compliance with both the City’s and
Valley Branch Watershed District’s erosion and
sediment control standards.
5. Minnesota Department of Transportation
Comment Response
Transportation (Item 18)
Walking and Biking. Washington County is completing trail connections along CSAH
14/34th St further west under I-694. MnDOT recommends that the development of the
study area considers safe and accessible connections to facilities for people walking and
biking.
Comment noted. As redevelopment proposals
come forth for the northern half of the AUAR
study area, pedestrian and bicycle connections
will be considered and incorporated into site
design.
6. Susan Dunn, Lake Elmo Resident
Comment Response
I wish to make comment regarding future use of the 190 acres of 3M land by the
maintenance building. Scenario #4 is the best. The approved comp plan scenarios.
Please do not put truck terminals etc. on that area.
Thank you for the comment.
7. Ann Bucheck, Lake Elmo Resident
Comment Response
I urge the city council to vote for Development Scenario 4. This land uses includes
agricultural, rural residential, public works, and business park. This scenario is the only
scenario that is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. It protects the
existing neighborhoods from the more intense development patterns contemplated in
the other scenarios. The trip generation forecast is the lowest and will have the least
congestion impact on the affected roads and will be the least costly in t erms of
roadways. Although not addressed, water supply to this area may be affected by the
decisions regarding allowance of water supply to any lands within five miles of White
Bear Lake. This area is clearly within the five-mile radius and the need for water supply
is of paramount importance. It is also unfortunate the AUAR does not show the buried
pipelines nor the energy lines that will have an impact on any proposed scenario. The
future land use plan as shown in the comprehensive plan continues to be the best plan
at this time and should not be changed. Please vote for scenario 4.
Thank you for the comment. Private utilities will
be located as development occurs and any
potential conflicts will be identified.
8. Ben and Breanna Pepin, Lake Elmo Residents
Comment Response
We are writing to provide feedback to you on the Cyphers Logistic Park draft AUAR per
direction on the Lake Elmo website. Our preference for this area would be that it
remains as open as possible, which would ideally mean maintaining it as agricultural
land and the public works building. We would prefer there to be no business or
residential development in this space. However, if the only path forward is one of the 4
proposed development plans, we would be in favor of the one that develops this space
the least and maintains the open and green spaces that exist today, which would
appear to be development scenario 4 (agriculture and rural residential).
Please keep us updated if there will be specific meetings/sessions where this land use is
discussed.
Thank you for the comment.
9. Tom Henderson, Lake Elmo Resident
Comment Response
I strongly favor Scenario 1. I was contacted and encouraged to write to you in favor of
Scenario 4. I believe that #4 is not practical… to attempt to develop and maintain this
location as “rural residential” is unrealistic. In my opinion, it should be zone d for
commercial and/or industrial due to proximity to the freeway ramps. Maybe a portion
could be successful as high density residential.
Thank you for the comment.
10. Dan Novak, Lake Elmo Resident
Comment Response
The word “criminal activity” isn’t even mentioned in the AUAR. 1.1-2.2 x 10⁶ ft2 of
business park will bring with it some criminal activity. When I think of what is being
proposed, I want to draw an analogy to a truck stop along an interstate. Only this one
will be off the beaten path.
Thank you for the comment.
The smell of diesel engines is not mentioned. There are residences of 3 sides of the
proposed business park. I feel sorry for the people living on the west side of Ideal Ave.
In addition to the train, they now get to bear the noise, lights, and smell of diesel fumes
the business park will bring.
Thank you for the comment. As stated in Section
16 of the AUAR, none of the intersections in the
AUAR study area exceed the air quality
standards criteria in the state of Minnesota.
The intersection of Inwood and Stillwater Blvd., regarding traffic, isn’t even mentioned
in the AUAR. It looks like they are predicting a 5% increase in traffic volume on Inwood.
I live on the corner of Inwood and Ironwood. Right now, today, I often have to wait
minutes (yes, minutes), to turn onto Inwood and get back onto Ironwood from Inwood.
This proposed business park with 10,000 proposed trips per day, is going to be a traffic
nightmare, especially along Ideal. Traffic lights are going to be needed at both
entrances to Tablyn Park. And, what about Regional Park’s west entrance? I don’t want
any more stop lights and more so, I don’t want to have to pay for them. These are the
types of problems that will emerge AFTER the developers are long gone.
Thank you for the comment. The
Inwood/Ironwood intersection was not studied
in this AUAR as it will not be a major intersection
used by the future developments in the AUAR
study area.
Comment Response
The words “traffic accidents” are not at all addressed in the AUAR. Take a look at the
intersections of Inwood and Minnehaha, Inwood and Stillwater, and all intersections
that open onto Inwood.
Thank you for the comment. The
Inwood/Minnehaha and Inwood/Stillwater
intersections were not studied in this AUAR as
they will not be major intersections used by the
future developments in the AUAR study area.
The AUAR looks at traffic capacity and
operations for future development within a
geographic area and does not typically address
current safety concerns.
The City of Lake Elmo has not been able to meet the water needs of its current
residents. How is it going to meet the needs of this new business park? How about
taking care of the residents first? For myself, I’d love to see Tablyn Park sewered FIRST!
Thank you for the comment. The City’s 2040
Comprehensive Plan includes a water supply
plan that planned for serving the AUAR study
area with municipal water.
In August 2021, the City of Lake Elmo entered
into a Cooperative Agreement with the City of
Oakdale to serve the AUAR study area with
regional sanitary sewer system through Oakdale.
Ultimately, the sanitary sewer main is connected
to the Metropolitan Council Environmental
Services system which discharges to the Metro
Wastewater Treatment Plant in St. Paul.
I am not in favor of amending the city’s comp plan to accommodate this developer!! I
am in favor of amending the city’s comp plan to keep this developer out! I believe that
a developer serves the purpose of maximizing exploitation of a city and leaving the city
with mitigation costs for decades to come.
Thank you for the comment.
Comment Response
My taxes are up 39.8% this year! We are on fixed incomes! I hope the city council will do
everything in its power to stop this proposed business park. This developer is proposing
to implement this development over an 18-year period. There is no one who can
anticipate all the problems this development will bring. The city will be mitigating
problems this business park brings for decades to come. Increased revenue from more
businesses and homes do not offset the cost of services that will be needed. City
council members, please tell me my city taxes are not going to go up next year and the
next, and the next…
Thank you for the comment.
11. Steve DeLapp, Lake Elmo Resident
Comment Response
I have some comments and a drawing that after 7 years on the Planning Commission, 2
on the Planning Commission, 16 on the Council, 10 years on the County Planning
Commission, and 36 years as a City resident, I am convinced the people living within ½
mile of this land will want and most benefit from the attached draft plan as a first
choice. The earlier proposal for tax exempted, 1 million s.f. warehouse with hundreds of
cars, low paid workers and semis is beyond belief. Who would move to wooded, 1 to 5
acre lots to have a 24 hour a day trucking operation surrounded by an 8 foot high, barb
wire topped chain link fence and intense floodlights anywhere near them. Neither our
voters, our environment, or our taxpayers should be forced to accept something totally
inappropriate for a city once called the Orono of the East Metro by the Minneapolis
Tribune.
Comment Response
Here is my response to your offer to let residents consider development, and the 3M
property directly impacts at least 200 semi-rural households, including mine.
Instead, I am certain that my proposal, an extension of Wildflower Shores real OP
ordinance, is consistent with the long-time values of the City for development above
10th St.
This alternative would have many key advantages over alternative proposals. It would:
1. Be consistent with our desire to maintain our low public service, semi-rural
lifestyle
2. Reduce traffic impacts far below what alternative proposals would impose
3. Provide far more in taxes than the cost of required services from the City
4. Eliminate any need for Met Council sewer extension from Oakdale, which would
be strongly opposed by area voters when the costs and future implications were
made known
5. Provide considerably improved environmental enhancement over current or
alternatively proposed land uses
6. Greatly reduce the noise to existing city residents from train and highway traffic
Thank you for the comment. Scenario 4 is
consistent with the City’s 2040 Comprehensive
Plan, which permits the development of the
parcels south of 34th Street N for Business Park
uses and the parcels north of 34th Street N for
rural residential uses, continued agriculture,
and the public works facility.
7. Put new commercial development in the Old Village, which was planned to
become a viable center with a completely planned downtown, instead of
putting commercial business that typically provides NO BENEFITS to residents.
(If it did, the local taxes on my house, with no city water or sewer and a fine,
rural road, would not have gone up almost 40% last year.)
Thank you for the comment.
Comment Response
8. Allow a few residents to build a house that reflects their interests rather than
the monolithic, solely financial, interests of national tract housing builders.
The development proposal below was superimposed on existing maps from the County
and shows the addition of 110 houses on 172.6 acres, including City and County rights
of way and wetlands, but excluding the intermittent stream and permanent wetlands
adjacent to CSAH 6 that were retained by 3M according to current County maps. 110
houses is about 20 more houses than would have been permitted in our existing
nationally recognized Open Space developments, one of which was awarded First Place
for National Developments with Under 100 Houses by the National Builders
Association. The extra houses were drawn to show an extreme level of development
that would preferably be reduced to be comparable to Wildflower Shores and all other
OP developments and account for wetlands created locally and from additional water
coming from the 1,100 adjacent housing units under construction in Oakdale and
additional associated runoff from a major expansion of CSAH 13B.
Comment Response
Thank you for the comment.
Having been instrumental in the creation of the Open Space Ordinance, and as an
architect, who studied city planning extensively over 23 years on the Planning
Commission and Council and attending many seminars with regional and national
experts, I would be glad to work with the Council – at no cost to our residents – to
further alter and develop this initial concept plan with more accurate delineation of
undevelopable wetlands, the power highline, the gas pipeline, rights of way, and any
other undevelopable land. I have no expectation that this would be a final design. A
rough model of this proposed Open Space development is the design of Prairie Ridge,
right next to Highway 36. With heavy planting by the owner, power lines over the site,
and custom, tasteful housing, I think we can all agree this OP development is one of
many developments worth learning from. The trees planted over 20 years ago by the
owner/developer are impressive and benefit the residents on 56th and 58th Streets to
the south of Prairie Ridge.
Comment Response
The former 3M site may be the largest opportunity for the City residents to provide
what have become rare homesite opportunities, where quality and environmental
sensitivity are joined and which are unavailable in Woodbury, Oakdale and yet provide
easy access to major north-south and east-west highways. They will be highly sought
after. It should be an example for the nation to see.
Thank you for the comment.
Because of the train and County road traffic, it is imperative that future residents be
provided with extensive noise screening from trees and maybe some berming. It will
take some time, but I helped plant the trees on Cty 14 provided by the State and they
are doing a great job of visual screening but need more trees to be a better noise
barrier.
Thank you for the comment. Any future
development of the AUAR study area will be
required to comply with the Lake Elmo Code of
Ordinances, which regulates mechanical noise
associated with building operation by the
standards set by the state of Minnesota and
Washington County.
Currently, both former 3M parcels are an environmental wasteland for both adjacent
residents and wildlife, which is soon to lose hundreds of acres of seasonal hunting
grounds across Ideal Ave in Oakdale where most of us know the “resident” red-tailed
hawk and where I observed a Sandhill Crane a couple years ago.
Thank you for the comment.
This proposal is a win-win for the city budget, for new residents looking for a less dense
development and our greatly threatened remaining environment. As a bonus, the new
tree cover will greatly reduce the incessant highway and train noise that row crops and
wither snow cover barely muffle.
Thanks. I hope this helps in rejuvenating our City. Becoming “North Woodbury” or a re-
imagined East Oakdale is not our destination.
Thank you for the comment.
12. The Wildflower Shores Homeowners Association Board
Comment Response
We, the Board, represent the 25 homes of the Wildflower Shores development
immediately east of the property on the north side of Hwy 14 and east of Ideal Ave. We
love our little corner of Lake Elmo; in particular, the serenity of the area amid the
suburbs, the greenery and the exceptionally low light pollution in our corner of the city
comes to mind. We would like to maintain as much of that as possible.
We realize that development is inevitable on the property but hope that you will
endeavor to incorporate the following into any development option chosen:
To attempt to keep any new development consistent with the housing developments to
both the north and east of the property. Given the 80 acres of business park
development planned for the property south of Hwy 14, we ask that the development
plan is majority residential, lots of trees/greenery, and landscaping.
• To be aware of the difference in land elevation. Wildflower Shores is roughly 30
feet below the property to our west, so any construction will tower over our
neighborhood
• To include a park area on the east side of any development option
• To keep the light pollution to a minimum
• To keep the increase in traffic away from residential areas and traffic noise to a
minimum. Noted on page 57, three of the development options introduce an
additional 10,000 vehicle trips into/out of the area daily
• To limit the entrance/exit to our association to the one existing entrance. This
would eliminate any new traffic into our association and to continue to provide
a safe neighborhood for the young kids to play
Thank you for the comment.
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR March 2022
Appendix F
Agency and Public Comment Letters
MINNESOTA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
50 Sherburne Avenue ▪ Administration Building 203 ▪ Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 ▪ 651-201-3287
mn.gov/admin/shpo ▪ mnshpo@state.mn.us
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND SERVICE PROVIDER
March 1, 2022
Molly Just
Planning Director
City of Lake Elmo
3800 Laverne Ave N
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
RE: Cyphers Logistic Park Draft AUAR
T29 R21 S16 & S21, Lake Elmo, Washington County
SHPO Number: 2022-0774
Dear Molly Just:
Thank you for providing this office with a copy of the Cyphers Logistic Park Draft Alternative Urban
Areawide Review (AUAR).
Based on our review of the project information, we conclude that there are no properties listed in the
National or State Registers of Historic Places, and no known or suspected archaeological properties
located in the area that will be affected by this project.
Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36 CFR § 800. If this project is considered for federal financial
assistance, or requires a federal permit or license, then review and consultation with our office will need
to be initiated by the lead federal agency. Be advised that comments and recommendations provided by
our office for this state-level review may differ from findings and determinations made by the federal
agency as part of review and consultation under Section 106.
Please contact Kelly Gragg-Johnson, Environmental Review Program Specialist, at
kelly.graggjohnson@state.mn.us if you have any questions regarding our review of this project.
Sincerely,
Sarah J. Beimers
Environmental Review Program Manager
Division of Ecological and Water Resources Transmitted by Email
Region 3 Headquarters
1200 Warner Road
Saint Paul, MN 55106
March 3, 2022
Kristina Handt, City Administrator
City of Lake Elmo
3880 Laverne Ave N, Suite 100
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Dear Kristina Handt,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Cyphers Logistic Park Draft Alternative Urban Areawide
Review (AUAR) located within the City of Lake Elmo in Washington County. The DNR respectfully
submits the following comments for your consideration:
1. Page 16, Lake Elmo 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Please note that the reconstruction of the
sanitary sewer lift station will need a separate DNR Water Appropriation Permit if the
dewatering for the reconstruction will exceed 10,000 gallons per day, or one million gallons per
year. The DNR Permit Application be submitted electronically u sing the Minnesota Permitting
and Reporting System (MPARS) website at:
https://webapps11.dnr.state.mn.us/mpars/public/authentication/login
2. Page 17, Water Supply Plan. We appreciate that the development of this area has been
reflected in Part 1 of the City of Lake Elmo Water Supply Plan.
3. Page 32, Wastewater. If Scenario 4 is ultimately selected and the use of Subsurface Sewage
Treatment Systems (SSTS) becomes necessary, please be aware that groundwater mounding
can occur beneath septic system drainfields, and poses a risk similar to infiltration basins within
areas prone to surface karst feature development.
4. Page 33, Stormwater. The DNR recommends that stormwater features be used to irrigate
landscaping in the AUAR area as a means to red uce groundwater use, especially in an area with
known groundwater contamination. For examples, please refer to the Cities of Hugo, Medina,
and Minnetrista, all of which successfully reuse stormwater for irrigation purposes. Please note
that the use of stormwater from constructed stormwater features does not require a DNR
Water Appropriation Permit.
5. Page 33, Stormwater. We recommend that the proposed developments use native seed mixes
and plants in stormwater features and landscaping in order to provide pollinator habitat. This is
especially important since the federally endangered Rusty-patched Bumble Bee has been
documented within the vicinity of the project area. The Board of Soil and Water Resources’
website contains many great resources for choosing seed mixes and establishing native plants.
6. Page 33, Stormwater. The planned increase in impervious surfaces will also increase the
amount of road salt used in the project area. Chloride released into local lakes and streams
does not break down, and instead accumulates in the environment, potentially reaching levels
that are toxic to aquatic wildlife and plants. Consider promoting local business and city
participation in the Smart Salting Training offered through the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency. There are a variety of classes available for road applicators, sidewalk applicators, and
property managers. More information and resources can be found at this website. Many winter
maintenance staff who have attended the Smart Salting training — both from cities and
counties and from private companies — have used their knowledge to reduce salt use and save
money for their organizations.
We also encourage cities and counties to consider how they may participate in the Statewide
Chloride Management Plan and provide public outreach to reduce the overuse of chloride. Here
are some educational resources for residents as well as a sample ordinance regarding chloride
use.
7. Page 34, Water Appropriation. Please note that the details of the future of the water supply
system for the City of Lake Elmo will be subject to the decisions of the Ramsey County Court
and the State Legislature concerning the White Bear Lake Court Decision.
8. Page 37, Stormwater. Because the project area is located in an area prone to surface karst
feature development, we urge caution regarding the use of infiltration basins. If infiltration
basins are found to suitable, we recommend verifying infiltration design rates by performing an
infiltration test at each location prior to construction of the stormwater feature in order to
reduce the chance of infiltration basin failure. We appreciate that construction of infiltration
basins will only take place on dry soils and that measures will be taken to preserve soil structure
and reduce compaction.
9. Page 46, Rare Features. The DNR concurs that impacts to rare features are unlikely to occur as
a result of this project. While impacts to rare features are not anticipated, there is the potential
to retain wildlife habitat and reduce fragmentation and loss of habitat by retaining existing
groups of trees and wetlands. Opportunities include: the small group of trees on the eastern
side of the property that are proposed to be incorporated into a park, the rectangular small
chunk of forest on the northwest side of the project area, the small groupings of trees on the
south side of 34th Street N along the eastern part of the property (especially nearest to the
pond), and the small, younger patch of woods in the northeast corner of the property.
In the metro area, retaining forest, even the small and isolated remnants on the landscape, is
especially important for wildlife habitat, clean water, and for the recreation/aesthetic values to
the residents of Lake Elmo. We encourage the City to learn more about the DNR’s School Forest
Program, which provides an opportunity to use some of the retained forest as an outdoor
classroom in one or more of its schools.
10. Page 19, Rare Features. We appreciate that the development will use native seed mixes and
plants in landscaping and encourage the City to utilize native plantings to the greatest degree
possible.
11. Page 51, Dust and Odors. Should water for dust control be taken from a lake, wetland, river or
stream in volumes that exceed 10,000 gallons of water in a single day, then a DNR Water
Appropriation Permit will be needed for the taking of the water. Please do not use products
containing chloride for dust control in areas that drain to Public Waters.
Thank you again for the opportunity to review this document. Please let me know if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Melissa Collins
Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist | Ecological and Water Resources
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
1200 Warner Road
St. Paul, MN 55106
Phone: 651-259-5755
Email: melissa.collins@state.mn.us
CC: Christina Hubacek, NorthPoint Development
Equal Opportunity Employer
March 3, 2022
Kristina Handt, City Administrator
City of Lake Elmo
3880 Laverne Avenue North, Suite 100
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
RE: City of Lake Elmo – Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) – Cyphers Logistic
Park
Metropolitan Council Review File No. 22724-1
Metropolitan Council District No. 12
Dear Kristina Handt:
Metropolitan Council staff completed its review of the Cyphers Logistic Park Draft AUAR to determine
its accuracy and completeness in addressing regional concerns. Staff concludes that the Draft AUAR is
complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns and does not raise major issues of
consistency with Council policies. However, staff offers the following comments for your consideration:
Item 6, Project Description
Wastewater (Roger Janzig, 651-602-1119)
The AUAR states that of the 190-acre study area, 110 acres lie to the north of 34th Street North.
This area is not within the current 2030 MUSA and therefore, not available for extension of
wastewater service through the Metropolitan Disposal System.
The AUAR refers to an intercommunity wastewater flow agreement with the City of Oakdale for
full development of the AUAR to be served with regional sanitary sewer through Oakdale. A
copy of the intercommunity wastewater flow agreement should be included in the AUAR.
Forecasts, (Todd Graham, 651-602-1322)
The AUAR discusses four development scenarios:
• Scenario 1 includes 1.8 million square feet of nonresidential space (mostly business park)
and 400 apartments in mixed use development.
• Scenario 2 includes 1.7 million square feet of nonresidential space (mostly business park),
210 apartments in mixed use development, and 180 units in low- and medium density
residential.
• Scenario 3 includes 2.3 million square feet of nonresidential space (mostly business park)
and 56 houses in low-density residential.
• Scenario 4, consistent with current Comprehensive Plan, includes 1.1 million square feet of
nonresidential space (business park) on the southern half, and 10 houses, rural residential,
on the northern half.
The AUAR study site is part of Transportation Analysis Zone #2351 (north of 34th Avenue) and
TAZ #2389 (south of 34th Avenue). TAZ allocations for 2040 have been prepared by the City
and were updated following a 2021 plan amendment for the southern portion
of the subject site. The TAZ allocation describes:
Page - 2 | March 3, 2022 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
• TAZ #2351 will grow by +4 households and will have zero employment during 2020-2040.
• TAZ #2389 will lose -96 households and -310 population; and will grow by +800 jobs during
2020-2040.
Should the City pursue scenarios 1, 2, or 3, Lake Elmo would need to request MUSA extension
and amend its comprehensive plan. The Metropolitan Council would also expect a households,
population and employment forecast increase; and revised forecast allocations for
Transportation Analysis Zones #2351 and #2389. (None of this is needed for Scenario 4.)
Land Use (Jake Reilly, 651-602-1822):
As stated in the AUAR, scenarios 1 through 3 are not consistent with the City’s 2040
Comprehensive Plan. In order to pursue those scenarios, the City would need to submit an
amendment to the City’s Land Use plan along with a request for a MUSA extension and
adjustments (increases) to forecasts. A Master Plan for the AUAR study area was completed by
the City in 2020. Development Scenarios 2 and 3 propose land use changes to the area,
including increased density of residential uses. Because the City of Cottage Grove is a
Suburban Edge community as described in Thrive MSP 2040, residential densities for new
development and redevelopment must be built at a minimum of three units per acre.
Natural Resources (Eric Wojchik, 651-602 -1330):
The development layout in Scenario 2 represents a more compact, efficient use of land and
infrastructure, with a mix of uses, therefore preserving areas of open space for wildlife habitat
and recreation. The three other scenarios would likely create higher VMT and emissions due to
reduced traffic connectivity and less efficient use of the land. These environmental and
infrastructure considerations should be taken into account in determining the appropriate
development scenario.
Transit (Stephen Baisden, 612-349-7361)
No bus stops are located within walking distance of any residential land uses proposed within
the various development scenarios and the AUAR does not include enough information to
identify if pedestrian facilities are proposed within the development. Additional sidewalks should
be considered, as well as providing sidewalks within the proposed development site to facilitate
safe pedestrian access. Right-of-way should be set aside for the eventual construction of
sidewalks if they are not planned to be constructed with the proposed development.
Long-term, the METRO Gold Line is planned to offer all-day transit service between downtown
Saint Paul and Woodbury; 3.5 miles south at the Helmo Avenue Station. Additional expansion of
the transit system will be considered by means of connecting local bus routes within Lake Elmo
to the METRO Gold Line.
Given the current and planned transit investments in the area and the lower residential density
that exists in this area now, this draft AUAR may have a marginal impact on the existing transit
network depending on which development scenario is chosen (but not enough to warrant
implementation of new transit service). This draft AUAR should not expect additional expansion
of the existing transit network.
Item 10. Geology, Soils, and Topography/Land Forms (Eric Wojchik, 651-602 -1330):
Item 10b states that earthwork on the study area south of 34th Street North is anticipated to
generally balance and be kept onsite. The proposed project will require approximately 500,000
total cubic yards of excavation. This section of the EAW does not include detail or mitigation
regarding the steep slopes (12-18% gradient, with some areas exceeding 18% gradient) on the
Page - 3 | March 3, 2022 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
parcel south of 34th Street, which drains to the east. The EAW should consider mitigation to
avoid or minimize slope erosion, ensure establishment or retention of stabilizing vegetation, and
avoid placement of structures or land alterations near steep slopes. These measures should
apply to all four development scenarios.
The Council will not take formal action on the Draft AUAR. If you have any questions or need further
information, please contact Jake Reilly, Principal Reviewer, at 651-602-1822 or via email at
jake.reilly@metc.state.mn.us.
Sincerely,
Angela R. Torres, AICP, Manager
Local Planning Assistance
CC: Tod Sherman, Development Reviews Coordinator, MnDOT - Metro Division
Francisco J. Gonzalez, Metropolitan Council District No.12
Judy Sventek, Water Resources Manager
Jake Reilly, Sector Representative/ Principal Reviewer
Reviews Coordinator
N:\CommDev\LPA\Communities\Lake Elmo\Letters\Lake Elmo 2022 Cyphers Logistic Park Draft AUAR 22724-1.docx
Metropolitan District
1500 County Road B-2 West
Roseville, MN 55113
Page 1 of 2
February 16, 2022
Molly Just
City of Lake Elmo
3800 Laverne Ave N
Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042
SUBJECT: Cyphers Logistic Park
MnDOT Review #AUAR22-001
Roughly 3/4 of a mile east of I-694 and Hwy 14 in west-central Lake Elmo
Control Section: 8286
Lake Elmo, Washington County
Dear Molly Just,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Cyphers Logistic Park Draft alternative urban areawide
review (AUAR). Please note that the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s (MnDOT) review of
this AUAR does not constitute approval of a regional traffic analysis and is not a specific approval for
roadway modifications. As plans are refined, we would like the opportunity to review the updated
information. MnDOT has reviewed the submitted documents and has the following comments:
Walking and Biking
Washington County is completing trail connections along CSAH 14/34th St further west under I-694.
MnDOT recommends that the development of the study area considers safe and accessible connections
to facilities for people walking and biking.
For questions regarding these comments, contact Jesse Thornsen, Metro Multimodal, at
Jesse.Thornsen@state.mn.us or 651-234-7788.
Review Submittal Options
MnDOT’s goal is to complete reviews within 30 calendar days. Review materials received electronically
can be processed more rapidly. Do not submit files via a cloud service or SharePoint link. In order of
preference, review materials may be submitted as:
1. Email documents and plans in PDF format to metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us. Attachments
may not exceed 20 megabytes per email. Documents can be zipped as well. If multiple emails are
necessary, number each message.
2. For files over 20 megabytes, upload the PDF file(s) to MnDOT’s Web Transfer Client site:
https://mft.dot.state.mn.us. Contact MnDOT Planning development review staff using the same
email above for uploading instructions, and send an email listing the file name(s) after the
document(s) has/have been uploaded.
Page 2 of 2
You are welcome to contact me at 651 234-7785, or Jake.Schutt@state.mn.us with any questions.
Sincerely,
Jake Schutt
Principal Planner
Copy sent via email:
Jason Swenson, Water Resources
Buck Craig, Permits
Michael Lynch, Right of Way
Ashley Hansen, Traffic
Brandi Kastner, Traffic
Jason Junge, Transit
Ryan Coddington, Area Engineer
Lance Schowalter, Design
Mike Samuelson, Ped/Bike Planning
Mackenzie Turner Barger, Multimodal Planning
Jesse Thornsen, Ped/Bike Planning
Tod Sherman, Planning
Cameron Muhic, Planning
David Elvin, Planning
David Kratz, Planning
Russell Owen, Metropolitan Council
Molly Just, City of Lake Elmo
From:djbucheck@comcast.net
To:Molly Just
Subject:Comments on Draft AUAR
Date:Sunday, February 27, 2022 6:22:02 PM
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
I urge the city council to vote for Development Scenario 4. This land uses includes
agricultural, rural residential, public works, and business park. This scenario is the
only scenario that is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. It protects the
existing neighborhoods from the more intense development patterns contemplated in
the other scenarios. The trip generation forecast is the lowest and will have the least
congestion impact on the affected roads and will be the least costly in terms of
roadways. Although not addressed, water supply to this area may be affected by the
decisions regarding allowance of water supply to any lands within five miles of White
Bear Lake. This area is clearly within the five-mile radius and the need for water
supply is of paramount importance. It is also unfortunate the AUAR does not show the
buried pipelines nor the energy lines that will have an impact on any proposed
scenario. The future land use plan as shown in the comprehensive plan continues to
be the best plan at this time and should not be changed. Please vote for scenario 4.
Ann Bucheck
2301 Legion Avenue N.
Lake Elmo MN 55042
From:Benjamin Pepin
To:Molly Just
Cc:Breanna Pepin
Subject:Cyphers Logistic Park Draft AUAR Feedback
Date:Wednesday, March 2, 2022 10:47:59 PM
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
Hello Ms. Just,
We are writing to provide feedback to you on the Cyphers Logistic Park draft AUAR per
direction on the Lake Elmo website. Our preference for this area would be that it remains as
open as possible, which would ideally mean maintaining it as agricultural land and the public
works building. We would prefer there to be no business or residential development in this
space. However, if the only path forward is one of the 4 proposed development plans, we
would be in favor of the one that develops this space the least and maintains the open and
green spaces that exist today, which would appear to be development scenario 4 (agriculture
and rural residential).
Please keep us updated if there will be specific meetings/sessions where this land use is
discussed.
Thank you,
Ben and Breanna Pepin
8690 Lake Jane Trl N
From:tomhenderson136@comcast.net
To:Molly Just
Subject:Cyphers Logistic Park
Date:Saturday, February 26, 2022 1:30:54 PM
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
I strongly favor Scenario 1.
Tom Henderson
11070 39th St N. apt 313
Lake Elmo, MN
I was contacted and encouraged to write to you in favor of Scenario 4. I believe
that #4 is not practical…to attempt to develop and maintain this location as
“rural residential” is unrealistic. In my opinion, it should be zoned for
commercial and/or industrial due to proximity to the freeway ramps. Maybe a
portion could be successful as high density residential.
Tom Henderson
From:Steve DeLapp
To:Molly Just
Subject:Revised: Proposal for former 3M land surrounding Public Works.
Date:Thursday, March 3, 2022 9:22:05 AM
Attachments:3M Property Development 3-02--22.jpg
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
REVISED
Steve DeLapp
8468 Lake Jane Trail
777-1001 or 651-999-9940
Molly,
I have some comments and a drawing that after 7 years on the Planning
Commission, 2 on the Planning Commission, 16 on the Council, 10 years on
the County Planning Commission, and 36 years as a City resident, I am
convinced the people living within 1/2 mile of this land will want and most
benefit from the attached draft plan as a first choice. The earlier proposal for
a tax exempted, 1 million s.f. foot warehouse with hundreds of cars, low paid
workers and semi's is beyond belief. Who would move to wooded, 1 to 5 acre
lots to have a 24 hour a day trucking operation surrounded by an 8 foot
high, barb wire topped chain link fence and intense, floodlights anywhere
near them. Neither our voters, our environment or our taxpayers, should be
forced to accept something totally inappropriate for a city once called the
Orono of the East Metro by the Minneapolis Tribune.
To the Lake Elmo City Council:
Here is my response to your offer to let residents consider development, and
the 3M property directly impacts at least 200 semi-rural
households, including mine.
Instead, I am certain that my proposal, an extension of Wildflower
Shores real OP ordinance, is consistent with the long time values of the
City for development above 10th St.
This alternative would have many key advantages over alternative
proposals. It would:
1. be consistent with our desire to maintain our low public service, semi-
rural lifestyle,
2. reduce traffic impacts far below what alternative proposals would
impose,
3. provide far more in taxes than the cost of required services from the
City,
4. eliminate any need for Met Council sewer extension from Oakdale,
which would be strongly opposed by area voters when the costs and
future implications were made known.
5. provide considerably improved environmental enhancement over
current or alternatively proposed land uses.
6. greatly reduce the spread of noise to existing city residents from train
and highway traffic.
7. put new commercial development in the Old Village, which was
planned to become a viable center with a completely planned
downtown, instead of putting commercial business that typically
provides NO BENEFITS to the residents. (If it did, the local taxes on
my house, with no city water or sewer and a fine, rural road, would not
have gone up almost 40% last year.)
8. Allow a few residents to build a house that reflects their interests
rather than the monolithic, solely financial, interests of national tract
housing builders.
The development proposal below was superimposed on existing maps from
the County, and shows the addition of 110 houses on 172.6 acres, including
City and County rights of way and wetlands, but excluding the intermittent
stream and permanent wetlands adjacent to CSAH 6 that were retained
by 3M according to current County maps. 110 houses is about 20 more
than would have been permitted in our existing nationally recognized Open
Space developments, one of which was awarded First Place for National
Developments with Under 100 Houses by the National Builders
Association. The extra houses were drawn to show an extreme level of
development that would preferably be reduced to be comparable to
Wildflower Shores and all other OP developments and account for wetlands
created locally and from additional water coming from the 1,100 adjacent
housing units under construction in Oakdale and additional associated
runoff from a major expansion of CSAH 13B.
Having been instrumental in the creation of the Open Space Ordinance, and
as an architect, who studied city planning extensively over 23 years on the
Planning Commission and Council and attending many seminars with
regional and national experts, I would be glad to work with the Council - at
no cost to our residents - to further alter and develop this initial concept
plan, with more accurate delineation of undevelopable wetlands, the power
highline, the gas pipeline, rights of way, and any other undevelopable land.
I have no expectation that this would be a final design. A rough model of
this proposed Open Space development is the design of Prairie Ridge, right
next to Highway 36. With heavy planting by the owner, power lines over the
site, and custom, tasteful housing, I think we can all agree this OP
development is one of many developments worth learning form. The trees
planted over 20 years ago by the owner/developer are impressive and
benefit the residents on 56th and 58th Streets to the south of Prairie Ridge.
The former 3M site may be the largest opportunity for the City residents to
provide what have become rare homesite opportunities, where quality and
environmental sensitivity are joined and which are unavailable in
Woodbury, Oakdale and yet provide easy access to major north-south and
east-west highways. They will be highly sought after. It should be an
example for the nation to see.
Because of the train and County road traffic, it is imperative that future
residents be provided with extensive noise screening from trees and maybe
some berming. It will take some time, but I helped plant the trees on Cty 14
provided by the State and they are doing a great job of visual screening, but
need more trees to be an even better noise barrier.
Currently, both former 3M parcels are an environmental wasteland for both
adjacent residents and wildlife, which is soon to lose hundreds of acres of
seasonal hunting grounds across Ideal Ave in Oakdale where most of us
know the "resident" red tailed hawk and where I observed a Sandhill Crane a
couple years ago.
This proposal is a win-win for the city budget, for new residents looking for
a less dense development and our greatly threatened remaining
environment. As a bonus, the new tree cover will greatly reduce the
incessant highway and train noise that row crops and winter snow cover
barely muffle.
Thanks. I hope this helps in rejuvenating our City. Becoming "North
Woodbury" or a re-imagined East Oakdale is not our destination.
Virus-free. www.avast.com
From:C. Case Jr
To:Molly Just
Cc:Jeff Strong; D K; LEE BLOOMQUIST; Mary Pat; Daniel Gerding; Comcast; Jennifer Stoltenow; Scott Smith; Jeff;
Shari; Tim; Lorrie; Mark A Johnson; Dennis; Brad; Mark; Mary; Gus; Tim; Hayden; Jackie; JOHN HEALY; Lora
Sempf; Mary; Nate and Jen Stoltenow; Gina Kalis; Kathy; Scott Mellick; Jill Gerding; Michael Karcher; Lisa; Bill;
Margaret Heininger; Erin C; Lainie
Subject:Wildflower Shores HOA Feedback on Cyphers Logistics Park AUAR
Date:Wednesday, March 2, 2022 10:02:35 PM
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
Dear Ms. Just:
We, the Board, represent the 25 homes of the Wildflower Shores development
immediately east of the property on the north side of Hwy 14 and east of Ideal Ave.
We love our little corner of Lake Elmo; in particular, the serenity of the area amid the
suburbs, the greenery and the exceptionally low light pollution in our corner of the city
comes to mind. We would like to maintain as much of that as possible.
We realize that development is inevitable on the property but hope that you will
endeavor to incorporate the following into any development option chosen:
To attempt to keep any new development consistent with the housing developments
to both the north and east of the property. Given the 80 acres of business park
development planned for the property south of Hwy 14, we ask that the development
plan is majority residential, lots of trees / greenery, and landscaping.
To be aware of the difference in land elevation. Wildflower Shores is roughly 30
feet below the property to our west, so any construction will tower over our
neighborhood.
To include a park area on the east side of any development option.
To keep the light pollution to a minimum.
To keep the increase in traffic away from residential areas and traffic noise to a
minimum. Noted on page 57, three of the development options introduce an
additional 10,000 vehicle trips into/out of the area daily.
To limit the entrance/exit to our association to the one existing entrance. This
would eliminate any new traffic into our association and to continue to provide a
safe neighborhood for the young kids to play.
Thank you in advance for your time and consideration.
The Wildflower Shores Homeowners Association Board
Dan Gerding, President (3693 37th Street N, Lake Elmo, MN 55042)
Karen Schwingler, Treasurer (3923 Ironwood Tr N, Lake Elmo, MN 55042)
Cullen Case Jr., Secretary (4083 35th St. N, Lake Elmo, MN 55042)
CC: all homes within the Wildflower Shores development.