Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Item 06.i
Date: Item No. RECEIVE THE CEDAR HILLS EAW AND AUTHORIZE DISTRIBUTION Proposed Action Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move to receive and authorize distribution of the Cedar Hills Environment Assessment Worksheet (EAW). Overview Westwood, on behalf of GreenKey Real Estate Group, has submitted an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Cedar Hills residential development. Consistent with Minnesota State Statutes and Environment Quality Board (EQB) Rules, the City Council must formally receive the EAW and authorize its distribution for public comment. The Cedar Hills development proposes 155 detached townhomes, 82 twinhomes, and 136 single family homes on approximately 160 acres located east of Cedar Avenue (CSAH 23) and south of 200th Street (CR 64). An EAW is required for residential developments with more than 250 unattached units. Due to the size of the EAW document, a copy will be available in the Planning Department at City Hall for public review. Primary Issues to Consider • What is the EAW review process? • Who will receive copies of the EAW? Supporting Information • Staff response to Primary Issues to Consider. Financial Impact: $ Budgeted: Y☐ N☐ Source: Related Documents: EQB Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules Envision Lakeville Community Values: A Home for All Ages and Stages of Life Report Completed by: Kris Jenson, Associate Planner November 4, 2019 Staff Response to Primary Issues to Consider • If the EAW is approved for distribution, the following process will occur: o A copy of the EAW will be provided to the EQB. o A notice of availability of the EAW will be published in the EQB Monitor. o Copies of the EAW will be distributed to the required parties. o A press release will be issued within 5 days to local newspapers containing notice of the availability of the EAW and other required information. o A 30 day review and comment period begins the day the EAW availability notice is published in the EQB Monitor. o Not less than three days and no more than 30 days after the close of the 30 day comment period, the City Council must adopt a resolution and record of decision on the need for an Environment Impact Statement (EIS). o The City’s decision is distributed within 5 days after the decision is made. The decision is distributed to everyone who commented on the EAW. o The City’s decision is published in the EQB Monitor. • Who will receive copies of the EAW? The following agencies will receive a copy of the EAW. o Dept. of Agriculture o Dept. of Commerce o Environmental Quality Board o Dept. of Health o Dept. of Natural Resources o Pollution Control Agency o Dept. of Transportation o Board of Water and Soil Resources o Hennepin County Library – Minneapolis Central o U.S. Army Corps of Engineers o U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service o Metropolitan Council o State Archeologist o Minnesota Historical Society o Indian Affairs Council o Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization o Dakota County A copy will be available for public review at City Hall during the comment period. Other jurisdictions or agencies not included on this list will be provided a copy upon request. Cedar Hills Residential Development EAW Lakeville, Dakota County, Minnesota October 30, 2019 Prepared For: GreenKey Real Estate Group P.O. Box 302 Excelsior, MN 55331 Prepared By: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) ii Cedar Hills Residential Development, Lakeville CONTENTS Page List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. ii List of Exhibits ........................................................................................................................... iii List of Appendices ..................................................................................................................... iii 1. Project Title ......................................................................................................................... 1 2. Proposer ............................................................................................................................... 1 3. RGU ..................................................................................................................................... 1 4. Reason for EAW Preparation .............................................................................................. 1 5. Project Location .................................................................................................................. 1 6. Project Description .............................................................................................................. 2 7. Cover Types ........................................................................................................................ 4 8. Permits and Approvals Required ......................................................................................... 5 9. Land Use .............................................................................................................................. 6 10. Geology, soils and topography/land forms: ........................................................................ 9 11. Water Resources ................................................................................................................ 13 12. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes .................................................................... 23 13. Fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources (rare features): ..... 25 14. Historic properties ............................................................................................................. 27 15. Visual ................................................................................................................................. 27 16. Air ...................................................................................................................................... 27 17. Noise .................................................................................................................................. 28 18. Transportation ................................................................................................................... 29 19. Cumulative potential effects: (Preparers can leave this item blank if cumulative potential effects are addressed under the applicable EAW Items) ................................................... 30 20. Other potential environmental effects: .............................................................................. 32 TABLES Table 7.1. Estimated Before and After Cover Types ..................................................................... 4 Table 8.1. Permits and Approvals Required ................................................................................... 5 Table 10.1. Soils Classification ................................................................................................... 11 Table 11.1. Delineated Wetlands ................................................................................................. 13 Cedar Hills Residential Development EAW, Lakeville October 30, 2019 iii EXHIBITS Site Location ............................................................................................................................... 1 USGS Topography ...................................................................................................................... 2 Concept Site Plan ........................................................................................................................ 3 Adjacent Land Use ...................................................................................................................... 4 Zoning Map ................................................................................................................................. 5 Water Resources ......................................................................................................................... 6 NRCS Soils ............................................................................................................................ 7 Approved Delineated Wetland Boundaries ................................................................................ 8 Cover Types ........................................................................................................................... 9 APPENDICES County Well Index Well Logs ................................................................................................... A DNR Natural Heritage Database Search .................................................................................... B State Historic Preservation Office Correspondence .................................................................. C Traffic Impact Study .................................................................................................................. D Version 8/08rev ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) 1 Cedar Hills Residential Development, Lakeville 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. The EAW form provides information about a project that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW Guidelines provide additional detail and resources for completing the EAW form. Cumulative potential effects can either be addressed under each applicable EAW Item, or can be addressed collectively under EAW Item 19. Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the RGU during the 30-day comment period following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for an EIS. 1. Project Title Cedar Hills Residential Development EAW, Lakeville 2. Proposer GreenKey Real Estate Group 3. RGU City of Lakeville Contact person: Jason Palmby Contact person: Daryl Morey Title: Broker/Owner Title: Planning Director Address: P.O. Box 302 Address: 20195 Holyoke Avenue Excelsior, MN 55331 Lakeville, MN 55044 Phone: (612) 220-6641 Phone: (952) 985-4420 Fax: N/A Fax: (952) 985-4499 E-mail jason@palmby.com Email: dmorey@lakevillemn.gov 4. Reason for EAW Preparation (check one) Required: EIS Scoping Mandatory EAW Discretionary: Citizen Petition RGU Discretion Proposer Volunteered If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number(s) and name(s): Part 4410.4300 Subp. 19.D.- Residential Development 5. Project Location County: Dakota County, Minnesota City/Township: Lakeville PLS Location (¼, ¼, Section, Township, Range): T114, R20, S27 Watershed (81 major watershed scale): Vermillion River GPS Coordinates: 44.654906,-93.1934444 (Project Center) Tax Parcel Numbers: 220270025010 and 220270026010 Cedar Hills Residential Development EAW, Lakeville October 30, 2019 2 At a minimum attach each of the following to the EAW: County map showing the general location of the project; See Exhibit 1. U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (photocopy acceptable); and See Exhibit 2. Site plans showing all significant project and natural features. Post-construction site plan (Exhibit 3) and Pre-construction site plans (Exhibits 4-9). 6. Project Description a. Provide the brief project summary to be published in the EQB Monitor, (approximately 50 words). The Cedar Hills residential development is proposed on approximately 159.5 acres of primarily agricultural land in the southeastern portion of Lakeville. The project proposes 82 twin homes, 155 villa homes, and 136 single-family homes. Approximately 43.5 acres of open space is also planned, which will include parks, buffers, woodlands, wetlands, and stormwater basins. b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction, including infrastructure needs. If the project is an expansion include a description of the existing facility. Emphasize: 1) construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes, 2) modifications to existing equipment or industrial processes, 3) significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures, and 4) timing and duration of construction activities. GreenKey Real Estate Group is proposing construction of a residential development comprised of twin homes, villa homes, and single-family residences on approximately 159.5 acres of land. The two parcels that constitute the project are approximately 79.7 and 75.8 acres in size, respectively. The proposed project is located in Section 27 of T114, R20, City of Lakeville, Dakota County, Minnesota (Exhibits 1 & 2), and is generally located east of Cedar Avenue, south of 200th Street West, and west of the City of Farmington corporate boundary. Project development will convert approximately 159.5 acres of agricultural fields, woodlands and wetlands to streets, homes, lawns, landscaping, parkland, trails, and stormwater ponding as shown on the Concept Site Plan (Exhibit 3). Land use within the site will include construction of up to 82 twin homes, 155 villa homes, and 136 single-family homes. A combination of public and private streets will service the development including the construction of a new west/east major collector roadway extending from 202nd Street West. Each residential dwelling will be served by City of Lakeville sanitary sewer and water systems. No on-site sewage systems and no private wells are proposed. Potential adverse effects on the environment will be mitigated by preserving and creating approximately 43.5 acres of open space in the form of public and private parks, buffers, woodlands, wetlands, and stormwater ponds. The project is anticipated to impact about 1 acre or less of wetlands to accommodate project construction, which will be replaced by purchasing wetland credits from an approved off-site wetland bank location. The project proposes landscaping, buffering, and berming along adjacent roadways to offset possible visual and noise impacts, where appropriate. It is anticipated that the project will be constructed in three phases, with the first phase expected to begin in spring 2020. Full build-out is anticipated by 2025; however, construction timing will ultimately depend upon market conditions. It is anticipated that construction will entail moving approximately 500 cubic yards of soil, and approximately 140 acres of 159.5 acres will be graded for streets, house pads, and stormwater features. The site will be graded to balance, no import or export Cedar Hills Residential Development EAW, Lakeville October 30, 2019 3 of material is anticipated. Construction dewatering is not anticipated, but would be conducted on an as-needed and permitted basis to install sanitary sewer, municipal water, and storm sewer. Best Management Practices will be implemented during and after construction to protect water quality and reduce the potential for soil erosion and sedimentation. Public and private infrastructure improvements will need to be constructed in association with this development. These include but are not limited to: internal roadways, trails, stormwater systems, electrical lines, telephone lines, and extension of sanitary sewer and water supply systems. The 2018 Comprehensive Water Plan calls for municipal water facilities to be extended from Cedar Avenue to the intersection of Cedar Avenue and 202nd Street West. The city constructed a 16-inch trunk watermain to the northeast corner of Cedar and 202nd Street in 2019. The project proposer will extend a 16-inch watermain along the east side of Cedar Avenue from 202nd Street to the north plat boundary, extend a 12-inch watermain along 202nd Street to the east plat boundary, and will extend a 12-inch watermain along the east side of the site from 202nd Street to the north plat boundary with development of the property. A pressure reducing valve (PRV) is planned at the intersection of Cedar Avenue and 202nd Street where the future 16-inch trunk will meet the future 12-inch trunk, as noted in Figure 6-1 of the 2018 Comprehensive Water Plan. Municipal sewer service will be achieved through required trunk sewer improvements that will connect to existing infrastructure located both north and south of the site. The 2013 Comprehensive Water Plan and 2018 plan update identify the south ½ of the site as included in the Air Lake Reduced Pressure zone. There is no safety concern in regards to the reduced pressure, and individual homes that may experience less than desired water pressure in upper level bathrooms can be individually remedied using pressure boosters to support water pressure. The applicant is aware of the reduced pressure zone, and is prepared to outfit individual homes, as needed, to address water pressure concerns that might arise. The project will also include construction of a major collector roadway oriented west to east through the center of the site, as well as several local residential streets to access planned residential housing. The major collector roadway (202th Street West extension) is planned west to east through the central part of the site, which will be constructed by the developer as a public improvement project consistent with City ordinance requirements. Impacts related to public improvements directly associated with the proposed development project are discussed throughout this document. Any required improvements to 200th Street will be evaluated upon completion of Dakota County’s review of the EAW. The County will address access at 200th Street and 205th Street post 202nd street signal improvements. A north-south minor collector is identified for the area in the City’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan, and a 66-foot right-of-way (ROW) is required for this north-south minor collector matching the ROW to the south. An 80-foot ROW will be platted north of 202nd Street to accommodate the north-south minor collector. A 100-foot ROW is required for the east-west major collector, with the exception being the 202nd Street/Cedar Avenue intersection if additional is needed to accommodate turn lanes at the signal. A 3.3-acre community park is proposed for the southern portion of the project area. The park is proposed as an active-use park for public enjoyment. The park will be graded by the project proposer such that it can be combined with the existing park in the Spyglass development. These park grading improvements will be incorporated into the project’s grading plan. In addition, a 1.0-acre private park and amenity area is planned in the central portion of the northern area of the property. A pedestrian trail is planned along the east side of Cedar Avenue adjacent to the development, which will be reviewed during the development process. The grading plan for the project will incorporate this trail for constructability and ROW review and evaluation. Cedar Hills Residential Development EAW, Lakeville October 30, 2019 4 c. Project Magnitude Total Project Acreage 159.5 Linear project length N/A Number and type of residential units 291 Unattached/82 Attached Commercial building area (in square feet) N/A Industrial building area (in square feet) N/A Institutional building area (in square feet) N/A Other uses – specify (in square feet) N/A Structure height(s) Up to 35’ d. Explain the project purpose; if the project will be carried out by a governmental unit, explain the need for the project and identify its beneficiaries. The purpose of the Cedar Hills project is to meet the demand for residential housing units within the City of Lakeville. The project will be carried out by a private entity, GreenKey Real Estate Group. e. Are future stages of this development including development on any other property planned or likely to happen? Yes No. If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to the present project, timeline, and plans for environmental review. There are currently no planned future stages of the Cedar Hills project. f. Is the project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? Yes No. If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline, and any past environmental review. The Cedar Hills development is not a subsequent stage of an earlier project. 7. Cover Types Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development. Pre-construction land cover acreages were estimated using National Land Cover Database (NLCD) cover percentages and known wetland acreages. Table 7.1. Estimated Before and After Cover Types Land Cover Before (acres) After (acres) Wetland 10.2 9.8 Wooded/Forest 1.1 0.0 Hay/Pasture 0.6 0.0 Cropland 126.5 0.0 Lawn/landscaping: private yard areas & street boulevards, excludes pond outlets and wetlands 0.0 62.5 Cedar Hills Residential Development EAW, Lakeville October 30, 2019 5 Land Cover Before (acres) After (acres) Impervious Surface/Developed: houses, driveways, streets, sidewalks & trails 9.9 58.0 Developed Open Space 10.8 0.0 Stormwater Pond 0.0 6.4 Parks and Open Space 0.0 22.8 Totals 159.5 159.5 If Before and After totals are not equal, explain why: Totals are equal and estimated from available land cover mapping. 8. Permits and Approvals Required List all known local, state, and federal permits, approvals, certifications and financial assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing permits, governmental review of plans, and all direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing, and infrastructure. All of these final decisions are prohibited until all appropriate environmental review has been completed. See Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410.3100. Table 8.1. Permits and Approvals Required Unit of Government Type of Application Status City of Lakeville Concept Plan Approval In process City of Lakeville Rezoning Application To be applied for City of Lakeville Preliminary Plat Application In process City of Lakeville Final Plat Approval To be applied for City of Lakeville EAW Process In process City of Lakeville Grading Permit To be applied for City of Lakeville Building Permit To be applied for City of Lakeville Electrical Permit To be applied for City of Lakeville Electrical Utility Affidavit To be applied for City of Lakeville Plumbing Permit To be applied for City of Lakeville Mechanical Permit To be applied for City of Lakeville Wetland Delineation Confirmation Update in process City of Lakeville Wetland Conservation Act Permit To be applied for City of Lakeville Stormwater Management Review and Vermillion River Joint Powers Organization Coordination To be applied for Dakota County Right-of-Way Permit To be applied for Dakota County Access Permit To be applied for Dakota County Obstruction Permit To be applied for (if needed) Dakota County Utility Permit To be applied for (if needed) Cedar Hills Residential Development EAW, Lakeville October 30, 2019 6 Note: The project proposer will apply for and receive applicable permits prior to project construction. Cumulative potential effects may be considered and addressed in response to individual EAW Item Nos. 9-18, or the RGU can address all cumulative potential effects in response to EAW Item No. 19. If addressing cumulative effect under individual items, make sure to include information requested in EAW Item No. 19 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, prime or unique farmlands. Existing land use within, and adjacent to, the project site is depicted on Exhibit 4. The present land use on the property is cultivated cropland. Historical images reviewed from Google Earth and John R. Borchert on-line map library sources revealed that the project area has been used for agricultural purposes dating back to at least 1937. No meaningful land use changes were apparent on the site during the years reviewed. In 2004, construction was initiated to convert agricultural lands to a residential development south of the site, and Farmington High School was constructed between 2006 and 2008 (school officially opened in 2009). Existing land uses of abutting properties consist primarily of agricultural land with sporadic single-family residences to the north and west, more densely developed single-family residential to the south, and Farmington High School and athletic fields to the east and southeast. There are currently no designated parks or recreation areas within the project boundary as shown on the City’s Parks and Trails map. A multi-purpose recreational trail is shown adjacent to the project boundary just west of Cedar Avenue. Spyglass Park, located immediately south of the project area, contains playground equipment, benches, and open space areas. Aronson Park, a community play field/athletic complex, is located approximately 3,250 feet to the west. Prime and Unique Farmlands According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 5 of the 10 soil types found on the site are classified as prime farmland (Table 10.1). These soils comprise 112 acres or approximately 70 percent of the site area. Unit of Government Type of Application Status Unit of Government Type of Application Status Unit of Government Type of Application Status Metropolitan Council Sanitary Sewer Connection Permit To be applied for Minnesota Department of Health Water Main Extension Approval To be applied for Minnesota DNR Division of Waters Appropriation/Dewatering Permit To be applied for (if needed) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Sanitary Sewer Extension Approval To be applied for MN Pollution Control Agency NPDES/SDS General Permit Covered under general permit; submit NOI prior to construction. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Clean Water Act Permit To be applied for Cedar Hills Residential Development EAW, Lakeville October 30, 2019 7 Prime farmlands consist of land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, and oilseed crops. According to the NRCS, prime farmlands have “an adequate and dependable water supply from precipitation, a favorable temperature and growing season, acceptable acidity or alkalinity, acceptable salt and sodium content and few or no rocks.” This does not mean all soils listed as prime farmland produce exceptionally high crop yields. No farmland preservation measures have been considered at this time. ii. Plans. Describe planned land use as identified in comprehensive plan (if available) and any other applicable plan for land use, water, or resources management by a local, regional, state, or federal agency. The 2040 Lakeville Comprehensive Land Use Plan indicates that the project area falls within Neighborhood Planning District 5 (Cedar Corridor). This special planning area is designated to ensure coordination and planning for the METRO Red Line Bus Rapid Transit Corridor (BRT) along Cedar Avenue. The corridor is guided for a range of residential, commercial, public and corridor mixed-uses to support the planned extension of the future transit service. City staff reviewed the sketch plan shown on Exhibit 3 and found that it meets the proposed land use designation of Low/Medium Density Residential. The Metropolitan Council has adopted the Thrive MSP 2040 Plan to ensure orderly, economic development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area in relation to regional infrastructure for transportation, water resources, and regional parks and open space. In 1996, the Council established a Metropolitan Regional Blueprint, which serves as the framework for development for the Twin Cities seven-county area. Only land designated by the Metropolitan Council as being within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) can receive city sewer service. The Lakeville 2040 Comprehensive Plan must address not only local issues but must also be consistent with regional benchmarks included as part of Thrive MSP 2040 for population, household and employment growth, transportation, housing and natural resources. The Thrive MSP 2040 Plan designates the City of Lakeville as a Suburban Edge community. This designation is based on past residential development of Lakeville, as it has experienced substantial residential growth, yet has retained significant amounts of land for future development. Designation as a Suburban Edge Community means that the growth that has occurred in Lakeville starting in the 1970s will continue through the year 2040 (2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan). The project is subject to the City of Lakeville 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The Comprehensive Plan includes the 2040 Land Use Plan, which guides future land use on the subject parcels to include housing densities consistent with Low/Medium Density Residential development. The Comprehensive Plan also includes a map indicating Staged MUSA Expansion Areas for the City of Lakeville. Lakeville has adopted staged growth areas, identified on the MUSA map, which facilitates the extension of sanitary sewer in approximately ten-year intervals to manage growth within the City. Extension of sewer and water infrastructure is planned in the area and discussed throughout this document. As described in the Comprehensive Plan, the City anticipates significant growth with an estimated increase in the number of households from 18,683 in 2010, to a forecasted 22,300 households by 2020. The residential land use and housing goals for the City of Lakeville are to provide a variety of high-quality housing types and choices, from single-family to townhome and Cedar Hills Residential Development EAW, Lakeville October 30, 2019 8 multi-family alternatives, to meet changing life cycle needs of Lakeville residents for various income levels. Parallel land use goals with regard to residential development are to promote a sense of community and meet the needs of individuals for all ages and stages of life through a well-designed community with compatible land uses and convenient access to streets, trails, and transportation. For instance, the project will provide trails on both sides of 202nd Street West, which will connect with a future trail planned along the east side of Cedar Avenue and to existing trails along 205th Street West. A portion of this trail (south plat boundary to 202nd Street) will be constructed with the development. Sidewalks will also be provided on both sides of the north/south minor collector that extends from the south (by the proposed park) up to 200th Street West. A network of sidewalks and trails within the proposed development will provide connectivity to proposed and existing parks and amenities in the project area. The City of Lakeville has been divided into 7 neighborhood planning districts in order to allow for detailed examination of the needs of specific areas of the community. The boundaries of the planning districts are based on existing land use patterns, MUSA boundaries, and physical barriers. The subject properties are within the southeastern portion of District 5 (Cedar Corridor). Primary concerns within District 5 are the integration of future development with existing land uses and addressing transportation needs along Cedar Avenue in conjunction with the future Cedar Avenue Bus Rapid Transitway (METRO Red Line). Recommendations for District 5 relevant to the subject properties include low to medium and medium density residential areas proposed in close proximity to planned transit routes areas near Cedar Avenue and CSAH 50. Some of the primary recommendations for the long-range planning objectives for District 5 include street improvements and extensions, including the extension of 202nd Street West east of Cedar Avenue to be used as a major collector roadway. Project development has accounted for the extension of 202nd Street West and plans to develop the major collector road and the property in accordance with the guidelines and recommendations noted in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The project is consistent with the goals of the Lakeville 2040 Comprehensive Plan in that the proposed housing units across the site correspond to the location and extent of housing densities in the future land use plan. Low to medium density housing units are proposed near transportation corridors as a transitional area between residential land uses and adjacent commercial and transportation uses. A variety of housing options are provided across the project area and interspersed so that different housing options are available across the site. The project conforms to the future land use plan by providing residential development consistent with density guidelines and by incorporating objectives of the plan such as extending 202nd Street West. A portion of the project is proposed as a neighborhood park, which is consistent with acceptable land use for the area and the recommendations of the Lakeville 2015 Parks, Trails & Open Space Plan. iii. Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild and scenic rivers, critical area, agricultural preserves, etc. The proposed site development is consistent with Lakeville’s comprehensive zoning plans, which guide the area for residential development. The 2018 zoning map identifies the western portion of the project area as Medium Density Residential District (RM-1) and the eastern portion as Single-Family Residential District (RS-3). The Lakeville Zoning Map is provided on Exhibit 5. Cedar Hills Residential Development EAW, Lakeville October 30, 2019 9 The north half of the site will be rezoned to RST-2 (Single and Two Family Residential District), and the south half of the site will be rezoned to RS-4 (Single Family Residential District). No MnDNR Public Watercourses are located within the project area. Areas within 300 feet of a public watercourse or within 1,000 feet of public water or public waters wetland fall within the City of Lakeville Shoreland Overlay District. There are no shoreland overlays on the project area according to the most recent City of Lakeville Zoning map. Consequently, the project will not be subject to additional building standards or permitting requirements for shoreland construction activities. According to FEMA Floodplain mapping (accessed June, 2019), the project is located within Flood Panels 27037C0212E and 27037C0214E; HUC 07040002. The entire project is identified as being outside of either a 100 or 500-year flood zone (Exhibit 6). The site is also not in or immediately adjacent to state or federally-designated wild or scenic river land use zones or trout streams. The nearest designated trout stream is located approximately 0.5 miles to the south of the southern project boundary (East Branch South Creek). There are no wild and scenic rivers, critical areas, or agricultural preserves within the project area. b. Discuss the project’s compatibility with nearby land uses, zoning, and plans listed in Item 9a above, concentrating on implications for environmental effects. Surrounding properties are zoned residential to the west and south of the site, and areas of Public and Open Space are interspersed south of the project. Farmington High School is located immediately east and southeast of the project area. Areas north of the site are zoned A-P, Agricultural Preserve District and R/A, Rural/Agricultural District; however, the 2040 MUSA staging plan indicates that this A-P status is terminating in 2020. The land directly north of the site is guided as a Transit Development Target Area, and therefore will likely host corridor mixed uses and residential uses by 2040. These uses would be consistent with those currently proposed for the Cedar Hills parcel. The proposed project is compatible with existing and planned land uses in the area because it offers a range of housing options and densities next to a key transportation corridor consistent with implementation of the 2040 Lakeville Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Portions of the project are also planned as public open space to include a community park and private amenity area, consistent with the 2015 Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan. c. Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any potential incompatibility as discussed in Item 9b above. Incompatibility of land uses is not anticipated as discussed in Section 9b. 10. Geology, soils and topography/land forms: a. Geology - Describe the geology underlying the project area and identify and map any susceptible geologic features such as sinkholes, shallow limestone formations, unconfined/shallow aquifers, or karst conditions. Discuss any limitations of these features for the project and any effects the project could have on these features. Identify any project designs or mitigation measures to address effects to geologic features. Cedar Hills Residential Development EAW, Lakeville October 30, 2019 10 Topographic mapping indicates that elevations on the site range from approximately 1,058 above mean sea level in the northwest corner of the site to 974 above mean sea level towards the southwestern corner of the site. Depth to groundwater was estimated by subtracting the anticipated elevation of groundwater shown on the Dakota County Atlas (950 feet) from the lower and upper elevation ranges on the site (974 to 1,058). Based on this mapping resource, the depth range of groundwater at the site could be anticipated between 24 feet and 108 feet below grade. The well logs from five nearby wells identified in the Minnesota Geological Survey’s (MGS) County Well Index (CWI) identified static water levels between 72 feet and 135 feet below grade (Appendix A). As indicated in the Geotechnical Evaluation Report (GER) completed by Braun Intertec (2013), depths to encountered groundwater ranged from 3 to 16 feet below grade in 8 of the total 14 test borings completed on the site, with no water found in the remaining 6 borings. Braun did note that water readings were taken after the boreholes were left open for 17 days, and cautioned that rainwater runoff could have entered the boreholes during that time. Additional geotechnical borings are planned as the development design advances, and prior to construction, to confirm assumptions regarding groundwater levels across the site. House pads are being elevated through grading, where necessary, to ensure at least three feet of separation between known groundwater levels and planned low floor elevations. Pad grading will be adjusted further should new boring data indicate that groundwater levels are higher than observed in the 2013 Braun report. Depth to bedrock was estimated from The Geologic Atlas of Dakota County, Minnesota (1990) C-6, Plate 4. The Geologic Atlas indicates that the distance to bedrock ranges between approximately 120 to 170 feet below grade. The Geologic Atlas of Dakota County, Minnesota (1990) C-6, Plate 1 indicates there are no known sinkholes, exposed bedrock, springs, or seeps on or near the site. Based on Minnesota Karst Lands Mapping (Alexander 2002), the project is not in an area of potential karst lands topography. If such features are encountered on the site during planned subsurface investigations, actions will be taken to mitigate potential effects such as stormwater routing, soil stabilization, and groundwater protection practices. The Geologic Atlas of Dakota County, Minnesota, C-6, Plate 7, Sensitivity of the Prairie Du Chien- Jordan Aquifer to Pollution map (1990) indicates that the sensitivity of groundwater to pollution in the project area is generally L-M (Low-moderate). Sensitivity of groundwater systems to pollution is defined as the approximate time it takes from the moment a contaminant infiltrates the land surface until it reaches an aquifer. Although shallow groundwater is highly susceptible to contamination, low permeable soils with very fine textures will significantly slow or restrict the movement of water. This extends the time needed for chemicals to break down before reaching the water table. In the L- M mapped areas, moderately permeable soils with finer textures will also slow or restrict the movement of water, which extends the time needed for chemicals to break down before reaching the water table. Because development will be typical of residential uses, no unusual wastes or chemicals are anticipated to be spread or spilled that would cause significant groundwater contamination. The proposed project will offer continued groundwater protection and mitigation by providing adequate stormwater treatment ponding, vegetated infiltration areas such as wetland buffers, and park areas to help capture runoff and filter pollutants. The project proposer will also consider water reuse measures, where feasible, to help meet infiltration requirements and promote groundwater recharge. The project will adhere to the City of Lakeville and Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization (VRWJPO) requirements for stormwater to the degree practicable. Cedar Hills Residential Development EAW, Lakeville October 30, 2019 11 The residential development will offer a higher level of groundwater protection and mitigation than exists under current conditions. Chemical applications can be high in agriculturally-dominated landscapes. The conversion of the site to urban uses will ensure greater protection of groundwater by: (1) covering exposed soils with turf and landscape plants to reduce infiltration of nutrients and pesticides; (2) reducing hazardous materials on the property to include only household quantities; (3) providing approximately 43.5 acres of park, woodland, wetlands, buffers and open space; (4) providing stormwater treatment systems; and (5) not drilling new wells or installing private septic systems. b. Soils and topography - Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications and descriptions, including limitations of soils. Describe topography, any special site conditions relating to erosion potential, soil stability or other soils limitations, such as steep slopes, highly permeable soils. Provide estimated volume and acreage of soil excavation and/or grading. Discuss impacts from project activities (distinguish between construction and operational activities) related to soils and topography. Identify measures during and after project construction to address soil limitations including stabilization, soil corrections or other measures. Erosion/sedimentation control related to stormwater runoff should be addressed in response to Item 11.b.ii. The Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) digital database for Dakota County (USDA NRCS, Accessed 2019) indicates that soils within the project area (Exhibit 7) are classified as summarized in Table 10.1. Soils on the site are predominantly non-hydric silt loams with some silty clay loams. The Braun report shows similar soil types with silts in the higher elevations and lean clays in the topographic lows. Table 10.1. Soils Classification Map Symbol Soil Classification Hydric1 Percent of Map Unit Hydric1 Category Prime Farmland2 203B Joy silt loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes 5 Predominantly non-hydric All Areas Prime Farmland 250 Kennebec silt loam 0 Non-hydric All Areas Prime Farmland 2B Ostrander loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes 0 Non-hydric All Areas Prime Farmland 2C Ostrander loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes 0 Non-hydric Farmland of Statewide Importance 285B Port Byron silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 0 Non-hydric All Areas Prime Farmland 285C Port Byron silt loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes 0 Non-hydric Farmland of Statewide Importance 213B Klinger silt loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes 5 Predominantly non-hydric All Areas Prime Farmland 320C2 Tallula silt loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes, eroded 0 Non-hydric Farmland of Statewide Importance Cedar Hills Residential Development EAW, Lakeville October 30, 2019 12 Table 10.1. Soils Classification Map Symbol Soil Classification Hydric1 Percent of Map Unit Hydric1 Category Prime Farmland2 378 Maxfield silty clay loam 95 Predominantly hydric Prime Farmland if Drained 176 Garwin silt clay loam 95 Predominantly hydric Prime Farmland if Drained 1 Based on the NRCS List of Hydric Soils of Minnesota (1995). 2 Based on the USDA/NRCS Prime Farmland of Dakota County, Minnesota (USDA NRCS WebSoilSurvey, accessed 2019). The USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey (accessed June, 2019) indicates there are minimal (14.7 acres or 9 percent) highly erodible soils within the subject property. Soil units identified within the site are rated as having a slight risk for soil loss, meaning that erosion is unlikely under ordinary climatic conditions. Soil classification slope percentages range from 0-12 percent. Contour mapping indicates that the overall surface topography generally slopes downward from north to south across the site. The highest elevation in the northwestern part of the site is approximately 1,058 feet above mean sea level and slopes down to approximately 974 feet above mean sea level in the southwestern part of the site. In general, there is a topographic divide that runs from roughly the northwest corner of the site to the central portion of the eastern project boundary. Consequently, current site runoff generally flows north/northeast and south/southeast from this natural divide into surrounding roadway diches and natural wetlands, eventually making its way into larger streams north and south of the property. It is anticipated that construction will entail moving approximately 500 cubic yards of soil and approximately 140 acres of 159.5 acres will be graded for streets, house pads, and stormwater features. Because the project will involve disturbance of more than one acre of land, application for coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) General Permit will be submitted to the MPCA prior to initiating earthwork on the site. This permit is required for discharge of stormwater during construction activity and requires that Best Management Practices (BMPs) be implemented. Erosion and sedimentation control BMPs related to stormwater runoff are discussed in greater detail within Item 11.b.ii. A full Geotechnical Evaluation Report was completed for the project site in August 2013, the purpose of which was to assist the design team in evaluating the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions with regard to site grading and foundation support for the proposed homes, streets, and underground utilities. The report provided design and construction considerations for soil corrections, soil density requirements, granular subbase materials for drainage, and localized perched water considerations. These design and construction considerations will continue to be used going forward to inform proper site design and any necessary field accommodations to be implemented during project construction. Additional geotechnical borings are planned. Data from these borings will be used to confirm final design assumptions in relation to groundwater levels across the site. NOTE: For silica sand projects, the EAW must include a hydrogeologic investigation assessing the potential groundwater and surface water effects and geologic conditions that could create an increased Cedar Hills Residential Development EAW, Lakeville October 30, 2019 13 risk of potentially significant effects on groundwater and surface water. Descriptions of water resources and potential effects from the project in EAW Item 11 must be consistent with the geology, soils and topography/land forms and potential effects described in EAW Item 10. 11. Water Resources a. Describe surface water and groundwater features on or near the site in a.i. and a.ii. below. i. Surface water - lakes, streams, wetlands, intermittent channels, and county/judicial ditches. Include any special designations such as public waters, 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 1 mile of the project. Include DNR Public Waters Inventory number(s), if any. Westwood Professional Services conducted delineations in 2013 on the subject property to identify jurisdictional lakes, streams, wetlands, intermittent channels, and county/judicial ditches. Westwood delineated six wetlands on the site, labeled Wetlands A through F (Exhibit 8). Two additional areas, G and H, were determined jurisdictional by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and added to the delineation. Because more than 5 years had passed since the original wetland delineation approval, the wetland boundaries were recently review again by local, state, and federal agencies. Minor adjustments were made to the boundary of Wetland G, and are reflected on Exhibit 8 and Table 11.1. Table 11.1 summarizes the water features currently identified on the site as of 2013. There are no known trout streams/lakes, wildlife lakes, migratory waterfowl feeding/resting lakes, or outstanding resource value waters within the project area. Identified wetlands have been historically farmed as observed from aerial photography from the late 1930s. Table 11.1. Delineated Wetlands Wetland ID Size (Acres) Type Mapped Soils Vegetation Mapped NWI, PWI, NHD? Wetland Upland A 2.4 Type 1/2 (PEMAd/Bd/PFO1Ad/Bd) Garwin and Joy Eastern cottonwood, reed canary grass, black willow, and timothy Bare ground No B 4.1 Type 1/2/6 (PEMAd/Bd/ PFO1Ad/B/ PSS1Ad/Bd) Garwin, Joy, and Klinger Reed canary grass, black willow, red osier dogwood, field horsetail, and timothy Bare ground Yes C 1.6 Type 1/2/6 (PEMA/B/PFO1A/B/PSS1 A/B) Garwin, Klinger, and Joy Giant ragweed, field horsetail, sandbar willow, unknown willow Red-osier dogwood, eastern cottonwood, smooth brome, and black willow, bare ground Yes D 0.2 Type 1/2 (PEMAd/Bd/PFo1Ad) Klinger Reed canary grass, box elder, black willow, and timothy Bare ground No E 1.4 Type 1 (PEMAfd) Garwin Bare ground Bare ground No F 0.3 Type 1 (PEMAf) Klinger Bare ground Bare ground No G 0.3 Type 1 (PEMAf) Joy Bare ground Bare ground No Cedar Hills Residential Development EAW, Lakeville October 30, 2019 14 Table 11.1. Delineated Wetlands Wetland ID Size (Acres) Type Mapped Soils Vegetation Wetland Upland Mapped NWI, PWI, NHD? H 0.1 Type 1 (PEMAf) Port Byron Bare ground Bare ground No Total 10.4 Note: Wetlands G and H were determined jurisdictional by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, but not the LGU. Prior to delineating the site, the Vermillion River Watershed Joint Power Organization (VRWJPO) Watershed Plan, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) Public Water Inventory Map (PWI), the Dakota County Soil Survey Map, the latest version of the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Map, and the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) were reviewed. Westwood also reviewed aerial photos from three sources covering 32 different years between 1937 and 2012. The MN DNR PWI and National Hydrography Dataset revealed no watercourses within the project area. NWI mapping revealed one PEM1Af wetland mapped within the site, and two linear features in the present location of wetlands B and C. Soils that are predominantly hydric are mapped on the site, which correspond to delineated wetlands A, B, C, E and G. The subject property lies within the Vermillion River Watershed (VRW). Dakota and Scott counties formed the Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization (VRWJPO) in 2002 to administer the Vermillion River Watershed Management Plan. An update to the plan was released in June 2016. The VRW rules govern alterations in floodplains and wetlands, and require buffers adjacent to identified water features based on a functional classification. In addition, the VRWJPO has completed stream classifications on area waterways and applied corresponding buffer standards. The VRW interactive on-line mapping resource (accessed July 2019) indicates that no water quality corridors or other water resource features are located within the project area. Impaired Waters According to the 2018 Minnesota Impaired Waters List and the MPCA’s impaired waters viewer (IWAV), no impaired waters are located within the project area. However, two impaired streams (both unnamed) were identified within one-mile of the site according to the Vermillion River Watershed Water Quality Impairments Map. Creek AUID: 07040001-527 is located approximately 0.91 miles south of the project area and is considered impaired for aquatic recreation according to IWAV. The Vermillion River Watershed Water Quality Impairments Map notes that the aforementioned creek is impaired due to Escherichia coli (E. coli). Creek AUID: 070400001-548 is located approximately 0.88 miles northeast of the project area and is considered impaired for aquatic recreation. The Vermillion River Watershed Water Quality Impairments map notes that the aforementioned creek is impaired due to fecal coliform and fish and macroinvertebrates. These impaired waters are part of the Vermillion River Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy (updated June 2017). The VRWJPO is a key sponsor for this project, which will address the 25 impaired water bodies in the watershed, as well as develop protection strategies for those water bodies that are currently not listed as impaired. The impairments range from biological impairments (Fish and Macroinvertebrates), Turbidity, Low Dissolved Oxygen, E. Coli and Fecal Coliform, and excess nutrients. Cedar Hills Residential Development EAW, Lakeville October 30, 2019 15 ii. Groundwater – aquifers, springs, seeps. Include: 1) depth to groundwater; 2) if project is within a MDH wellhead protection area; 3) identification of any onsite and/or nearby wells, including unique numbers and well logs if available. If there are no wells known on site or nearby, explain the methodology used to determine this. As described in Section 10, static groundwater levels in the project area are likely between approximately 72 and 135 feet below grade based on water levels observed in five nearby County Well Index wells (Appendix A). Surficial groundwater is sometimes encountered in seasonally wet areas. For instance, the Braun Intertec encountered shallow groundwater from 3 to 16 feet below grade in a number of their test borings. However, Braun did note that water readings were taken after the boreholes were left open for 17 days, and cautioned that rainwater runoff could have entered the boreholes during that time. Groundwater elevation assumptions will be confirmed through additional soil borings to confirm proper separation between groundwater and low floor elevations. As shown in the City of Lakeville Water and Natural Resources Management Plan (2019), and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture Source Water Protection Web Mapping Application, the project is located outside of all Minnesota Department of Health Wellhead Protection Areas and Drinking Water Supply Management Areas (DWSMA). In general, the project will be designed with wellhead protection in mind, by reducing overall threats to groundwater. No new water wells are planned for the project. The Minnesota Geological Survey’s (MGS) County Well Index (CWI) indicates there are no registered wells within the project site. The CWI is accessed through the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). Other Unique Well numbers identified nearby, but outside the project area, include: 772296 – Private Well, 587574 – Private Well, 435202 – Private Well, 560358 – Private Well, and 502712 – Private Well. Well reports for the aforementioned wells are located in Appendix A. b. Describe effects from project activities on water resources and measures to minimize or mitigate the effects in Item b.i. through Item b.iv. below. i. Wastewater - For each of the following, describe the sources, quantities and composition of all sanitary, municipal/domestic and industrial wastewater produced or treated at the site. 1) If the wastewater discharge is to a publicly owned treatment facility, identify any pretreatment measures and the ability of the facility to handle the added water and waste loadings, including any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal wastewater infrastructure. Only normal domestic wastewater production is expected from the project. The types of wastewater produced will be typical of new residential developments. No on-site municipal or industrial wastewater treatment is anticipated or planned. Because wastewater is from domestic sources, pre-treatment measures have not been contemplated. According to the City’s approved Sanitary Sewer Collection System Comprehensive Plan (2018), the site is located within an area staged for MUSA expansion sometime after 2010 (Area A). The project area is located in two separate meter districts. The roughly southern half of the site is located within meter district M649, and the northern portion of the site is located within the Farmington Outlet. The southern half of the project area will connect along 205th Street West via an 8-inch sewer line. The northern Cedar Hills Residential Development EAW, Lakeville October 30, 2019 16 portion of the site will connect via an 8-inch sewer line to an existing 27-inch trunk sewer line in the Farmington Outlet (Flagstaff/Farmington Interceptor). The project proposer will obtain a permanent easement for the extension of the public 8-inch sewer from the trunk 27-inch sanitary sewer. According to mapping in the Sanitary Sewer Collection System Comprehensive Plan (2018), it is anticipated that flow through portions of the existing trunk sanitary sewer in the M649 Meter District are prepared to handle a greater capacity of sewage and wastewater once the District is fully developed. The existing flow in M649 is approximately 2.17 million gallons/day (MGD). Future flow projections indicate that the M649 district will manage 3.89 MGD. The Farmington Outlet future flow projection is 0.74 MGD. The Cedar Hills Residential development is proposed to have less density than what is presented in the 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and will therefore generate less sanitary sewer flow to the critical trunk sewer sections than is anticipated by the City of Lakeville Sanitary Sewer Collection System Comprehensive Plan. Using the Metropolitan Council’s 2019 Sewer Availability Charge Procedure Manual, maximum demand was conservatively calculated using the formula of 1 SAC unit = 274 gallons per day of capacity for residential units. Consequently, the project is anticipated to generate a maximum of 102,202 gallons per day (GPD) or 37.3 MGY (274 x 373 x 365). Calculations independently prepared by the developer’s engineer estimated GPD wastewater flow closer to 99,563 gallons per day. Roughly half of this flow (50,406 GPD; 0.050 MGD) will be handled by M649 (southern half), and the northern half by the Farmington Outlet (49,157 GPD; 0.049 MGD). Based on these calculated flows, it is not anticipated that development of the Project will negatively impact the waste loadings of the meter districts. Both of the sewer districts described above are served by the Empire Treatment Facility, located near 197th Street East and the Vermillion River in Section 21 of Empire Township. The Empire Plant is a two-stage activated sludge treatment facility with tertiary filtration and an on-land sludge disposal system. The plant has a current capacity of 24 MGD, serves five communities, and approximately 150,000 residents. Effluent travels through approximately 16 miles of interceptors, is treated and then discharged to the Mississippi River. The Metropolitan Council has recently studied the future of the Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant through the Thrive 2040 Comprehensive Plan. There is one MCES interceptor that conveys wastewater flow to the Empire Plant from the site in Lakeville, Interceptor 11BM021-11BM009. The current capacity of the Empire Wastewater Treatment plant is 24 MGD. From 2010-2014, the plant received approximately 10 MGD. The Thrive 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan anticipates approximately 24 MGD of wastewater in the year 2040. Consequently, no wastewater facility or treatment capacity issues are anticipated (Thrive 2040). 2) If the wastewater discharge is to a subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS), describe the system used, the design flow, and suitability of site conditions for such a system. Wastewater discharge will not be to a subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS). Cedar Hills Residential Development EAW, Lakeville October 30, 2019 17 3) If the wastewater discharge is to surface water, identify the wastewater treatment methods and identify discharge points and proposed effluent limitations to mitigate impacts. Discuss any effects to surface or groundwater from wastewater discharges. Wastewater discharge is not to surface water. No effects are anticipated to surface or groundwater as effluent will be directed to a publicly-owned treatment facility. ii. 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. The development must comply with stormwater management, wetland conservation, floodplain, shoreland, and public waters requirements administered by: the City of Lakeville, the VRWJPO, the Board of Water and Soil Resources (Wetland Conservation Act), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and the MPCA through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit. Roughly the southern half of the site is located in the South Creek Stormwater District and the north half in the Farmington Outlet Stormwater District as shown in the City of Lakeville’s Water and Natural Resources Management Plan (2019). Both districts are tributary to the Vermillion River. Lakeville is a mandatory small MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System) city, and is required by federal and state law to obtain and implement a NPDES Stormwater permit administered by the MPCA. MS4s are required to develop and implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan program (SWPPP), and submit an annual report to the MPCA. Pre-Construction Site Runoff Existing site runoff from the project area likely contains pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer residues due to the presence of agricultural fields. There is also likely a minor amount of runoff that flows to the site from Cedar Avenue, 200th Street West, and 205th Street West. Runoff primarily drains away from the site through wetlands to the south, and unnamed drainages to the north and east. It is expected that a portion of the runoff infiltrates into the site’s soils, but the majority of runoff likely leaves the site via overland flow through existing drainage swales and ditches. Post-Construction Site Runoff The change in land use will decrease the amount of agricultural chemicals and suspended solids, and increase other components typical of urban runoff. It is expected that the volume of runoff will increase during significant storm events as a result of the increase in impervious surface area. Existing soil conditions on site do not allow for stormwater infiltration, which will cause an increase in runoff volumes from the site for all rainfall events. Proposed wet basins will provide treatment for urban pollutants and will meet requirements for the site discharge. Filtration practices are not a realistic option because of existing grades and proposed outlet elevations. The preservation and creation of open space in the form of buffers, parks, woodlands, wetlands and ponds will help to mitigate potential adverse effects from the increase in impervious surface. Cedar Hills Residential Development EAW, Lakeville October 30, 2019 18 Runoff water quality will be typical of residential developments, and will likely be slightly degraded due to pollutants deposited on streets, roofs, private driveways and other impervious surfaces. Similar to current conditions, sediment, nutrient, and other pollutant removal will occur when much of the stormwater filters through upland vegetation, vegetated drainage swales, stormwater ponds, and other best management practices. Preserved and newly seeded vegetation will provide filter strips to help remove sediment and nutrients before runoff discharges to area wetlands and surface waters, mitigating potential effects on water quality. Potential adverse effects of runoff volume and quality will be further mitigated by the construction of stormwater basins, which will be designed to reduce peak runoff rates and urban pollutants to meet the requirements of the City of Lakeville and the VRWJPO. The design of ponding areas and the quality of stormwater discharging from the development will meet the requirements of the MPCA General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity (Minnesota Stormwater Manual), and applicable local regulations. In a storm event, stormwater will be retained in the ponds and discharged at or below existing peak runoff rates. BMPs will be employed during construction to reduce erosion and sediment loading of stormwater runoff. Inspection and maintenance of BMPs during construction will be consistent with NPDES/SDS General Permit requirements, including site inspection after rainfall events, perimeter sediment control maintenance, and sediment removal. Volume Control (Infiltration) The VRWJPO has a pre- vs. post-construction 2-year standard, which means that the increase in runoff generated from a 2-year storm event must be infiltrated or filtrated on site using acceptable stormwater volume decreasing BMPs such as those described in the Minnesota Minimal Impact Design Standards (MIDS). In addition, infiltration depressions for all new development within the South Creek Stormwater District are recommended to have volume sufficient to contain 1.5 inches of rainfall over the impervious surface area for all current and future phases of development as describe in Section 5.3 of the 2008 City of Lakeville Water Resource Management Plan. The site is composed primarily of soils from Hydrologic Soil Groups D where stormwater management features are planned. Undrained D soils have a very slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet and a slow rate of water transmission. Wet sedimentation basins are proposed onsite as a result of the poor infiltration rates and inability to outlet filtration basins. There will be an increase in runoff volume as a result of the proposed site improvements. The VRWJPO has a credit system for incorporating volume control in site design. For instance, credit can be provided for disconnecting impervious surfaces, using swales instead of pipes, amending soils, restoring prairies/forests, etc. The project proposer will work closely with both the City and the VRWJPO as the project progresses to identify possible credit opportunities for addressing volume control. Rate Control The VRWJPO requires rate control to match existing conditions (2005) for the 1-year 24-hour, 10-year 24-hour, and 100-year 24-hour and 4-day events. The majority of rate control on the project will take place within constructed stormwater ponds. Atlas-14 precipitation data will be used to model rate control on the site. Because of the temperature buffering capabilities of wetlands downstream of the project, thermal pond heating is not anticipated to be a problem for the project. Cedar Hills Residential Development EAW, Lakeville October 30, 2019 19 Dead Storage Dead storage is specified in the City of Lakeville’s Water Resource Management Plan (2008) as 2.5” of runoff volume from a 24-hour storm over the contributing drainage area assuming full development. Project stormwater ponds will be designed to this dead storage criteria. Buffer Requirements The project does not contain streams, creeks, or rivers; however, wetlands have been identified on site. The project will adhere to city of Lakeville wetland buffer requirements as described in the city’s 2018-2027 Water and Natural Resources Management Plan (January 2019). The wetland buffer standards require 50 feet, 40 feet, 30 feet and 25 feet average buffer widths for Preserve, Manage 1, Manage 2 and Manage 3 wetlands, respectively. These distances are consistent with the buffer widths required by the Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization rules. Based on available watershed boundary mapping, the project site is located within the Vermillion River Watershed (http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/maps/VRW.htm). Because the site is located relatively high in the watershed, in conjunction with streams surrounding the project area, the site does not receive much directed runoff. Receiving Waters The goal of the project is to maintain peak discharge rates at or below the existing condition, and maintain volumes to South Creek. Post-construction drainage will follow similar pathways, with minor differences in drainage routes and increases in the volume of road ditches and swale flows. Post-development stormwater runoff will either travel overland into stormwater ponds, or through storm sewers prior to discharging to receiving waters. Primary receiving waters include Middle Creek to the northeast and East Branch of South Creek to the south. Other BMPs, such as natural swales and infiltration technologies, will be considered as project designs advance. For the following reasons, it is anticipated that site development will have minimal effects on receiving water quality: Preservation and creation of approximately 43.5 acres of buffers, parks, woodlands, and ponds (27 percent of the site), and Hydraulic storage within sediment basins will be designed, and BMPs implemented, in accordance with the General NPDES/SDS Permit for Construction Activities to protect water quality and control erosion. Stormwater and Erosion Control BMPs Because the project will involve disturbance of more than one acre of land, application for coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) General Permit will be submitted to the MPCA prior to initiating earthwork on the site. This permit is required for discharge of stormwater during construction activity and requires that Best Management Practices (BMPs) be used to control erosion, and that erosion controls be inspected after each rainfall exceeding 0.5 inches in 24 hours. Erosion control practices that will be implemented on the site include: 1. Construction of temporary sediment basins in the locations proposed for stormwater ponding, and development of these basins for permanent use following construction. 2. Volume control for increase of impervious exceeding an acre, where feasible, 3. Silt fence and other erosion control features installed prior to initiation of earthwork and maintained until viable turf or ground cover is established on exposed areas. Cedar Hills Residential Development EAW, Lakeville October 30, 2019 20 4. Periodic street cleaning and installation of a rock construction entrance to reduce tracking of dirt onto public streets. 5. Stabilization of exposed soils, phased with grading, within 7 days due to proximity to impaired waters. 6. Energy dissipation, such as riprap, installed at storm sewer outfalls. 7. Use of cover crops, native seed mixes, sod, and landscaping to stabilize exposed surface soils after final grading. Erosion control plans must be reviewed and accepted by the City of Lakeville and the VRWJPO prior to project construction. Because the above BMPs will be implemented during and after construction, potential adverse effects from construction-related sediment and erosion on water quality will be minimized. iii. Water appropriation - Describe if the project proposes to appropriate surface or groundwater (including dewatering). Describe the source, quantity, duration, use and purpose of the water use and if a DNR water appropriation permit is required. Describe any well abandonment. If connecting to an existing municipal water supply, identify the wells to be used as a water source and any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal water infrastructure. Discuss environmental effects from water appropriation, including an assessment of the water resources available for appropriation. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects from the water appropriation. Surface/Groundwater Appropriations and Dewatering The project is not proposing new water wells, and no surface waters will be appropriated. According to the County Well Index (CWI) record, no wells exist on the site. The Minnesota Geological Survey’s (MGS) CWI indicated no municipal or private water wells on the property. If other active or inactive wells are discovered on the property, they will be field-located, abandoned, and sealed in accordance with MDH regulations prior to site development. Construction dewatering is not anticipated at this time. However, dewatering would become necessary if surficial groundwater is encountered during utility installation. As indicated in the Geotechnical Evaluation Report, there may be areas of perched groundwater on the site, particularly where there are layers and lenses of sand. Perched groundwater areas may require some level of dewatering during construction. Additional soil borings will be gathered prior to construction to verify levels of perched groundwater and to address building pad elevation and freeboard requirements. The quantity and duration of potential construction dewatering is not known at this time, but it is expected that any such dewatering would be limited and temporary. If groundwater is encountered during utility installation, it would be discharged to temporary sediment basins located within the project site. If construction dewatering and pumping from the proposed development exceeds the 10,000- gallon per day or 1,000,000 gallons per year thresholds, a DNR Water Appropriation Permit will be obtained. If it becomes apparent that construction dewatering will not exceed 50 million gallons in total and duration of one year from the start of pumping, the contractor or project proposer will apply to the DNR Division of Waters for coverage under the amended DNR General Permit 97-0005 for temporary water appropriations. It is not anticipated that construction dewatering or pumping from the proposed development will be extensive or Cedar Hills Residential Development EAW, Lakeville October 30, 2019 21 continue long enough to require a permit from the DNR, or impact nearby domestic or municipal wells. Connection to a public water supply system According to the 2018 Comprehensive Water System Plan, water in the city is supplied from 19 wells that draw from the Prairie du Chien-St. Lawrence and Tunnel City-Wonewoc aquifers permitting through the DNR for water appropriations. The total operating capacity of the wells is 27.6 MGD, with a firm supply operating capacity of 23.8 MGD. Water from the wells is distributed through approximately 328 miles of existing water mains. Historically, daily water pumping in the city has ranged from a low of 5.8 million gallons per day (MGD), and a high of 7.2 MGD. Per capita use in the city is estimated at approximately 76 gallons per day. The estimated peak water demand for the proposed development is 41.03 MGY (112,422 gallons per day) based on the assumption that consumption is approximately 110 percent of wastewater generation (see Item 11). Consequently, there are no water supply issues anticipated as a result of adding the development to the city’s water supply system. Water will be supplied to the development via the Lakeville municipal water supply system. Water facilities will be extended to the site from a 16-inch trunk watermain along the east side of Cedar Avenue (constructed with the development), a 12-inch trunk watermain along 202nd Street, and a 12-inch trunk watermain between 202nd and 200th Street along the east side of property. The water system will be looped with the existing residential development to the south. iv. Surface Waters a) Wetlands - Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to wetland features such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging and vegetative removal. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of wetlands, including the anticipated effects that any proposed wetland alterations may have to the host watershed. 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. The project will involve minor physical alterations of wetlands within the subject property. Unavoidable wetland impacts are anticipated to be limited to about 1 acre or less to accommodate project construction. It is anticipated that the majority of unavoidable impacts will be needed to extend roadways, and to accommodate stormwater ponding. Housing, ponding, and open space have been placed in a manner that avoids impacts to water resources to the degree practicable. The stormwater management systems on the site have been designed with the intent of preserving pre-development watersheds and hydrologic regimes of the remaining wetlands to the degree practicable. Wetlands on the site are largely surface water driven. The post-development watershed-to-wetland ratio for all but one wetland remain well above 10:1, with an average of 40:1. A 10:1 ratio is generally accepted as sufficient to hydrologically support wetlands. The one wetland with a ratio below 10:1 is supported partially by the hydrologic contribution from groundwater seeps. In addition, the southern portion of this wetland will receive treated stormwater from an adjacent stormwater pond, which will add further hydrologic support to this wetland. Cedar Hills Residential Development EAW, Lakeville October 30, 2019 22 Water resources within the project area will be regulated under: The Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, as amended, administered in this area by the City of Lakeville, The VRWJPO Wetland Alteration Rule, Buffer Rule, Stormwater Management Rule, and the Drainage Alteration Rule, Chapter 102, Shoreland Overlay District of the Lakeville Zoning Ordinance as administered by the City of Lakeville, Chapter 4-6 of the Lakeville Subdivision Ordinance as administered by the City of Lakeville, and Section 404 and 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Impacts to wetlands to accommodate project features are anticipated to have only minor effects, if any, to the host watershed. The project proposer evaluated alternatives as the site was designed to avoid and minimized impacts to the extent practical, and will further analyze opportunities for reductions as required through the Wetland Conservation Act sequencing process. Compensatory wetland mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts will occur in the same minor watershed, major watershed, or established Bank Service Area (BSA). b) Other surface waters- Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to surface water features (lakes, streams, ponds, intermittent channels, county/judicial ditches) such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging, diking, stream diversion, impoundment, aquatic plant removal and riparian alteration. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of water features. 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. Anticipated physical effects and alterations to surface water features are discussed in 11 iv. As discussed, unavoidable impacts, as determined through the wetland permitting process, will be compensated via purchase of offsite wetland banking credits, or on-site replacement. The required wetland permitting process will fully evaluate opportunities to further avoid, minimize, and mitigate environmental effects to surface water features on the site. In-water Best Management Practices to avoid or minimize turbidity/sedimentation while physically altering wetlands (such as silt fence, bio rolls and silt booms) will be described in the project SWPPP, and deployed as needed. The project site does not encompass surface waters, and therefore will not change the number or type of watercraft on any waterbody. Cedar Hills Residential Development EAW, Lakeville October 30, 2019 23 12. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes a. Pre-project site conditions - Describe existing contamination or potential environmental hazards on or in close proximity to the project site such as soil or ground water contamination, abandoned dumps, closed landfills, existing or abandoned storage tanks, and hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. Discuss any potential environmental effects from pre-project site conditions that would be caused or exacerbated by project construction and operation. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from existing contamination or potential environmental hazards. Include development of a Contingency Plan or Response Action Plan. A search for known environmental hazards and conditions was completed for the Cedar Hills Residential Development. Database searches using the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) What’s In My Neighborhood and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) MyEnvironment were conducted. The MPCA What’s In My Neighborhood online database indicated that no current or past environmental hazards were recorded in the project area. However, within ¼ mile of the project area, five sites were identified. The sites were identified due to the following: construction stormwater permits, one hazardous waste permit, two very small quantity generator permits, and one feedlot permit. The Cedar Hills Residential Development is not anticipated to impact, nor exacerbate, any of the aforementioned environmental hazards. The EPA, MyEnvironment online database revealed that no environmental hazards have been documented in the project area. One hazardous waste site, Quality Auto Renew, was identified within the ¼ mile buffer. The Quality Auto Renew site was also identified by the MPCA What’s In My Neighborhood database. It is not anticipated that project development will impact, nor exacerbate, the hazardous waste conditions of Quality Auto Renew. There are no water wells, septic systems, abandoned dumps, closed landfills, abandoned storage tanks or hazardous liquid or gas pipelines known to exist within the project area. Given the lack of known hazards on site, or in close proximity to the site, supplemental measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate effects from existing contamination have not been considered beyond the conditions of the acquired permits for project development. In the event that environmentally hazardous conditions are identified during site construction, measures will be taken to ensure that project development and operation does not exacerbate contamination or generate new environmental hazards. b. Project related generation/storage of solid wastes - Describe solid wastes generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from solid waste handling, storage and disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of solid waste including source reduction and recycling. Construction activities will generate wastes typical of residential development operations. No solid or hazardous wastes, including solid animal manure, sludge, and ash, will be produced during construction and/or operation. The contractor will dispose of wastes generated at the site in an approved method by using commercial dumpsters and disposing construction wastes at an MPCA- permitted landfill. The contractor will minimize and mitigate adverse effects from the generation and storage of solid waste by recycling construction waste that can be recycled, when feasible. Cedar Hills Residential Development EAW, Lakeville October 30, 2019 24 Following project construction, solid waste generation will be typical of occupied residential developments of this size. The majority of the solid waste generated will include materials such as paper, organics (food wastes), yard waste, and inert solids. The remaining wastes will likely include plastics, metals, and glass. According to the Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Policy Plan 2016-2036 (MPCA, 2017), the Minnesota per capita rate for waste generation is approximately 1.13 tons per year. The following residential solid waste generation rates were based on Metropolitan Council Community Profile Average Household size data of 2.95 persons (2018). The household occupant number was then multiplied by 1.13 tons per person per year, based on the MPCA estimate for Minnesota families. Using these conservative figures, the proposed development could generate as much as 1,243 tons (373 units X 2.95 people/unit X 1.13 tons/person/year) of residential municipal solid waste per year. Residents within the new development can contract individually with waste haulers for solid waste collection and recycling services under the city’s open trash and recycling collection system. According to the cities web page, there are currently five licensed residential and/or commercial waste haulers. Curbside recycling, including paper, plastics, glass, metals and compost, is available to Lakeville residents through their solid waste haulers. Participation in the recycling and composting programs by future residents of the project area is expected to reduce costs for solid waste trucking and disposal, and generally minimize and mitigate adverse effects from the generation and storage of solid waste. 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 spill or release of hazardous materials. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the use/storage of chemicals/hazardous materials including source reduction and recycling. Include development of a spill prevention plan. It is not anticipated that the proposed project will generate, or require storage of, significant amounts of wastes that would be considered hazardous aside from typical household cleaners, paints, lubricants, and fuel storage for small power equipment. Toxic or hazardous materials such as fuel for construction equipment and materials used during the normal construction process of residential units (paint, adhesives, stains, acids, bases, herbicides, and pesticides) will likely be used in typical quantities during site preparation and unit construction. These materials will be properly stored during on-site use and according to state and federal regulations to prevent accidental spill or release of hazardous materials. Builders and contractors are responsible for proper management and disposal of wastes generated during construction, which is typically handled by using construction dumpsters and the appropriate certified landfills. The contractor will minimize and mitigate adverse effects from the generation and storage of hazardous wastes by recycling wastes that can be recycled, and by developing a spill prevention plan for the project. Use of toxic or hazardous materials, outside of vehicle fuels, standard household cleaners, and lawn care chemicals, is not anticipated within the project area in conjunction with the proposed residential development. 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. Cedar Hills Residential Development EAW, Lakeville October 30, 2019 25 Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of hazardous waste including source reduction and recycling. Outside of the materials described above, the project is not anticipated to generate or require the storing, handling or disposal of hazardous wastes during construction or during operation. Consequently, potential environmental effects from hazardous wastes, and measures to avoid minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of hazardous waste including source reduction and recycling, have not been considered. 13. Fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources (rare features): a) Describe fish and wildlife resources as well as habitats and vegetation on or near the site. Fish and wildlife resources on and near the site are directly related to the composition, quality, size, and connectivity of natural communities including woodlands, wetlands, and grasslands. The project proposer used available National Land Cover Database (NLCD) land cover types and aerial photography to conduct off-site analysis of habitats (Exhibit 9). Based on this analysis, the site contains the following major habitat components: 126.7 acres of cultivated crop, 10.4 acres of wetlands, 1.1 acres of deciduous forest, and 0.7 acres of hay/pasture. These habitats are used by a variety of animals common to the Western Corn Belt Plains ecoregion of Minnesota. Wildlife that exist throughout the site likely include those species that have adapted to cropland and fragmented woodland and hay/pasture habitats such as pheasant, meadowlark, field sparrow, eastern cottontail, red fox, skunks, white-tailed deer, and small mammals such as mice and shrews. The open fields and woodland areas provide seasonal food and cover for these species. 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-NA) and/or correspondence number (ERDB- 20200001) 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 the results. The Minnesota DNR Natural Heritage Program conducted a database search of the Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) to determine if there are listed plants and animals; native plant communities; wildlife aggregations; geological features; or state rare features that are known to occur within or near the project site. The DNR Natural Heritage Review response letter is provided in Appendix B; correspondence number: ERDB 20200001. The DNR did not identify any rare features or records of occurrence of rare species on or within close proximity to the site, and does not believe the proposed project will negatively affect any know occurrences of rare features. According to the Natural Communities and Rare Species of Dakota County Map (Minnesota County Biological Survey, 1997), the project site does not contain rare plant or animal species or other significant or otherwise designated natural features or habitat areas. Cedar Hills Residential Development EAW, Lakeville October 30, 2019 26 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. Project development is expected to convert approximately 159.5 acres of cultivated crop fields, hay/pasture, woodland, and wetland area to single-family homes and roads. Conversion of agricultural fields, woodlands, wetlands, and hay/pasture to residential development may result in some local decline in wildlife abundance. Populations of species that depend primarily upon cropland and woodland remnants, such as ring-necked pheasants, wild turkey, and meadowlarks, will likely be displaced. Migratory birds are expected to respond to the development by looking for alternative nesting sites upon their return from wintering habitats. However, given the significant acreage of stormwater basins, wetlands and wetland buffers, and other open space planned for the project, migratory birds tolerant of urban areas, like Canadian geese and mallards, will likely continue to utilize the area. Some songbirds that readily adapt to suburban habitats such as house finches, robins, and eastern bluebirds, may become more numerous. Non-migratory species with small home ranges such as small mammals may experience more adverse effects. These species will compete with other individuals of the same or other species to claim territories in neighboring habitats or succumb to mortality during project construction. However, it is anticipated that some of these non-migratory species will re-introduce into the open space portions of the project as those become established. Approximately 27 percent of the 159.5-acre project area will be open space (i.e. parkland, wetland, wetland buffer, stormwater basins, and woodland), which is expected to help mitigate adverse effects on wildlife. While cultivated croplands will be completely converted and removed as an available habitat type, it is anticipated that woodlands, wetlands, wetland buffers and stormwater basin areas will be enhanced from existing conditions. Consequently, the project is not expected to result in a regionally significant decline in wildlife abundance or species diversity. Measures expected to provide additional habitat for wildlife and help mitigate adverse effects include the preservation of approximately 9-10 acres of wetland area, the creation of stormwater basins, 4.3-acres of parks (public and private), and maintaining connections between existing wetlands and woodlands in the development by retaining wetlands and enhancing wetland buffers. Such efforts will reduce habitat fragmentation and allow for wildlife movement on the property and from adjacent, off-site resource areas. For instance, the three larger wetlands on the southern half of the project area proposed for avoidance connect with other wetland habitats to the south, providing connectivity between resources areas for wildlife. No state or federally-threatened and/or endangered species are known to utilize the project area as fully described in Section 13. Invasive Species The project proposer understands that the introduction and spread of invasive weed species from project construction and operation requires consideration. While there is the opportunity for invasive weed species to be introduced during project construction, it is unlikely that these species would persist in a meaningful way following construction. The Cedar Hills project will be fully landscaped with turf grass and landscape trees and shrubs per a city-approved landscaping plan. Consequently, large areas of exposed soils where invasive weed species might appear is not anticipated, or expected. If present, large areas of invasive species will be controlled by the applicant in accordance with local and state invasive and noxious weed regulations. Cedar Hills Residential Development EAW, Lakeville October 30, 2019 27 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 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. A database search request was made to the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) who conducted a search of the Minnesota Archaeological Inventory and Historic Structure Inventory for the project area and surrounding areas (Appendix C). Based on their review, no previously recorded archaeological sites, historic structures, or traditional cultural properties were identified in the database for the project area. No National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) listed or eligible properties are within one mile of the project. Fifteen inventoried architectural resources and no archaeological sites are recorded within one mile of the project. Two of the inventoried architectural resources (the Patrick M. Donnelly & Sons Farmstead and Pleasant View Farm) were identified within ½ mile of the project area, but will not be impacted by the proposed project. Neither resource has been evaluated for listing in the NRHP. Additionally, background research was conducted in person at the MN SHPO and online via the MN Office of the State Archaeologist Portal. No other previously recorded archaeological sites or historic properties were identified within or immediately adjacent to the project area. Effects to known historic properties during project construction and operation are not anticipated. 15. Visual Describe any scenic views or vistas on or near the project site. Describe any project related visual effects such as vapor plumes or glare from intense lights. Discuss the potential visual effects from the project. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate visual effects. There are no scenic views or vistas located on or near the property, and no non-routine impacts or visual nuisances are anticipated. The proposed residential land use is consistent with other established uses in the area, and therefore will not create a significant change in visual aesthetics. Measures to soften visual transitions include providing buffers between existing and proposed homes, preservation of tree and wetland cover where possible, developing community parks, and providing berms and landscaping adjacent to proposed major collector and private streets and adjacent land uses where needed. 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 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. Because development of heavy industrial facilities is not proposed, no stationary source air emissions are anticipated as a result of this project. Cedar Hills Residential Development EAW, Lakeville October 30, 2019 28 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. Increased traffic will generate a relatively small corresponding increase in carbon monoxide levels and other vehicle-related air emissions. The project is expected to have a negligible impact on air quality. Based on traffic impact study findings described further in Section 18, intersections within the study area will operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS) reducing the possibility of congestion and vehicle idling. Consequently, baseline air quality monitoring, or predictive air quality modeling, has not been scheduled at this time, and no measures to mitigate air quality impacts have been considered. 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. Project development will not generate odors, noise or dust in excess of levels emitted during typical construction practices of suburban developments. Odors, noise, or dust produced during construction will meet the requirements of the MPCA and applicable local regulations. The project will not generate significant odors during construction or operation. Minor odors generated during construction will be typical of those associated with residential development processes, such as exhaust from diesel and gasoline powered construction equipment. The construction process is expected to generate some dust, but it is not anticipated that fugitive dust will be generated in objectionable quantities. The nearest receptors to the proposed project are the neighborhood residences located south of the project boundary along 205th Street West, the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses west of Cedar Avenue, several farmsteads located north of 200th Street West, and Farmington High School’s baseball fields, parking lots, and facilities. Consideration will be given to suppression of airborne dust by application of water if significant fugitive dust generation occurs during site grading and equipment operation that is greater than routinely expected during normal construction practices. 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. The project will be constructed in accordance with the city’s established noise ordinance as outlined in City Code Section 4-1-4-2. It is anticipated that noise levels will temporarily increase locally during project construction, but are expected to return to intensities consistent with existing levels and sources following project completion. Noise levels on and adjacent to the site will vary considerably during construction depending on the pieces of construction equipment being operated simultaneously, the percent of time in operation, and the distance from the equipment to the receptors. The nearest receptors Cedar Hills Residential Development EAW, Lakeville October 30, 2019 29 to the proposed project are the neighborhood residences located south of the project boundary along 205th Street West, the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses west of Cedar Avenue, several farmsteads located north of 200th Street West, and Farmington High School’s baseball fields, parking lots, and facilities. In accordance with Section 4-1-4-2 of the City Code, construction equipment will not be operated between the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am. Planned berming and landscaping within and adjacent to project boundaries will help to minimize and mitigate the effects of the anticipated negligible noise generated from the project following construction. 18. Transportation a. Describe traffic-related aspects of project construction and operation. Include: 1) existing and proposed additional parking spaces, 2) estimated total average daily traffic generated, 3) estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence, 4) indicate source of trip generation rates used in the estimates, and 5) availability of transit and/or other alternative transportation modes. The Cedar Hills site would generate traffic during construction of the residential dwelling units, as well as the open space development. Construction traffic would primarily use CSAH 23 (Cedar Avenue), 200th Street West, 202nd Street West and 205th Street West as the main access points into and out of the site during construction. When the site is developed, a series of internal streets will be developed to accommodate residential access into and out of the development. 202nd Street West will remain the primary collector access for residential development traffic. Direct access onto southbound CSAH 23 will be provided by full access intersections at 202nd Street West, with limited access at 200th and 205th Streets West. Currently, the intersection of CSAH 23 and 202nd Street West is programmed for signalization. 1) Existing parking spaces: 0 Proposed parking spaces: Approx. 2.0 off-street parking spaces per residential unit Therefore, proposed parking stalls = 385 x 2 = 770 2) Total average daily traffic generated: 3,918 trips per day 3) Estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated: 388 trips/hour during p.m. peak hour 5:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.) 4) Source of trip generation rates: ITE Trip Generation Manual, Tenth Edition (2017) 5) Availability of Transit and/or other alternative transportation modes: According to the Draft Dakota County Comprehensive Plan (DC2040), the Cedar Avenue Transitway (METRO Red Line Bus Rapid Transit) is located between the Mall of America in Bloomington and CSAH 70 (215th St.) in Lakeville. The METRO Red Line began operations on the transitway in 2013, Cedar Hills Residential Development EAW, Lakeville October 30, 2019 30 serving five stations with frequent all-day service. An additional five stations are identified for potential future extension as service demand warrants. The transit stop closest to the Cedar Hills development is north along Cedar Avenue at the Lakeville Cedar Park 7 Ride at 181st Street. No transit stops are directly adjacent to the development. Other express and local services within the corridor use many of the transitway facilities developed for METRO Red Line service. Dakota County led planning, project development and construction of the Cedar Avenue Transitway. 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, A complete traffic analysis of existing and future volumes is included in Appendix D of this document. c. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate project related transportation effects. The traffic impact study associated with this development models traffic to and from the site in year 2026 Build conditions. Traffic is distributed to and from the site via street access intersections that work to comply with Dakota County access guidelines and sight distance requirements. Alignments of streets and collectors have been recommended that promote reasonable traffic control and access management. Internal streets have been recommended with a hierarchy of ROW, on-street parking (where applicable), trails and sidewalks, responsible traffic control and traffic calming features. Pedestrian and bicycle trails have been recommended with increased conspicuity and enhanced features, depending on projected use. 19. Cumulative potential effects: (Preparers can leave this item blank if cumulative potential effects are addressed under the applicable EAW Items) a. Describe the geographic scales and timeframes of the project related environmental effects that could combine with other environmental effects resulting in cumulative potential effects. It is anticipated that the project will be constructed in three phases, with the first phase expected to begin in spring 2020. Full build-out is anticipated by 2025; however, construction timing will ultimately depend upon market conditions. The changes in regional land use in the Lakeville area from open space, rural and agricultural land uses to more urbanized uses is expected to have a cumulative impact on the area. Cumulative effects of this and future projects on natural resources and infrastructure are expected to be roughly proportional to the impacts discussed in this EAW, or somewhat greater if future projects are developed at a higher density. The City of Lakeville has planned for future growth and development in this particular area as part of its 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Comprehensive Water System Plan, Water and Natural Resources Plan, Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan, Cedar Hills Residential Development EAW, Lakeville October 30, 2019 31 Transportation Plan, and Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan. These efforts will ensure that the cumulative impacts of future growth and development to the environment, and to the City’s service capacity, are anticipated and mitigated. b. Describe any reasonably foreseeable future projects (for which a basis of expectation has been laid) that may interact with environmental effects of the proposed project within the geographic scales and timeframes identified above. The project proposer does not currently own or have options on adjacent or nearby lands. The City of Lakeville keeps a running list of residential development projects current as of July 2, 2019. According to this list, there are 2,058 single-family lots final platted in current active developments, 1,192 building permits issued in current active developments, 866 vacant single- family platted lots, and 751 single-family lots preliminarily platted pending final plat. In addition, there are 518 townhome units that have been final plat approved, 286 building permits issued for townhomes, 232 vacant townhome platted lots, and 89 townhome lots preliminarily platted and pending final plat. Because many of the above projects and available lots develop based on market drivers and conditions, the timing of future development can, and likely will, fluctuate. However, land adjacent to the project site is eventually expected to develop, per the City of Lakeville 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, thereby converting existing open space and agricultural lands to residential and commercial uses. The City of Lakeville’s 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan anticipates and guides the intensity of development within the city and directs necessary infrastructure improvements to support the planned development. Parcels to the west and southwest of the proposed project area are currently undeveloped, and the 2040 Comprehensive Plan guides these areas for Low/Medium Density Residential uses. Farmington High School is located southeast of the property and outside city limits. The property to the southwest is being developed as Cedar Crossings, a single-family residential development. The current zoning to the north of the project area consists of Agriculture Preserve (A-P) and R/A, Rural/Agricultural Districts. The 2040 Land Use Plan notes that the agriculture preserves north of the project area expire in 2020, and guides this area for Medium/High Density Residential (M/HDR) and Low/Medium Density Residential (L/MDR). In keeping with the city’s comprehensive plan, these parcels are expected to develop in the future to similar uses. Undeveloped parcels immediately surrounding the proposed development site contain similar land uses and land features as the project site. Existing land cover on these properties is primarily agricultural with wooded areas, drainages, and wetlands interspersed. c. Discuss the nature of the cumulative potential effects and summarize any other available information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental effects due to these cumulative effects. The proposed project will result in minor conversion of jurisdictional wetland to upland, tree removal and conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses. Consequently, cumulative impacts to natural resources are anticipated to be minimal, and have been purposefully concentrated in this portion of the city. Development of surrounding parcels will also result in cumulative impacts to city infrastructure such as roads, sewer, and water. These cumulative impacts have been thoughtfully contemplated and addressed in the city’s 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Comprehensive Water System Plan, Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan, and Transportation Plan. Cedar Hills Residential Development EAW, Lakeville October 30, 2019 32 In addition, as surrounding properties develop, they will be evaluated under the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) rules, and will need to adhere to guidelines presented in the city’s approved zoning and comprehensive plans. Mitigation for anticipated minor cumulative impacts in the area will include providing approximately 43.5 acres of open space (27 percent of the site), providing buffers from surrounding developments, a 3.3-acre Community Park, a 1.0-acre private park and amenity area, protecting woodlands and wetlands to the extent practicable, pretreating stormwater and controlling stormwater rates, and providing adequate municipal facilities such as potable water and wastewater treatment. These provisions will help minimize potential cumulative effects of past developments and future developments within the region. Given the nature of cumulative potential effects, the evaluation of available and relevant information, and mitigation efforts proposed, the potential for significant environmental effects due to these cumulative effects appears minor. 20. Other potential environmental effects: If the project may cause any additional environmental effects not addressed by items 1 to 19, describe the effects here, discuss the how the environment will be affected, and identify measures that will be taken to minimize and mitigate these effects. No other additional environmental effects are anticipated as a result of this project. Potential environmental effects have been addressed in Items 1 through 19. RGU CERTIFICATION. (The Environmental Quality Board will only accept SIGNED Environmental Assessment Worksheets for public notice in the EQB Monitor.) I hereby certify that: The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. The EAW describes the complete project; there are no other projects, stages or components other than those described in this document, which are related to the project as connected actions or phased actions, as defined at Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200, subparts 9c and 60, respectively. Copies of this EAW are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list. Signature ________________________________ Date _______________________________ Title: Daryl Morey, Planning Director, City of Lakeville Exhibits 1 – 9 Cedar South 160 Residential Development EAW, Lakeville Dakota County, Minnesota This page is intentionally blank Dakota County ScottCounty EXHIBIT 1Map Document: \\westwoodps.local\GFS\Global Projects\0022951.00\GIS\EAW Exhibits\CedarSouth160_Ex1_ProjectLocation_190725.mxd 7/25/2019 11:44:09 AM NGBryantCedar South 160 EAW © 2019 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Lakeville, Dakota County, Minnesota Site Location Data Source(s): Westwood (2019); ESRI WMS World Street Basemap (Accessed 2019); U.S. Census Bureau (2017).Legend Project Boundary County Boundary Project Location Iowa Minnesota North Dakota South Dakota WisconsinProject Location CarverCounty Dakota County GoodhueCounty HennepinCounty Le SueurCounty RamseyCounty Rice County Scott County MinnesotaWisconsin±0 1 Miles Brutus DrHeath AveEverestT r l Heywood AveHarappaAve207th St W 197th StW Heron LnH ero n WayHighview Ave195th St W 210th St W G e m i n i T rl Co Rd 70215th St W 202nd St W 212th St WCo Rd 644200th St W Co Rd 64 Lakeville Blvd Hamburg Ave190th St W State Hwy 50 Flagstaff Ave208th S t W FrostCtRomeoDr Glade AveAnthonyDr Granada AveS h a k e s p e a r e B l v d EverestPathHartford Way Co Rd 23Cedar AveEXHIBIT 2Map Document: \\westwoodps.local\GFS\Global Projects\0022951.00\GIS\EAW Exhibits\CedarSouth160_Ex2_USGSTopography_190725.mxd 7/25/2019 11:46:17 AM NGBryantCedar South 160 EAW © 2019 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Lakeville, Dakota County, Minnesota USGS Topography Data Source(s): Westwood (2019); ESRI WMS USA Topo (Accessed 2019); U.S. Census Bureau (2017). Legend Project Boundary Road ±0 2,000 Feet COUNTY ROAD NO.23 (CEDAR AVENUE)COUNTY ROAD NO.64 (200TH STREET WEST) EXHIBIT 3Map Document: N:\0022951.00\GIS\EAW Exhibits\CedarSouth160_Ex3_ConstructionPlan_190815.mxd 8/15/2019 4:26:19 PM NGBryantCedar South 160 EAW © 2019 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Lakeville, Dakota County, Minnesota Concept Site Plan Data Source(s): Westwood (2019); ESRI WMS World Imagery Basemap (Accessed 2019); MnTOPO (Accessed 2019).Legend Project Boundary Contours ±0 400 Feet Hampto n Cir G r e n a d a A v e 200th St W HanoverAveGarrisonLnGateway Dr200thSt W214th St W214th St W Co Rd 64 208th St W GrommetAveF r u i t w o o d P a t hGatewayDr200th St W Brutus DrGoodhueWayHeath AveHa y e s Av e Harvest Dr Hartford Way Gr e e n w o o d Av eHampton AveRomeo Dr 195th St W Lakeville Blvd Heron Ln Glade Ave210th St W Co Rd 64Guthrie DrAnthony Dr H am p s h i r eWa y 205th St W Macbeth Cir210th St W Hartf o r d W a y Shakespeare Blvd G em i n i T r l Co Rd 70215th St W Co Rd 64 202nd St W 212th St WCo Rd 644Lakeville Blvd Co Rd 64 Hamburg AveState Hwy 50 Flagstaff AveCo Rd 23Cedar AveEXHIBIT 4Map Document: \\westwoodps.local\GFS\Global Projects\0022951.00\GIS\EAW Exhibits\CedarSouth160_Ex4_AdjacentLandUse_190725.mxd 7/25/2019 11:49:18 AM NGBryantCedar South 160 EAW © 2019 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Lakeville, Dakota County, Minnesota Adjacent Land Use Data Source(s): Westwood (2019); ESRI WMS World Imagery Basemap (Accessed 2019); U.S. Census Bureau (2017). Legend Project Boundary Road ±0 600 Feet Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential Agricultural Field Agricultural Field Agricultural Field School Commercial Commercial Agricultural Field Agricultural Field Agricultural Field Agricultural Field Agricultural Field Agricultural Field Commercial Single-Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Church School School Park Single-Family Residential Rural Residential Rural Residential EXHIBIT 5Map Document: \\westwoodps.local\GFS\Global Projects\0022951.00\GIS\EAW Exhibits\CedarSouth160_Ex5_Zoning_190725.mxd 7/25/2019 11:50:41 AM NGBryantCedar South 160 EAW © 2019 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Lakeville, Dakota County, Minnesota Zoning Map Data Source(s): Westwood (2019); City of Lakeville Zoning Map (Accessed 2019). Legend Project Boundary RM-1, Medium Density Residential District RM-2, Medium Density Residential District RS-3, Single Family Residential District P/OS, Public and Open Space District Right Of Way RA, Rural/Agricultural District A-P, Agricultural Preserve District ±0 600 Feet PEM1Cd PFO1Cd PEM1Ad PEM1C PEM1A PEM1Ad PEM1Ad PSS1/EM1Cd PUBGx PEM1Cd PEM1Cd PEM1Ad PFO1/EM1Cd PEM1Ad PEM1C PEM1A PFO1/EM1Cd PEM1Ad PEM1B PFO1/EM1AdPUBGx PFO1/EM1Cd PABGx PEM1B PABGx PEM1Ad PUBGx PEM1Ad PFO1C PUBGx PEM1Cd PUBGx PEM1Ad PEM1Ad PEM1Ad PFO1/EM1Ad PEM1Af PEM1Ad PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PSS1/EM1Ad PABFx PEM1Cd PSS1/EM1Cd PUBGx South Creek North Creek EXHIBIT 6Map Document: \\westwoodps.local\GFS\Global Projects\0022951.00\GIS\EAW Exhibits\CedarSouth160_Ex6_WaterResources_190725.mxd 7/25/2019 11:51:56 AM NGBryantCedar South 160 EAW © 2019 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Lakeville, Dakota County, Minnesota Water Resources Data Source(s): Westwood (2019); ESRI WMS World Imagery (Accessed 2019); USGS NHD Dataset (2013); Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Ducks Unlimited, and St. Mary's University of Minnesota (2015); MnDNR (2008); FEMA (2016); Geospatial Data Gateway (2016). Legend Project Boundary 100-Year Floodplain 500-Year Floodplain NWI Wetland NHD Waterbody PWI Water Basin Watershed Boundary NHD Flowline PWI Watercourse ±0 1,000 Feet GladeAveGateway Ct ShakespeareBlvdFury CtJuliet DrGarrison LnAnthony Dr Romeo Dr Frui twood Pa th Co Rd 64 202nd St W Gateway DrFrost Ct205th St W Gemini Trl Co Rd 64200th St W Co Rd 23Cedar Ave378 176 203B 203B 203B 203B 203B 203B 250 2B 2B 2B 2B 320C2 320C2 320C2 285B 285B 2C 2C 2C 176 176176 176 176 285C 213B 213B 213B 213B EXHIBIT 7Map Document: \\westwoodps.local\GFS\Global Projects\0022951.00\GIS\EAW Exhibits\CedarSouth160_Ex7_Soils_190725.mxd 7/25/2019 11:52:48 AM NGBryantCedar South 160 EAW © 2019 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Lakeville, Dakota County, Minnesota NRCS Soils Data Source(s): Westwood (2019); ESRI WMS World Imagery Basemap (Accessed 2019); U.S. Census Bureau (2017); U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (2018).Legend Project Boundary Road Soil Unit Boundary All Hydric/Predominantly Hydric Soil ±0 600 Feet Symbol Map Unit Name Hydric Rating Percent Hydric 176 Garwin silty clay loam Predominantly Hydric 95 203B Joy silt loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes Predominantly Non-hydric 5 213B Klinger silt loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes Predominantly Non-hydric 5 250 Kennebec silt loam Non-hydric 0 285B Port Byron silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Non-hydric 0 285C Port Byron silt loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes Non-hydric 0 2B Ostrander loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes Non-hydric 0 2C Ostrander loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes Non-hydric 0 320C2 Tallula silt loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes, eroded Non-hydric 0 378 Maxfield silty clay loam Predominantly Hydric 95 WL A 2.4 Ac WL B 4.1 Ac WL C 1.6 Ac WL F 0.3 Ac WL D 0.1 Ac WL D 0.1 Ac WL E 1.4 Ac WL H 0.1 Ac WL G 0.3 Ac Gateway Ct Fury CtGarrison LnFru i twood Pa th Co Rd 64 202nd St W Gateway DrFrost Ct205 t h S t W Gemini Trl Co Rd 64200th St W Co Rd 23Cedar AveEXHIBIT 8Map Document: N:\0022951.00\GIS\EAW Exhibits\CedarSouth160_Ex8_DelineatedWetlands_190726.mxd 7/26/2019 10:15:02 AM ngbryantCedar South 160 EAW © 2019 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Lakeville, Dakota County, Minnesota Approved Delineated Wetland Boundaries Data Source(s): Westwood (2019); ESRI WMS World Imagery Basemap (Accessed 2019); U.S. Census Bureau (2017). Legend Project Boundary Delineated Wetland Boundary Road ±0 600 Feet Caesar Dr Hamlet CirGrommetAveFr ui t woodPathGatewayDr Brutus D r JulietDr210th St W 205th St W 202nd St W Ge mini Trl 200th St W Co Rd 64 Frost CtGreenwood Ave GladeAveRomeoD rGuthrieDr AnthonyDr Macbeth CirSha ke spe a re Bl vdCo Rd 23Cedar AveEXHIBIT 9Map Document: \\westwoodps.local\GFS\Global Projects\0022951.00\GIS\EAW Exhibits\CedarSouth160_Ex9_LandCoverTypes_190725.mxd 7/25/2019 11:54:45 AM NGBryantCedar South 160 EAW © 2019 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Lakeville, Dakota County, Minnesota NLCD Land Cover Types Data Source(s): Westwood (2019); U.S. Geological Survey (2011).Legend Project Boundary Developed, Open Space (6.8%) Developed, Low Intensity (2.0%) Developed, Medium Intensity (4.1%) Developed, High Intensity (0.1%) Deciduous Forest (0.7%) Hay/Pasture (0.4%) Cultivated Crops (85.9%) ±0 1,000 Feet Appendix A County Well Index Well Logs Cedar South 160 Residential Development EAW, Lakeville Dakota County, Minnesota This page is intentionally blank Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031772296 County Dakota Entry Date 09/01/2011 Quad Farmington Update Date 06/05/2019 Quad ID 88B Received Date 05/27/2010 Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed DONNELLY 114 20 W 22 DCCCDB 215 ft.215 ft.01/22/2010 Elevation 1018 Elev. Method LiDAR 1m DEM (MNDNR)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Water Address Use domestic Status Active Well Hydrofractured?XYes No From To ThreadedCasing Type Single casing No X Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint Well 6923 200TH ST W FARMINGTON MN 55024 Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness CLAY 0 16 HARDBROWN SAND 16 19 MEDIUMBROWN CLAY 19 46 HARDBROWN CLAY & SAND LAYERS 46 180 HARDGRAY SANDROCK 180 215 MED-HRDWHITE Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 5 195 15in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 8 190in. To ft. 5 215in. To ft. Screen?MakeType 195Open Hole From ft. To ft.215 Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) STATE OF MINN SEALED WELL #H-283382 Material FromAmount To high solids bentonite ft. 190 ft.7 Sacks Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 772296 HE-01205-15 Printed on 06/20/2019 MONITORPitless adapter manufacturer Model At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above grade SCHAEFER X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.85 Measureland surface 01/20/2010 95 feet Northwes Direction Sewer Type Well disinfected upon completion?X Yes Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe Capacity Typftg.p. 01/22/2010 10 0.75 230 10108 Submersible XYes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes X No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Hartmann Well Co., LLP 1622 HARTMANN, B. Remarks Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock Dakota Cty. 180 Digitization (Screen) - Map (1:12,000) (>15 meters) System X Y483637 4945199 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 06/04/2019Information from Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031587574 County Dakota Entry Date 08/10/1998 Quad Farmington Update Date 06/05/2019 Quad ID 88B Received Date 10/08/1997 Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed NELSON, RON 114 20 W 22 CDDACC 221 ft.221 ft.05/22/1997 Elevation 994 ft.Elev. Method LiDAR 1m DEM (MNDNR)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Qwik gel Address Use domestic Status Active Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To ThreadedCasing Type Single casing No X Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint C/W 7059 200TH ST W LAKEVILLE MN Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness CLAY 0 21 MEDIUMYELLOW CLAY, SAND, GRAVEL 21 188 MEDIUMGRAY LIMEROCK 188 221 HARDGRAY Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 188 11in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 8 22in. To ft. 6.7 188in. To ft. 3.8 221in. To ft. Screen?MakeType 188Open Hole From ft. To ft.221 Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Material FromAmount To bentonite ft. 188 ft.5 Sacks Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 587574 HE-01205-15 Printed on 06/20/2019 MERRILLPitless adapter manufacturer Model SPK At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above grade AERMOTOR X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.72 Measureland surface 05/22/1997 38 feet Southwes Direction Sewer Type Well disinfected upon completion?X Yes Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe Capacity Typftg.p. 05/22/1997 A12B-75 0.75 230 1284 Submersible XYes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes X No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Gary's Well Co.70417 BURRELL, F. Remarks Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock Minnesota Geological Survey 188 Digitization (Screen) - Map (1:24,000) (15 meters or System X Y483488 4945282 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 06/05/2019Address verification Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031435202 County Dakota Entry Date 06/13/1991 Quad Farmington Update Date 06/14/2018 Quad ID 88B Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed 114 20 W 22 CCDCCB 280 ft.280 ft.06/03/1987 Elevation 1018 Elev. Method 7.5 minute topographic map (+/- 5 feet)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Bentonite Address Use domestic Status Active Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To Welded 1 ft. Casing Type Single casing No X Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint C/W 7483 200TH ST W LAKEVILLE MN Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness CLAY 0 240 MEDIUMBLUE LIME 240 280 HARDYELLOW Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 243 11in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 8 243in. To ft. 4 280in. To ft. Screen?MakeType 243Open Hole From ft. To ft.280 Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Material FromAmount To bentonite ft. 243 ft.3 Cubic yards Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 435202 HE-01205-15 Printed on 06/20/2019 Pitless adapter manufacturer Model At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above grade GRUNDFOS X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.135 Measureland surface 06/03/1987 ft.180 hrs.2 Pumping at 20 g.p.m. 75 feet North Direction Sewer Type Well disinfected upon completion?X Yes Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe Capacity Typftg.p. 07/02/1987 SP-2-18 1 230 10189 Submersible XYes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Kimmes-Bauer 19521 ANDERSON, L. Remarks Prairie Du Chien Group Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock Prairie Du Chien Group Minnesota Geological Survey Prairie Du Chien 240 Digitization (Screen) - Map (1:24,000) (15 meters or System X Y482978 4945214 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 06/02/2000Information from Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031560358 County Dakota Entry Date 06/07/1996 Quad Farmington Update Date 06/05/2019 Quad ID 88B Received Date 05/06/1996 Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed MYINT, JOHN 114 20 W 28 AAABCA 250 ft.250 ft.08/20/1995 Elevation 1061 Elev. Method LiDAR 1m DEM (MNDNR)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Water Address Use domestic Status Active Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To ThreadedCasing Type Single casing No X Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint C/W 7570 200TH ST W LAKEVILLE MN Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness CLAY 0 43 MEDIUMYELLOW CLAY & ROCKS 43 207 HARDBLUE SANDROCK 207 250 MED-HRDYELLOW Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 215 11in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 6 215in. To ft. 4 250in. To ft. Screen?MakeType 215Open Hole From ft. To ft.250 Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) DAKOTA COUNTY PERMIT NUMBER 95-0038 Material FromAmount To bentonite ft. 215 ft.6 Sacks Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 560358 HE-01205-15 Printed on 06/20/2019 MONITORPitless adapter manufacturer Model At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above grade FLINT & WALLING X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.134 Measureland surface 06/20/1995 50 feet East Direction Sewer Type Well disinfected upon completion?X Yes Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe Capacity Typftg.p. 07/31/1995 4F19A20 2 220 19165 Submersible XYes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Hartmann Well Co.40174 JAECKELS, R. Remarks Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock Dakota Cty. 207 Digitization (Screen) - Map (1:12,000) (>15 meters) System X Y482598 4945120 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 06/04/2019Address verification Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031502712 County Dakota Entry Date 07/31/1991 Quad Farmington Update Date 06/05/2019 Quad ID 88B Received Date 08/23/1989 Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed THIMPSON, 114 20 W 28 AABADA 240 ft.240 ft.05/15/1989 Elevation 1056 Elev. Method LiDAR 1m DEM (MNDNR)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Qwik gel Address Use domestic Status Active Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To ThreadedCasing Type Single casing No X Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint C/W 7690 200TH ST W LAKEVILLE MN Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness CLAY 0 7 SOFTYELLOW SAND 7 18 SOFTBROWN CLAY & SAND LAYERS 18 43 SOFTYELLOW CLAY 43 198 HARDBLUE SANDROCK 198 240 HARDGRAY Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 208 11in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 6 208in. To ft. 4 240in. To ft. Screen?MakeType 208Open Hole From ft. To ft.240 Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Material FromAmount To bentonite ft. 208 ft. Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 502712 HE-01205-15 Printed on 06/20/2019 MONITORPitless adapter manufacturer Model At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above grade AERMOTOR X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.132 Measureland surface 05/15/1989 90 feet Northwes Direction Septic tank/drain field Type Well disinfected upon completion?X Yes Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe Capacity Typftg.p. 05/16/1989 A12-75 0.75 220 12165 Submersible XYes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Hartmann Well Co.40174 PETERSON, D. Remarks Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock Dakota Cty. 198 Digitization (Screen) - Map (1:12,000) (>15 meters) System X Y482550 4945122 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 06/04/2019Address verification Angled Drill Hole Appendix B DNR Natural Heritage Database Search Cedar South 160 Residential Development EAW, Lakeville Dakota County, Minnesota This page is intentionally blank Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Ecological & Water Resources 500 Lafayette Road, Box 25 St. Paul, MN 55155-4025 July 17, 2019 Correspondence # ERDB 20200001 Ms. Shelby Kilibarda Westwood Professional Services, Inc 12701 Whitewater Drive, Suite 300 Minnetonka, MN 55343 RE: Natural Heritage Review of the proposed Lakeville South 160 Development, T114N R20W Section 27; Dakota County Dear Ms. Kilibarda, As requested, the above project has been reviewed for potential effects to known occurrences of rare features. Given the project details provided with the data request form, I do not believe the proposed project will negatively affect any known occurrences of rare features. The Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS), a collection of databases that contains information about Minnesota’s rare natural features, is maintained by the Division of Ecological and Water Resources, Department of Natural Resources. The NHIS is continually updated as new information becomes available, and is the most complete source of data on Minnesota's rare or otherwise significant species, native plant communities, and other natural features. However, the NHIS is not an exhaustive inventory and thus does not represent all of the occurrences of rare features within the state. Therefore, ecologically significant features for which we have no records may exist within the project area.If additional information becomes available regarding rare features in the vicinity of the project, further review may be necessary. For environmental review purposes, the results of this Natural Heritage Review are valid for one year; the results are only valid for the project location (noted above) and the project description provided on the NHIS Data Request Form. Please contact me if project details change or for an updated review if construction has not occurred within one year. The Natural Heritage Review does not constitute review or approval by the Department of Natural Resources as a whole. Instead, it identifies issues regarding known occurrences of rare features and potential effects to these rare features. If needed, please contact your DNR Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist to determine whether there are other natural resource concerns associated with the proposed project. Please be aware that additional site assessments or review may be required. Page 2 of 2 Thank you for consulting us on this matter, and for your interest in preserving Minnesota's rare natural resources. Please include a copy of this letter in any state or local license or permit application.An invoice will be mailed to you under separate cover. Sincerely, Samantha Bump Natural Heritage Review Specialist Samantha.Bump@state.mn.us Links: DNR Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist Contact Info http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/ereview/erp_regioncontacts.html Appendix C State Historic Preservation Office Correspondence Cedar South 160 Residential Development EAW, Lakeville Dakota County, Minnesota This page is intentionally blank From:MN_MNIT_Data Request SHPO To:Ryan Grohnke Subject:RE: Database request - Cedar South 160 Lakeville Date:Thursday, June 13, 2019 2:07:41 PM Attachments:image001.png DakotaHistoric4.xls DakotaArchaeology4.xls Hello Ryan, Your requested reports are attached. Jim SHPO Data Requests Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office 50 Sherburne Avenue, Suite 203 Saint Paul, MN 55155 (651) 201-3295 datarequestshpo@state.mn.us Notice: This email message simply reports the results of the cultural resources database search you requested. The database search is only for previously known archaeological sites and historic properties. IN NO CASE DOES THIS DATABASE SEARCH OR EMAIL MESSAGE CONSTITUTE A PROJECT REVIEW UNDER STATE OR FEDERAL PRESERVATION LAWS – please see our website at https://mn.gov/admin/shpo/protection/ for further information regarding our Environmental Review Process. Because the majority of archaeological sites in the state and many historic/architectural properties have not been recorded, important sites or properties may exist within the search area and may be affected by development projects within that area. Additional research, including field surveys, may be necessary to adequately assess the area’s potential to contain historic properties or archaeological sites. Properties that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or have been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP are indicated on the reports you have received, if any. The following codes may be on those reports: NR – National Register listed. The properties may be individually listed or may be within the boundaries of a National Register District. CEF – Considered Eligible Findings are made when a federal agency has recommended that a property is eligible for listing in the National Register and MN SHPO has accepted the recommendation for the purposes of the Environmental Review Process. These properties need to be further assessed before they are officially listed in the National Register. SEF – Staff eligible Findings are those properties the MN SHPO staff considers eligible for listing in the National Register, in circumstances other than the Environmental Review Process. DOE – Determination of Eligibility is made by the National Park Service and are those properties that are eligible for listing in the National Register, but have not been officially listed. CNEF – Considered Not Eligible Findings are made during the course of the Environmental Review Process. For the purposes of the review a property is considered not eligible for listing in the National Register. These properties may need to be reassessed for eligibility under additional or alternate contexts. Properties without NR, CEF, SEF, DOE, or CNEF designations in the reports may not have been evaluated and therefore no assumption to their eligibility can be made. Integrity and contexts change over time, therefore any eligibility determination made ten (10) or more years from the date of the current survey are considered out of date and the property will need to be reassessed. 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/. MN SHPO research hours are 8:30 AM – 4:00 PM Tuesday-Friday. Please call ahead at 651-201-3295 to ensure staff is available to assist you, if necessary. Thank you. From: Ryan Grohnke <Ryan.Grohnke@westwoodps.com> Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2019 11:34 AM To: MN_MNIT_Data Request SHPO <DataRequestSHPO@state.mn.us> Subject: Database request - Cedar South 160 Lakeville Hello, Could you please conduct a database search of the following areas: Township 114, Range 20, Sections: 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 33, 34, 35 Thank you, Ryan Ryan Grohnke CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGER ryan.grohnke@westwoodps.com Direct (952) 906-7403 Main (952) 937-5150 Cell (612) 209-3352 Westwood Multi-Disciplined Surveying & Engineering 12701 Whitewater Drive, Suite 300 | Minnetonka, MN 55343 westwoodps.com (888) 937-5150 COUNTY CITYTWPPROPNAME ADDRESS TOWRAN SECQUARTERSUSGS REPORTNUNRHCE DOEINVENTNUM Dakota Farmington Samuels Farmstead 5744 212th St. W.114 20 35 S-NE Farmington DK-95-3H DK-FMC-026 Samuels Farmstead 114 20 35 S-NE Farmington DK-2004-1H DK-FMC-026 farmstead 6040 212th St. W.114 20 35 NE-SE-NW Farmington DK-95-3H DK-FMC-027 house 6050 212th St. W.114 20 35 NW-SE-NW Farmington DK-95-3H DK-FMC-028 house 114 20 35 NW-SE-NW Farmington DK-2004-1H DK-FMC-028 farmstead 6275 Lakeville Blvd.114 20 35 S-NW-NW Farmington DK-95-3H DK-FMC-029 farmstead 114 20 35 S-NW-NW Farmington DK-2004-1H DK-FMC-029 Curry Farmstead 6670 Lakeville Blvd.114 20 34 N-SE-NE Farmington DK-2004-1H DK-FMC-030 Curry Farmstead 114 20 34 N-SE-NE Farmington DK-95-3H DK-FMC-030 house 6736 Lakeville Blvd.114 20 34 NW-SE-NE Farmington DK-95-3H DK-FMC-031 Wurderman House 2827 210th St.114 20 26 E-SW-SE Farmington DK-2004-1H DK-FMC-036 Donnelly Farm 19224 Flagstaff Ave.114 20 23 NW Farmington DK-2004-1H DK-FMC-039 Donnelly, Patrick M. & Sons, Farm 20491 Flagstaff Ave.114 20 27 E-NE Farmington DK-2004-1G DK-FMC-041 Pleasant View Farm 20850 Flagstaff Ave.114 20 27 NE-SE-SE Farmington DK-2004-1H DK-FMC-042 Zimmer Farmstead 21931 Flagstaff Ave.114 20 34 SE-SE Farmington DK-2004-1H DK-FMC-043 Highway 55 Corridor - West Segment 114 20 34 N-NE Farmington DK-2004-1H DK-FMC-044 Highway 55 Corridor - West Segment 114 20 35 N Farmington DK-2004-1H DK-FMC-044 Hastings & Dakota Railroad Corridor - West Segment 114 20 34 N-NE Farmington DK-2004-1H DK-FMC-045 Hastings & Dakota Railroad Corridor - West Segment 114 20 35 N Farmington DK-2004-1H DK-FMC-045 house 6192 Lakeville Blvd.114 20 35 SE-NW Farmington DK-2004-1H DK-FMC-046 farmstead 210th St. & Fairgreen Ave.114 20 26 W-SE Farmington DK-2004-1H DK-FMC-047 Dakota Farmington Lakeville farmstead 6886 Lakeville Blvd.114 20 34 E-E-NW Farmington DK-95-3H DK-LKC-014 farmstead xxx Lakeville Blvd.114 20 34 SE-NW-NW Farmington DK-95-3H DK-LKC-015 farmstead 7670 210th St.114 20 33 NW-NE-NE Farmington DK-95-3H DK-LKC-016 Chicago Milwaukee St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Segment off Lakeville Blvd.114 20 33 N-NE Farmington DK-95-3H DK-LKC-017 Hullett-Woodruff-Wescott-Thomas Farm 19266 Cedar Ave.114 20 22 Farmington DK-2007-1H DK-LKC-022 Thomas-Peterson Farmstead 19362 Cedar Ave.114 20 22 Farmington DK-2007-1H DK-LKC-023 Brown Farmstead Cedar Ave. and Lakeville Blvd.114 20 34 Farmington DK-2007-1H DK-LKC-025 farmstead Cedar Ave. south of 215th St.114 20 34 Farmington DK-2007-1H DK-LKC-026 COUNTYSITENUM SITENAME TOW RAN SECXQUARTERS ACR WORKDESCRIPT TRADITCONTEXReportNum Natr CEFDOEDakota 21DK0140 Glinhus Findspot 114 20 23 NW-SE-NE 0.1 5 SA PL-1 Cl-1 Appendix D Traffic Impact Study Cedar South 160 Residential Development EAW, Lakeville Dakota County, Minnesota This page is intentionally blank Cedar Hills Traffic Impact Study Lakeville, MN October 18, 2019 Prepared By: Prepared For: GreenKey Real Estate Group Traffic Impact Study for Cedar Hills A Residential Development in Lakeville, MN Prepared for: Mr. Jason Palmby GreenKey Real Estate Group P.O. Box 294 Excelsior, MN 55331 (612) 220-6641 Prepared by: Stephen J. Manhart, P.E., PTOE, PTP Westwood Professional Services 12701 Whitewater Drive, Suite 300 Minnetonka, MN 55343 (952) 937-5150 I hereby certify that this engineering document was prepared by me or under my direct personal supervision and that I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. (Signature) (date) Minnesota Professional Engineering License 22428 Exp: 06/30/2020 10/18/2019 Cedar South 160 Traffic Impact Study Lakeville, MN 10/18/2019 ii #0022951.00 Project Number: R0022951.00 Date: 10/18/2019 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................... 5 1. STREET NETWORK .................................................................................................................. 5 2. DATA COLLECTION ................................................................................................................. 7 3. TRANSIT .................................................................................................................................. 7 4. LEVEL OF SERVICE .................................................................................................................. 7 NO-BUILD SCENARIO ....................................................................................................................... 8 BUILD SCENARIO ........................................................................................................................... 12 1. PROJECTED LAND USE .......................................................................................................... 12 2. TRIP GENERATION ................................................................................................................ 12 3. DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION ............................................................................................... 13 4. 2026 BUILD SCENARIO - OPERATION AND PERFORMANCE ................................................ 16 5. 2040 BUILD SCENARIO - OPERATION AND PERFORMANCE ................................................ 22 6. MITIGATION MEASURES ...................................................................................................... 26 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................... 26 TECHNICAL APPENDIX ................................................................................................................... 19 Cedar South 160 Traffic Impact Study Lakeville, MN 10/18/2019 iii #0022951.00 FIGURES Figure 1 – Site Layout ...................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2 – Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................... 6 Figure 3 – 2026 No Build Full Intersections .................................................................................. 10 Figure 4 – 2026 No-Build Three-Quarter Intersections ................................................................ 11 Figure 5 – Directional Distribution Full Intersections ................................................................... 14 Figure 6 – Directional Disribution Three-Quarter Intersections ................................................... 15 Figure 7 – Trip Assignment Full Intersections ............................................................................... 17 Figure 8 – Trip Assignment Three-Quarter Intersections ............................................................. 18 Figure 9 – 2026 Full Access Build Conditions ................................................................................ 20 Figure 10 – 2026 Three-Quarter Access Build Conditions ............................................................ 21 Figure 11 – 2040 Full Access Build Conditions .............................................................................. 24 Figure 12 – 2040 Three-Quarter Access Build Conditions ............................................................ 25 TABLES Table 1 -- Existing Peak Hour Levels of Service .............................................................................. 8 Table 2 – 2026 Full Access No-Build Peak Hour Levels of Service .................................................. 9 Table 3 – 2026 Three-Quarter Access No-Build Peak Hour Levels of Service .............................. 12 Table 4 – Gross Trip Generation for Cedar Hills Site – Build Condition (Year 2026) .................... 13 Table 5 - 2026 Full Access Build Peak Hour Levels of Service ...................................................... 19 Table 6 - 2026 Three-Quarter Access Build Peak Hour Levels of Service .................................... 19 Table 7 - 2040 Full Access Build Peak Hour Levels of Service ...................................................... 23 Table 8 - 2040 Three-Quarter Access Build Peak Hour Levels of Service .................................... 23 EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 – Concept Site Layout ...................................................................................................... 3 TECHNICAL APPENDIX Appendix 1 – Level of Service Methodology Appendix 2 – Traffic Counts Appendix 3 – SimTraffic Operational and Performance Reports Cedar South 160 Traffic Impact Study Lakeville, MN 10/18/2019 1 #0022951.00 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Cedar Hills residential development is proposed on approximately 159.5 acres of primarily agricultural land in the southeastern portion of Lakeville. The project is projected to consist of 100 twin homes, 157 villa homes, and 128 single family homes. Approximately 48.0 acres of open space is also planned, which will include parks, trails, wetlands, and stormwater basins. GreenKey Real Estate Group is proposing construction of the residential development comprised of twin homes, villa homes, and single family residential units. It is anticipated that the project will be constructed in two phases, with the first phase expected to begin in spring 2020. Full build-out is anticipated by 2025; however, construction timing will ultimately depend upon market conditions. A combination of public and private streets will service the development. The project will also include construction of a major collector roadway oriented west to east through the center of the site, as well as several local residential streets to access planned residential housing. The major collector roadway (202th Street West extension) will bisect the site, which will be a public improvement project. Impacts related to public improvements directly associated with the proposed development project are discussed throughout the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) that was completed in conjunction with this traffic study. INTRODUCTION Westwood Professional Services has conducted a traffic impact study for a proposed Cedar Hills residential development in Lakeville, Minnesota. This traffic impact study is part of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) being completed for the development. According to the EAW Guidelines compiled by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB), “Regardless of location, if the peak hour traffic generated by the project exceeds 250 vehicles or the total daily trips exceeds 2,500, a traffic impact study must be prepared as part of the EAW.”1 The proposed residential land use comprises 385 dwelling units to be built in two phases. The design year proposed for analysis is 2026 – one year after proposed build out. Figure 1 shows the site layout and study area for this analysis. Exhibit 1 details the proposed concept site plan for the development. 1 EAW Guidelines, Preparing Environmental Assessment Worksheets, prepared by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board, Saint Paul, MN, October 2013, p. 41. CSAH 23 (Cedar Ave)202nd St W (CSAH 50)200th St W (CR 64)205th St WStreet A Street B Street B Street C Street D CSAH 23 (Cedar Ave)Lakeville BlvdCedar Hills Lakeville, MN Site LayoutFigure 1 10/18/19Date Phone (952) 937-5150 12701 Whitewater Drive, Suite #300 Fax (952) 937-5822 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. westwoodps.com Cedar South 160 Traffic Impact Study Lakeville, MN 10/18/2019 3 #0022951.00 Exhibit 1 – Concept Site Layout Cedar Hills Concept Plan Cedar South 160 Traffic Impact Study Lakeville, MN 10/18/2019 4 #0022951.00 The project is subject to the City of Lakeville 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The Comprehensive Plan includes the 2040 Land Use Plan, which guides future land use on the subject parcels to include housing densities from low/medium density residential development (4.0 to 5.0 units per acre). As described in the Comprehensive Plan, the residential land use and housing goals for the City of Lakeville are to provide a variety of high-quality housing types and choices, from single-family to townhome and multi-family alternatives to meet changing life cycle needs of Lakeville residents for various income levels. Parallel land use goals with regard to residential development are to promote a sense of community and meet the needs of individuals for all ages and stages of life through a well-designed community with compatible land uses and convenient access to streets, trails, and transportation. The City of Lakeville has been divided into 7 neighborhood planning districts in order to allow for detailed examination of the needs of specific areas of the community. The boundaries of the planning districts are based on existing land use patterns, MUSA boundaries, and physical barriers. The subject properties are within the southeastern portion of District 5 (Cedar Corridor). Primary concerns within District 5 are the integration of future development with existing land uses and addressing transportation needs along Cedar Avenue in conjunction with the future Cedar Avenue Bus Rapid Transitway (Red Line). Recommendations for District 5 relevant to the subject properties include low to medium and medium density residential areas proposed in close proximity to planned transit routes areas near Cedar Avenue and CSAH 50. Some of the primary recommendations for the long-range planning objectives for District 5 include street improvements and extensions, including the extension of 202nd Street West east of Cedar Avenue to be used as a major collector roadway. The Cedar Hills project conforms to the future land use plan by providing residential development consistent with density guidelines and by incorporating objectives of the plan such as extending 202nd Street West. The proposed site development is consistent with Lakeville’s comprehensive zoning plans, which guide the area for residential development. The 2016 zoning map identifies the western portion of the project area as RM-1 Medium Density Residential District and the eastern portion as RS-3 Single Family Residential District. The surrounding properties are zoned as residential districts to the west and south of the site, and areas of Public and Open Space are interspersed in the area south of the project. Farmington High School is located immediately east of the project. Areas north of the site are zoned as A-P, for agricultural preservation. Cedar South 160 Traffic Impact Study Lakeville, MN 10/18/2019 5 #0022951.00 EXISTING CONDITIONS This parcel lies in the southeast section of Lakeville east of Cedar Avenue and borders the City of Farmington between 200th Street and 205th Street. This parcel lies within Dakota County, MN. 1. STREET NETWORK The following list describes the street network within the study area: CSAH 23 (Cedar Avenue) is currently classified functionally as an “A- Minor Arterial Expander”, according to the Draft Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040.2 That report also concludes and recommends that the portion of CSAH 23 from CSAH 42 in Apple Valley to CSAH 70 in Lakeville should be redesignated in the near-term to a “Principal Arterial” classification.3 The City of Lakeville’s Transportation Plan also recognizes this future reclassification of CSAH 23 to “Principal Arterial”.4 The segment of CSAH 23 fronting the Cedar Hills development is a four-lane divided section with right and left turn lanes at each of the cross-streets. Dakota County has identified the CSAH 23 corridor as having a half-mile full access spacing in the area of Cedar Hills. The posted speed limit along CSAH 23 is 55 mph. Currently, there are only side-street stop controls at the intersections of 200th, 202nd and 205th Streets with CSAH 23; however, the intersection of 202nd Street and CSAH 23 is slated for signalization in 2019. The Minnesota Department of Transportation AADT Twin Cities Metro Map has recorded a 2018 two-way daily traffic volume on CSAH 23 of 13,700 veh/day between 200th Street and 202nd Street.5 200th Street West (County Road 64) is functionally classified currently as a “Local Street” to the east of CSAH 23, according to the Draft Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040.6 The City of Lakeville 2040 Transportation Plan Update, however, classifies this segment of 200th Street as a “Major Collector”.7 The street provides connectivity eastward into Farmington and intersects with CSAH 50 (Pilot Knob Road). To the west, 200th Street 2 Existing Functional Class, Draft Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040, Dakota County, MN, Adopted June 18, 2019. 3 Principal Arterial Study Conclusions and Recommendations, Draft Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040, Dakota County, MN, Adopted June 18, 2019. 4 Existing and Future Roadway Functional Classification Map, City of Lakeville 2040 Transportation Plan Update, 2018. 5 AADT Twin Cities Metro Map, Minnesota Department of Transportation Data Products, Traffic Forecasting & Analysis website, 2012-2018, http://www.dot.state.mn.us/traffic/data/data-products.html 6 Existing Functional Class, Draft Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040, Dakota County, MN, Adopted June 18, 2019. 7 Existing and Future Roadway Functional Classification Map, City of Lakeville 2040 Transportation Plan Update, 2018. Cedar South 160 Traffic Impact Study Lakeville, MN 10/18/2019 6 #0022951.00 becomes a two-lane gravel road. At the intersection with CSAH 23, 200th Street is striped with one lane in each direction. The speed limit is not posted along 200th Street east of CSAH 23, but is projected to be 50 mph. The Minnesota Department of Transportation AADT Twin Cities Metro Map has recorded a 2018 two-way daily traffic volume on 200th Street east of CSAH 23 as 1,650 veh/day.8 202nd Street West (CSAH 50) is functionally classified as an “A-Minor Arterial” west of CSAH 23. A new segment of 202nd Street east of CSAH 23 is projected in the City of Lakeville 2040 Transportation Plan Update as a “Future Major Collector”.9 In the study area for the Cedar Hills development, 202nd Street terminates at the city limit with Farmington. The eastbound approach to CSAH 23 along 202nd Street is currently stop sign controlled, and consists of a single lane in each direction. To the west of CSAH 23, 202nd Street has a posted speed limit of 50 mph. The Minnesota Department of Transportation AADT Twin Cities Metro Map has recorded a 2018 two-way daily traffic volume on 202nd Street west of CSAH 23 as 7,800 veh/day.10 According to the Dakota County website detailing current road construction, the County and the City of Lakeville are reconstructing 202nd Street W (County Road 50) from Holyoke Avenue to CSAH 23. The website states, “202nd Street West (County Road 50) is currently an undivided two-lane rural roadway that has deteriorated. This project will reconstruct 202nd Street West from Holyoke Avenue to Cedar Avenue as a divided two-lane roadway with turn lanes at all public street intersections, trails along both sides of the roadway, and a trail underpass of County 50 just west of Highview Avenue...Traffic control options were assessed at the intersection of Holyoke Avenue and County 50 and County 23 and County Road 50 to ensure these intersections operate as safely and efficiently as possible. A multilane roundabout is planned at the Holyoke Avenue and County 50 intersection and a traffic signal at the County 23 and 50 intersection. Work on the roadway will be completed in two stages. Stage 1 work from west of Holyoke Avenue to east of Highview Avenue will occur between April and early July [2019]. Stage 2 work from east of Highview Avenue to Cedar Avenue is scheduled from mid-July to November [2019].”11 205th Street West is functionally classified as a “Local Street”. In the study area, lies along the south side of the Cedar Hills development. 205th Street proceeds east from CSAH 23 as a two-lane street. The street provides internal access to the neighborhood to the south as well as prospective access to the Cedar Hills development. The roadway has a curvilinear 8 AADT Twin Cities Metro Map, Minnesota Department of Transportation Data Products, Traffic Forecasting & Analysis website, 2012-2018, http://www.dot.state.mn.us/traffic/data/data-products.html 9 Existing and Future Roadway Functional Classification Map, City of Lakeville 2040 Transportation Plan Update, 2018. 10 AADT Twin Cities Metro Map, Minnesota Department of Transportation Data Products, Traffic Forecasting & Analysis website, 2012-2018, http://www.dot.state.mn.us/traffic/data/data-products.html 11 https://www.co.dakota.mn.us/Transportation/CurrentConstruction/CR50Lakeville/Pages/default.aspx Cedar South 160 Traffic Impact Study Lakeville, MN 10/18/2019 7 #0022951.00 alignment and does not extend into Farmington. While not posted, the speed limit is the statutory speed limit of 30 mph. No daily traffic volume count is available. Lakeville Boulevard is functionally classified as a “Major Collector” to the west of Cedar Avenue and as an “Other Arterial” to the east of Cedar Avenue, according to the Dakota County Comprehensive Plan – DC2040.12 The easterly approach also carries the designation of County Road 50. Lakeville Boulevard provides connectivity between Lakeville and Farmington. The posted speed limit on both east and westbound lanes of Lakeville Boulevard is 50 mph. The intersection with Cedar Avenue is signalized with right and left turn lanes and a single through lane in each direction. 2. DATA COLLECTION Peak hour turning movement traffic counts were taken at the following study area intersections: Cedar Ave & 200th St. W Cedar Ave & 202nd St. W Cedar Ave & 205th St. W/Church Driveway Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd It is noted that Westwood utilized Dakota County’s Intersection Turning Movement Counts from its website.13 The site provided weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour counts for the Cedar Ave St & 202nd Street intersection that were collected in June 2016 and for which Westwood has extrapolated to 2019 volumes. Westwood collected all other counts in June 2019 and again in October 2019 (to account for school being in session). It is noted that the Westwood counts were originally taken during the summer, but were retaken to account for school year traffic. The only exception is at the intersection of Cedar Avenue & 202nd Street (which is currently under construction). Under direction of the City, Westwood used the County’s counts for the intersection, applied growth factors accounts for strong growth over the past three years, and then added an adjustment for school traffic. Figure 2 illustrates the existing weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour turning movement volumes recorded at these intersections. 12 Dakota County, Minnesota Comprehensive Plan – DC2040, adopted June 18, 2019. 13 https://dakotacounty.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=7cda07544b33491c9d688c45f7a20c9a CSAH 23 (Cedar Ave)202nd St W (CSAH 50)200th St W (CR 64)205th St WCSAH 23 (Cedar Ave)Lakeville BlvdCedar Hills Lakeville, MN Existing ConditionsFigure 2Phone(952) 937-5150 12701 Whitewater Drive, Suite #300 Fax (952) 937-5822 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. westwoodps.com 10/18/19Date Cedar South 160 Traffic Impact Study Lakeville, MN 10/18/2019 7 #0022951.00 3. TRANSIT Currently, no transit lines or transit stops operate scheduled service along CSAH 23 adjacent to the development site. The transit stop closest to the Cedar Hills development is north along Cedar Avenue at the Lakeville Cedar Park 7 Ride at 181 st Street. According to the Draft Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040, Dakota County and the Dakota County Regional Railroad Authority (DCRRA) are active in the planning and implementation of several transitway projects, including the Cedar Avenue Transitway.14 The DC2040 describes the transitway as follows: METRO Red Line: Cedar Avenue Transitway (Bus Rapid Transit) — The Cedar Avenue Transitway is located between the Mall of America in Bloomington and CSAH 70 (215th St.) in Lakeville. The METRO Red Line began operations on the transitway in 2013, serving five stations with frequent all-day service. An additional five stations are identified for potential future extension as service demand warrants. Other express and local services within the corridor use many of the transitway facilities developed for METRO Red Line service. Dakota County led planning, project development and construction of the Cedar Avenue Transitway. 4. LEVEL OF SERVICE Traffic engineers quantify traffic operation and performance of intersections in terms of “Levels of Service” (or LOS). Traffic operations for the peak hour conditions at intersections within the study area were analyzed using the industry-standard Synchro/SimTraffic Version 10 software package, which uses the data and methodology contained in the Highway Capacity Manual Sixth Edition (2016 HCM), published by the Transportation Research Board. The software model was calibrated to replicate existing conditions as accurately as possible before being used to assess future conditions. A full discussion of the methodology used to assess traffic operation appears in the Appendix of this report. Westwood utilized this software to determine the level of delay of the existing peak hour traffic at the intersection. For this analysis, Westwood was asked to review a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour conditions. Table 1 summarizes the intersection levels of service recorded for the existing intersections within the study area. All study intersections perform acceptably (i.e., LOS-D or better) in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. These intersection levels of service provide an idea of the operation and performance of the traffic, but they do not necessarily hint at every movement at the intersection operating 14 Regional Transitways, Draft Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, DC2040, Dakota County, MN, Adopted June 18, 2019. Cedar South 160 Traffic Impact Study Lakeville, MN 10/18/2019 8 #0022951.00 Table 1 - Existing Peak Hour Levels of Service Source: Westwood Professional Services, 2019 acceptably. Full listings of levels of service by movement at each intersection, as well as SimTraffic operations and performance output appear in the Appendix. These existing turning movements provide a baseline condition of study area traffic operation and performance. These will be compared with the intersection operations under the future No-Build and Build conditions. Westwood noted that the eastbound left turn movement on 202nd Street approaching Cedar Avenue operates at LOS-C in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hour under side-street stop control. According to the 2016HCM listing of Levels of Service versus Control Delay at Unsignalized Intersections (see Appendix), the approach delay per vehicle for this movement is 28 seconds in the a.m. peak hour and 26 seconds in the p.m. peak hour. This is primarily the result of the side-street stop condition, whereas the 202nd Street traffic has difficulty finding adequate gaps in the Cedar Avenue traffic stream. As is shown later in this report, the approach delay for this movement improves under signalization. NO-BUILD SCENARIO To measure the traffic impacts that could result from the Cedar Hills development, Westwood first tested the performance and operation of the study intersections with only the projected background traffic volumes for the future design years. For this analysis, it was assumed that there would be one design year (2026), which would correspond to one year after anticipated full build out of the Cedar Hills development, if approved. Westwood estimated the background traffic using MnDOT’s Traffic Projection Factors for Dakota County.15 The latest 20-year projection factor listed for Dakota County is 1.0. 15 Traffic Projection Factors, Fall 2019, Minnesota Department of Transportation, State Aid for Local Transportation, Saint Paul, 2019. Level of Service Delay per vehicle (s)Level of Service Delay per vehicle (s) Cedar Ave & 200th St W A 1.8 A 1.3 Cedar Ave & 202nd St W A 5.7 A 8.6 Cedar Ave & 205th St W A 1.9 A 1.9 Lakeville Blvd & Cedar Ave C 27.5 C 35.0 Intersection Existing Conditions A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Cedar South 160 Traffic Impact Study Lakeville, MN 10/18/2019 9#0022951.00 However, this is a fast growing area of Dakota County. As a result, Westwood applied an annual growth rate of 3% to the existing volumes in the study area to determine year 2026 background peak hour traffic volumes. The Cedar Street EAW completed in 2008 and updated in 2019 shows that the intersections of 200th Street and 205th Street with Cedar Avenue are candidate locations for limited access. The change in access will likely involve reconstructing these intersections to three- quarter access (i.e., right-in/right-out from the side street and northbound and southbound left turns from Cedar Avenue into the side street; no side street through or left turn movements would be allowed). No time frame has been placed on the possible reconstruction of these intersections. Therefore, Westwood modeled full access and three-quarter access at these intersections. Figure 3 illustrates the projected 2026 No-Build Full Intersection Turning Movement Volumes for the study area. Figure 4 illustrates the Three-Quarter Access intersection turning movements for the 2026 No-Build Condition. Westwood then created a Synchro/SimTraffic model using these projected volumes. Table 2 shows the results of the 2026 Full Access No-Build condition. Table 3 shows the results of the 2026 Three-Quarter Access No-Build condition. Table 2 - 2026 Full Access No-Build Peak Hour Levels of Service Source: Westwood Professional Services, 2019 Because the intersection of CSAH 23 & 202 nd Street will be signalized by 2026, the intersection was modeled with signalization and an assumed signal timing. Westwood also assumed that the intersection would have separated left and right turn lanes with a future through lane along 202nd Street. As with the Existing peak hour analysis, acceptable levels of service are projected at each of the study intersections. Level of Service Delay per vehicle (s)Level of Service Delay per vehicle (s) Cedar Ave & 200th St W A 1.9 A 1.7 Cedar Ave & 202nd St W A 5.1 A 7.8 Cedar Ave & 205th St W A 2.5 A 2.1 Lakeville Blvd & Cedar Ave C 28.2 D 37.0 Intersection 2026 Full Access No-Build Conditions A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour CSAH 23 (Cedar Ave)202nd St W (CSAH 50)200th St W (CR 64)205th St WCSAH 23 (Cedar Ave)Lakeville BlvdCedar Hills Lakeville, MN 2026 No Build Full IntersectionsFigure 3Phone(952) 937-5150 12701 Whitewater Drive, Suite #300 Fax (952) 937-5822 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. westwoodps.com 10/18/19Date CSAH 23 (Cedar Ave)202nd St W (CSAH 50)200th St W (CR 64)205th St WCSAH 23 (Cedar Ave)Lakeville BlvdCedar Hills Lakeville, MN 2026 No Build 3-4 IntersectionsFigure 4 10/18/19Date Phone (952) 937-5150 12701 Whitewater Drive, Suite #300 Fax (952) 937-5822 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. westwoodps.com Cedar South 160 Traffic Impact Study Lakeville, MN 10/18/2019 12 #0022951.00 Table 3 - 2026 Three-Quarter Access No-Build Peak Hour Levels of Service Source: Westwood Professional Services, 2019 Despite increasing the overall delay, the intersection levels of service do not deteriorate from the existing levels of service at the study area intersections. The exception to this statement is the intersection of CSAH 23 & 202nd Street, which records an improved level of service in the p.m. peak hour. This is due to the signalization of the intersection and the reduction of delay for the eastbound approach of 202nd Street. Detailed listings of levels of service and SimTraffic reports for the 2026 No-Build scenarios are found in the Appendix. BUILD SCENARIO 1. PROJECTED LAND USE The proposed Cedar Hills residential development is proposed on approximately 159.5 acres of primarily agricultural land in the southeastern portion of Lakeville. The project is projected to consist of 100 twin homes, 157 villa homes, and 128 single family homes. Approximately 48.0 acres of open space is also planned, which will include parks, trails, wetlands, and stormwater basins. 2. TRIP GENERATION The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) has collated trip generation studies for a variety of land uses in their Trip Generation Manual, Tenth Edition.16 Westwood has calculated the trip generation for this side using the ITE Land Use Code 210, “Single-Family Detached Housing”, despite there being a mix of single-family detached housing, twin homes and villa homes. 16 Trip Generation Manual, Tenth Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington DC, 2017. Level of Service Delay per vehicle (s)Level of Service Delay per vehicle (s) Cedar Ave & 200th St W A 1.3 A 1.3 Cedar Ave & 202nd St W A 5.3 A 7.7 Cedar Ave & 205th St W A 1.3 A 1.8 Lakeville Blvd & Cedar Ave C 28.1 D 38.1 2026 3/4 Access No-Build Conditions A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Intersection Cedar South 160 Traffic Impact Study Lakeville, MN 10/18/2019 13 #0022951.00 The decision was made to identify all units of this development as “Single-Family Detached Housing” because the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Tenth Edition does not provide explicit rates and equations for twin homes or villa homes. The Manual does provide rates and equations for “Mufti-Family Residential” land uses, but specifies each residential building must have four or more units. The twin homes would be defined as duplexes, or having two units per building. Therefore, Westwood considered all units under Land Use category 210. Table 4 illustrates the projected trip generation for the development in the 2026 Build Condition. This includes the daily trip projection plus projected weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour inbound and outbound trip generation (utilizing the fitted curve calculations). Trips for each building type have been calculated separately, but the total unit count remains 385 units. Table 4 - Gross Trip Generation for Cedar Hills Site – Build Condition (Year 2026) (Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, Tenth Edition, 2017) 3. DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION Westwood utilized a review of existing traffic patterns to determine the proportional split of trips entering and exiting the development during each peak hour tested. The primary directional flow is from south to north in the a.m. peak hour, while traffic is fairly even between northbound and southbound in the weekday p.m. peak hour. The northbound left turn and southbound right turn movements are notably heavy on CSAH 23 turning onto 202nd Street W in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Similar traffic volumes will be turning northbound and southbound from 202nd Street onto CSAH 23 during a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Traffic has also been assigned east and west along 200th Street, 202nd Street and 205th Street. 202nd Street will potentially provide connectivity to Farmington and the high school. These distributions were applied to the 2026 Build scenarios for both the full access and three-quarter access conditions. The peak hour directional distributions for this site are shown on Figures 5 and 6, respectively. ITE Code Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Single Family Housing 210 100 units 520 520 19 57 64 38 Single Family Housing 210 157 units 787 787 29 87 99 58 Single Family Housing 210 128 units 652 652 24 72 81 48 1,959 1,959 72 216 244 144 385 units Land Use Size TOTAL AM peak 288 Weekday 3,918 388 PM Peak CSAH 23 (Cedar Ave)202nd St W (CSAH 50)200th St W (CR 64)205th St W20%/16% 2%/1% 20%/26% 2%/2% 39%/40% 12%/10%5%/5% Street A Street B Street B Street C Street D CSAH 23 (Cedar Ave)Lakeville Blvd10%/8% 8%/6% 2%/2% Cedar Hills Lakeville, MN Directional Distribution Full IntersectionsFigure 5Phone(952) 937-5150 12701 Whitewater Drive, Suite #300 Fax (952) 937-5822 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. westwoodps.com 10/18/19Date CSAH 23 (Cedar Ave)202nd St W (CSAH 50)200th St W (CR 64)205th St W20%/16% 20%/26% 1%/1% 39%/39% 15%/13%5%/5% Street A Street B Street B Street C Street D CSAH 23 (Cedar Ave)Lakeville Blvd10%/8% 8%/6% 2%/2% Cedar Hills Lakeville, MN Directional Distribution 3-4 IntersectionsFigure 6 10/18/19Date Phone (952) 937-5150 12701 Whitewater Drive, Suite #300 Fax (952) 937-5822 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. westwoodps.com Cedar South 160 Traffic Impact Study Lakeville, MN 10/18/2019 16 #0022951.00 4. 2026 BUILD SCENARIO - OPERATION AND PERFORMANCE Westwood has modeled the a.m. and p.m. peak hour Build scenarios using the industry- standard Synchro/SimTraffic software, Version 10. This software package provides the ability to perform level-of-service analysis, traffic simulation and optimization. Westwood utilizes this package to model and test roadway capacities by inputting traffic volumes into a defined geometry using existing or proposed traffic controls. The results provide level-of- service capacity analyses and queue lengths for various peak hours tested. For this analysis, Westwood assumed traffic signal timings for the intersection at CSAH 23 & 202nd Street W. Westwood assumed an overall signal cycle length for this analysis of 90 seconds, with a semi-actuated operation. (Note: Final signal timings are yet to be determined by Dakota County.) Westwood also assumed that the current improvements along 202nd Street would be complete, and the intersection would have separated left and right turn lanes with a future through lane along 202nd Street. Westwood also assigned trips to and from the internal roadway network and then out onto the existing and proposed street network. Figure 7 and 8 illustrate the Trip Assignments projected for the study area under full access and three-quarter access, respectively. Table 5 lists the intersection levels of service and delay for the study area under the 2026 Full Access Build Scenario. Table 6 lists the intersection levels of service and delay for the study area under the 2026 Three-Quarter Access Build Scenario. The resulting 2026 Build condition turning movements for the 2026 Full Access Intersection Conditions appear on Figure 9. Figure 10 illustrates peak hour turning movements for 2026 Three-Quarter Access Intersection Conditions. As a continuation of this minor arterial roadway, 202nd Street is projected to be constructed eastward through the Cedar Hills development into Farmington. Because both 200th Street and 205th Street intersection with Cedar Avenue are projected to be three-quarter access intersections at some point, internal development traffic from the north and south may utilize 202nd Street to gain left turn access onto southbound Cedar Avenue. This analysis shows that westbound left turn queue lengths on 202nd Street approaching Cedar Avenue will not exceed 100 feet in either a.m. or p.m. peak hours, whether or not 200th Street and 205th Street are three-quarter intersections with no left turn access or full access at Cedar Avenue. As with Existing and 2026 No Build analyses, a review of the detailed levels of service tables for the 2026 Build scenario (see Appendix) shows movements at the study area intersections perform acceptably. CSAH 23 (Cedar Ave)202nd St W (CSAH 50)200th St W (CR 64)205th St WStreet A Street B Street B Street C Street DCSAH 23 (Cedar Ave)Lakeville BlvdCedar Hills Lakeville, MN Trip Assignment Full IntersectionsFigure 7 10/18/19Date Phone (952) 937-5150 12701 Whitewater Drive, Suite #300 Fax (952) 937-5822 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. westwoodps.com 202nd St W (CSAH 50)200th St W (CR 64)205th St WCSAH 23 (Cedar Ave) Street A Street B Street B Street C Street D CSAH 23 (Cedar Ave)Lakeville BlvdCedar Hills Lakeville, MN Trip Assignment 3-4 IntersectionsFigure 8 10/18/19Date Phone (952) 937-5150 12701 Whitewater Drive, Suite #300 Fax (952) 937-5822 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. westwoodps.com Cedar South 160 Traffic Impact Study Lakeville, MN 10/18/2019 19 #0022951.00 Table 5 - 2026 Full Access Build Peak Hour Levels of Service Source: Westwood Professional Services, 2019 Table 6 - 2026 Three-Quarter Access Build Peak Hour Levels of Service Source: Westwood Professional Services, 2019 Level of Service Delay per vehicle (s)Level of Service Delay per vehicle (s) Cedar Ave & 200th St W A 2.7 A 2.6 Cedar Ave & 202nd St W A 6.0 A 9.9 Cedar Ave & 205th St W A 2.6 A 2.6 Lakeville Blvd & Cedar Ave C 29.0 D 39.0 Street A & 202nd St W A 1.7 A 2.0 Street B & 200th St W A 1.5 A 1.0 Street B & 202nd St W A 1.7 A 1.8 Street C & 200th St W A 1.0 A 0.6 Street D & 205th St W A 0.9 A 1.1 2026 Full Access Build Conditions A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Delay per vehicle (s)Level of Service Delay per vehicle (s) Cedar Ave & 200th St W A 2.4 A 2.0 Cedar Ave & 202nd St W B 10.1 B 10.5 Cedar Ave & 205th St W A 1.9 A 2.3 Lakeville Blvd & Cedar Ave C 27.9 D 38.8 Street A & 202nd St W A 2.1 A 1.8 Street B & 200th St W A 1.3 A 0.9 Street B & 202nd St W A 2.4 A 2.0 Street C & 200th St W A 0.8 A 0.4 Street D & 205th St W A 0.9 A 1.0 2026 3/4 Build Conditions A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Intersection CSAH 23 (Cedar Ave)202nd St W (CSAH 50)200th St W (CR 64)205th St WStreet A Street B Street B Street C Street D CSAH 23 (Cedar Ave)Lakeville BlvdCedar Hills Lakeville, MN 2026 Full Access Build ConditionsFigure 9 10/18/19Date Phone (952) 937-5150 12701 Whitewater Drive, Suite #300 Fax (952) 937-5822 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. westwoodps.com 202nd St W (CSAH 50)200th St W (CR 64)205th St WCSAH 23 (Cedar Ave) Street A Street B Street B Street C Street D CSAH 23 (Cedar Ave)Lakeville BlvdCedar Hills Lakeville, MN 2026 3-4 Access Build ConditionsFigure 10 10/18/19Date Phone (952) 937-5150 12701 Whitewater Drive, Suite #300 Fax (952) 937-5822 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. westwoodps.com Cedar South 160 Traffic Impact Study Lakeville, MN 10/18/2019 22 #0022951.00 5. 2040 BUILD SCENARIO - OPERATION AND PERFORMANCE For this analysis, Westwood grew the background traffic at an annual rate of 3% up to year 2040. As with the 2026 scenario, Westwood assumed an overall signal cycle length for this analysis of 90 seconds at CSAH 23 & 202nd Street, with a semi-actuated operation. (Note: Final signal timings are yet to be determined by Dakota County.) Westwood also assumed that the roadway improvements occurring now along 202nd Street would stay in place for 2040, and no other widening will occur within the corridor. Westwood reviewed the City of Lakeville 2040 Transportation Plan Update.17 Other than a segment of Lakeville Boulevard east of Cedar Avenue, no other roadway segment in this study area shows roadway performance approaching or over capacity in year 2040. Westwood also reviewed the Transportation chapter of the City of Farmington 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update.18 This document refers to several studies and actions that may influence traffic and transportation issues, not only for the City of Farmington, but also access to and through the Cedar Hills subdivision in the future. These include: Potential Future Turnback of both 200th Street between Cedar Avenue and Flagstaff Avenue, as well as Lakeville Boulevard between Cedar Avenue and MN 3. Dakota County, working in partnership with the Lakeville, Farmington, and Empire Township, identified five East-West Corridors for corridor preservation and implementation planning. Of these five corridors for planning, Corridor D involves 202nd Street east of Cedar Avenue through Farmington to MN 3. Likewise, Corridor E involves Lakeville Boulevard from west of Cedar Avenue through Farmington to MN 3. Functional Classification of 202nd Street as a Future Major Collector east of Cedar Avenue, including a 2040 traffic forecast of 2,600 veh/day east of Flagstaff Avenue. Depending on the outcome of these studies and actions, the required number of lanes and street width of 202nd Street may vary appreciably. To test these potential impacts, Westwood added 10% of the daily trips to and from the east along 202 nd Street during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Westwood’s modeling of 2040 Build conditions parallel these forecasts. Table 7 lists the intersection levels of service and delay for the study area under the 2040 No-Build Scenario. Table 8 lists the intersection levels of service and delay for the 2040 Build Scenario. Both scenarios assume limited access at 200th and 205th Streets. The resulting 2040 No-Build and 2040 Build turning movements appear on Figures 11 and 12, respectively. 17 City of Lakeville 2040 Transportation Plan Update, SRF Consulting Group, Inc., Lakeville, MN, 2018. 18 Farmington 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update, Hoisington Koegler Group Inc., Farmington, MN, June 12, 2019. Cedar South 160 Traffic Impact Study Lakeville, MN 10/18/2019 23 #0022951.00 As with the 2026 results, this analysis shows that westbound left turn queue lengths on 202nd Street approaching Cedar Avenue will not exceed 100 feet in either a.m. or p.m. peak hours, whether or not 200th Street and 205th Street are three-quarter intersections with no left turn access or full access at Cedar Avenue. As with Existing and 2026 analyses, a review of the detailed levels of service tables for the 2040 Build scenario (see Appendix) shows movements at the study area intersections perform acceptably. Table 7 - 2040 Three-Quarter Access No Build Peak Hour Levels of Service Source: Westwood Professional Services, 2019 Table 8 - 2040 Three-Quarter Access No Build Peak Hour Levels of Service Source: Westwood Professional Services, 2019 Level of Service Delay per vehicle (s)Level of Service Delay per vehicle (s) Cedar Ave & 200th St W A 3.1 A 2.4 Cedar Ave & 202nd St W B 12.3 B 16.8 Cedar Ave & 205th St W A 2.6 A 3.3 Lakeville Blvd & Cedar Ave D 35.7 D 48.0 2040 3/4 Access No-Build Conditions A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Delay per vehicle (s)Level of Service Delay per vehicle (s) Cedar Ave & 200th St W A 3.1 A 3.0 Cedar Ave & 202nd St W B 13.3 C 21.3 Cedar Ave & 205th St W A 2.7 A 4.0 Lakeville Blvd & Cedar Ave D 47.7 D 53.7 Street A & 202nd St W A 1.9 A 1.8 Street B & 200th St W A 1.1 A 0.9 Street B & 202nd St W A 1.5 A 1.6 Street C & 200th St W A 0.6 A 0.5 Street D & 205th St W A 0.9 A 0.8 2040 3/4 Build Conditions A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Intersection CSAH 23 (Cedar Ave)202nd St W (CSAH 50)200th St W (CR 64)205th St WCSAH 23 (Cedar Ave)Lakeville BlvdCedar Hills Lakeville, MN 2040 No Build 3-4 IntersectionsFigure 11 10/18/19Date Phone (952) 937-5150 12701 Whitewater Drive, Suite #300 Fax (952) 937-5822 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. westwoodps.com 202nd St W (CSAH 50)200th St W (CR 64)205th St WCSAH 23 (Cedar Ave) Street A Street B Street B Street C Street D CSAH 23 (Cedar Ave)Lakeville BlvdCedar Hills Lakeville, MN 2040 3-4 Access Build ConditionsFigure 12 10/18/19Date Phone (952) 937-5150 12701 Whitewater Drive, Suite #300 Fax (952) 937-5822 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. westwoodps.com Cedar South 160 Traffic Impact Study Lakeville, MN 10/18/2019 26 #0022951.00 6. MITIGATION MEASURES As stated previously, the signal timings assumed for the intersection of CSAH 23 & 202nd Street were assumed under this analysis. Actual signal timings and intersection operation may vary when the signal is placed into operation. A right turn lane and shared left/through lane is currently recommended for the westbound approach of 202 nd Street at CSAH 23. The intersections of 200th Street and 205th Street with CSAH 23 have been designated as future limited access (3/4 access) intersections. Nevertheless, Dakota County has indicated that they will monitor the intersection of 200th & Cedar Avenue and keep it as full access until safety conditions warrant restricting it to limited access. Similarly, 205th Street will remain full access for the foreseeable future, but is programmed for conversion to limited access at some point when conditions warrant. Until then, side-street stop control is recommended at both intersections with Cedar Avenue. All other internal development intersections with 200th Street, 202nd Street and 205th Street are recommended for side-street stop control. No additional approach lanes are recommended. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Cedar Hills residential development is proposed on approximately 159.5 acres of primarily agricultural land in the southeastern portion of Lakeville. The project is projected to consist of 100 twin homes, 157 villa homes, and 128 single family homes. A combination of public and private streets will service the development. The project will also include construction of a major collector roadway (202nd Street W.) oriented west to east through the center of the site, as well as several local residential streets to access planned residential housing. Westwood collected peak hour turning movement traffic counts at the following study area intersections: Cedar Ave & 200th St. W; and, Cedar Ave & 205th St. W/Church Driveway. Westwood acquired Dakota County’s Intersection Turning Movement Counts for the intersection of CSAH 23 & 202nd Street W. from its website. The Cedar Avenue Transitway is located between the Mall of America in Bloomington and CSAH 70 (215th St.) in Lakeville. Currently, however, no transit stops exist adjacent to the proposed Cedar Hills development. Cedar South 160 Traffic Impact Study Lakeville, MN 10/18/2019 27 #0022951.00 Traffic operations for the peak hour conditions at intersections within the study area were analyzed using the industry-standard Synchro/SimTraffic Version 10 software package. Westwood determined that the existing intersections in the study area operated at LOS-A in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, except at Lakeville Boulevard, which carries a higher volume of background traffic. The eastbound left turn movement of 202nd Street & Cedar Avenue has operated at LOS-C in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. This is the result of heavy eastbound left and right turning movements encountering excessive delays due to the inability to find adequate gaps in the CSAH 23 traffic stream at that time of day. Westwood assumed a development build-out year of 2025. Thus, the year 2026 was used as the design year for this analysis. Because of this area being fast growing, Westwood assumed an annual growth rate of 3%. Dakota County is reconstructing 202nd Street to the west of CSAH 23, which will include eastbound approach improvements and intersection signalization. These improvements were incorporated into the analysis. Thus, intersection levels of service will improve in the 2026 No-Build condition to LOS-B or better, except at Lakeville Boulevard, which carries a higher volume of background traffic. Westwood calculated trip generation based on 385 single-family residential units. Assuming that level of development, a weekday total of 3,918 trips will be generated. During the a.m. peak hour, 288 trips are projected and in the p.m. peak hour 388 trips are projected. As is typical with residential developments, there is a high weekday commuter flow out of the development in the a.m. peak hour and a high return flow in the p.m. peak hour. Based on the existing background traffic volumes, trips to and from the development were directionally distributed throughout the study area intersections. These development trips were assigned on top of the 2026 No-Build network to create the 2026 Build network. The resulting 2026 Build network was modeled using the Synchro/SimTraffic software. The resulting intersection levels of service showed LOS-B or better at the study area intersections, except at Lakeville Boulevard, which carries a higher volume of background traffic. Throughout the 2026 No-Build and Build conditions, a 90-second signal timing was assumed for the new signalized intersection at CSAH 23 & 202nd Street. This signal timing may change once the signal is placed into operation and traffic patterns materialize. Cedar South 160 Traffic Impact Study Lakeville, MN 10/18/2019 28 #0022951.00 All other study area intersections were modeled to operate under side-street stop control. Internal development streets intersecting with 200th Street, 202nd Street and 205th Street shall be controlled by side-street stop signs. All other internal intersections were assumed to have a single lane approach. It is assumed that the westbound 202nd Street approach to Cedar Avenue will include a separated right and left turn lanes and separated through lane. 2040 Comprehensive Plans from Lakeville and Farmington indicate that 202nd Street may be extended east into Farmington as a Future Major Collector east of Cedar Avenue. Depending on the outcome of these studies and actions, the required number of lanes and street width of 202nd Street may vary appreciably. As with the 2026 results, this analysis shows that westbound left turn queue lengths on 202nd Street approaching Cedar Avenue will not exceed 100 feet in either a.m. or p.m. peak hours, whether or not 200th Street and 205th Street are three-quarter intersections with no left turn access or full access at Cedar Avenue. Dakota County has indicated that they will monitor the intersection of 200th & Cedar Avenue and keep it as full access until safety conditions warrant restricting it to limited access. Similarly, 205th Street will remain full access for the foreseeable future, but is programmed for conversion to limited access at some point when conditions warrant. In summary, the Cedar Hills development as proposed will not generate traffic that cannot be handled by the existing or proposed street system, as tested for the 2026 Build conditions. Further, the proposed trip generation of the site will not place an adverse increase of traffic along CSAH 23, or other adjacent roadways bordering the site. Cedar South 160 Traffic Impact Study Lakeville, MN 10/18/2019 29 #0022951.00 Traffic Impact Analysis – TECHNCIAL APPENDIX Cedar Hills Appendix 1 – Level of Service Methodology Appendix 2 – Traffic Counts Appendix 3 – SimTraffic Operational and Performance Reports Cedar South 160 Traffic Impact Study Lakeville, MN 10/18/2019 30 #0022951.00 Appendix 1 - Level of Service Methodology Traffic operations for the peak hour conditions within the study area were analyzed using the industry-standard Synchro/SimTraffic Version 10 software package, which uses the data and methodology contained in the Highway Capacity Manual, Sixth Edition published by the Transportation Research Board. The software model was calibrated to replicate existing conditions as accurately as possible before being used to assess future conditions. The operating conditions of transportation facilities, such as traffic signals, stop-controlled intersections and roundabouts, are evaluated based on the relationship of the theoretical capacity of a facility to the actual traffic volumes on that facility. Various factors affect capacity, including travel speed, roadway geometry, grade, number and width of travel lanes, and intersection control. The current standards for evaluating capacity and operating conditions are contained in the Highway Capacity Manual, Sixth Edition (HCM). The procedures describe operating conditions in terms of a Level of Service (LOS). Facilities are given letter designations from A, representing the best operating conditions, to F, representing the worst. Generally, Level of Service D (LOS-D) represents the threshold for acceptable overall intersection operating conditions during a peak hour. At intersections, Levels of Service are assigned differently for signalized or unsignalized intersections (which include Two-Way Stop Control [TWSC], All-way Stop Control [AWSC] and roundabouts). For signalized intersections, Level of Service is calculated by taking the total Intersection Delay and converting it to a letter grade as shown in the right side of Table A-1. For an unsignalized intersection, Level of Service is calculated by taking the Intersection Delay and converting it to a letter grade, as shown in the left side of Table A-1. While similar, the signalized control delay totals are higher than that of unsignalized intersections. In any condition, when the LOS by Volume to Capacity Ratio exceeds 1.0, the LOS is always F. Under the HCM, common movements are included into lane groups. Control Delay is then determined for each lane group and Levels of Service are based on this Control Delay. For each lane group, Control Delay is quantified by number of seconds. Control Delay is defined as the difference between the travel time that would have occurred in the absence of the intersection control, and the travel time that results because of the presence of the intersection control. Levels of Service are then based on the control delay per vehicle. Cedar South 160 Traffic Impact Study Lakeville, MN 10/18/2019 31 #0022951.00 Table A-1 - Level of Service vs. Control Delay - Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections (TWSC, AWSC & Roundabouts) TWSC, AWSC & Roundabouts Signalized Intersections LOS by Volume to Capacity Ratio (≤ 1)* Control Delay per Vehicle (Seconds) LOS by Volume to Capacity Ratio (≤ 1)* Control Delay per Vehicle (Seconds) A ≤10 A ≤10 B >10 and ≤15 B >10 and ≤20 C >15 and ≤25 C >20 and ≤35 D >25 and ≤35 D >35 and ≤55 E >35 and ≤50 E >55 and ≤80 F >50 F >80 Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, published by the Transportation Research Board. * NOTE: When LOS by Volume to Capacity Ratio >1.00, LOS is F. The acceptable Level of Service threshold for a particular movement at an intersectio n depends on both the priority assigned to that movement and its traffic volume. In general, the higher the priority and the higher the traffic volume, the more stringent the acceptable threshold will be. For example, the acceptable threshold for a high-priority/high-volume rural movement might be C, while LOS F on a low-priority/low-volume urban movement might be appropriate. For two-way stop-controlled intersections, a key measure of operational effectiveness is the side street LOS. Since the mainline does not have to stop, the majority of delay is attributed to the side-street/minor approaches. Long delays and poor LOS can sometimes result on the side street, even if the overall intersection is functioning well, making it a valuable design criterion. As the side-street/minor approach delay approaches and exceeds 60 seconds per vehicle, drivers may divert to another route or become impatient and accept gaps in the mainline traffic that are less than acceptable/safe gaps resulting in the potential for traffic safety concerns. Therefore, depending on priority and traffic volume, acceptable side-street LOS can range from D to F. Side streets can operate at LOS F without the intersection warranting a change in traffic control. A final fundamental component of operational analyses is a study of vehicular queuing, as defined the line of vehicles waiting to pass through an intersection. An intersection can operate with an acceptable Level of Service, but if queues from the intersection extend back to block entrances to turn lanes or accesses to adjacent land uses, unsafe operating conditions could result. Cedar South 160 Traffic Impact Study Lakeville, MN 10/18/2019 32 #0022951.00 In reporting Levels of Service, the information from the signalized intersection analysis comes directly from the Synchro 10 and SimTraffic 10 reports. Intersection Levels of Service are reported based on the Control Delay calculated for the overall intersection and for each critical movement as determined by SimTraffic 10, and as adjusted for driver behavior. For queuing, the 95th Percentile and the Maximum Queue Lengths that are generated after five runs. In this report, the 95th Percentile Queue Length is used to discern adequate lengths of turn lanes. The 95th Percentile Queue Length refers to that length of queue that has only a five-percent probability of being exceeded during an analysis period. This is the standard factor used to determine optimal turn lane lengths. Cedar South 160 Traffic Impact Study Lakeville, MN 10/18/2019 33 #0022951.00 Appendix 2 – Traffic Counts CSAH 23 (Cedar Avenue) & 200th Street W. (October 1, 2019) CSAH 23 (Cedar Avenue) & 205th Street W. (October 1, 2019) Hourly Total Start Time Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds 07:00 AM 0 91 6 5 0 4 6 166 0 1 0 1 280 07:15 AM 0 116 11 3 0 4 4 184 0 0 0 0 322 07:30 AM 2 110 10 4 0 4 6 191 1 3 0 2 333 07:45 AM 1 137 7 5 1 10 4 154 0 2 0 0 321 08:00 AM 0 87 3 12 0 3 11 140 1 0 0 0 257 08:15 AM 0 99 3 5 1 5 10 101 1 2 0 1 228 08:30 AM 0 107 4 6 0 9 16 119 1 1 0 0 263 08:45 AM 1 79 0 1 0 8 14 96 2 1 0 0 202 Peak Hour Total 3 454 34 17 1 22 20 695 1 6 0 3 1256 Cedar Av.e From North 200th St. From East Cedar Ave. From South 200th St. From West Start Time Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds 04:00 PM 0 155 3 5 0 5 8 158 1 0 0 1 336 04:15 PM 1 148 4 7 0 3 7 126 2 2 0 0 300 04:30 PM 0 165 4 5 0 3 7 197 1 1 0 1 384 04:45 PM 1 152 7 2 0 10 10 150 0 0 0 0 332 05:00 PM 1 172 5 0 0 6 5 152 0 1 0 1 343 05:15 PM 1 161 3 2 0 4 2 121 0 1 0 0 295 05:30 PM 0 158 2 2 0 5 3 112 2 1 0 0 285 05:45 PM 0 150 4 1 0 8 5 103 0 1 0 0 272 3 650 19 9 0 23 24 620 1 3 0 2 1354 Total CEDA From North A From East CEDA From South A From West Start Time Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds 07:00 AM 5 94 3 13 1 6 0 153 2 0 0 3 280 07:15 AM 1 118 2 11 0 2 0 170 1 0 0 7 312 07:30 AM 2 106 3 17 0 6 1 176 2 0 0 4 317 07:45 AM 7 146 1 9 0 5 3 134 1 0 0 7 313 08:00 AM 2 82 4 10 0 4 1 133 0 0 0 7 243 08:15 AM 3 101 2 9 1 2 1 98 1 1 0 3 222 08:30 AM 5 109 2 13 1 2 4 121 0 0 0 7 264 08:45 AM 6 79 3 8 0 2 0 92 1 0 0 6 197 Peak Hour Total 15 464 9 50 1 19 4 633 6 0 0 21 Total CEDAR From North 205 From East CEDAR From South 205 From West Start Time Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds 04:00 PM 2 143 12 5 1 0 2 158 0 2 0 2 327 04:15 PM 5 124 22 4 0 2 1 126 0 1 0 3 288 04:30 PM 8 153 7 11 0 0 1 192 1 1 1 1 376 04:45 PM 6 143 11 9 1 6 2 149 1 0 0 2 330 05:00 PM 6 154 12 4 0 1 3 152 1 0 0 1 334 05:15 PM 12 146 13 2 0 2 10 120 0 0 0 3 308 05:30 PM 17 134 6 7 0 5 3 110 1 0 0 3 286 05:45 PM 8 144 12 4 0 8 1 95 0 0 0 3 275 32 596 43 26 1 9 16 613 3 1 1 7 1348 Total CEDAR From North 205 From East CEDAR From South 205 From West Cedar South 160 Traffic Impact Study Lakeville, MN 10/18/2019 34 #0022951.00 CSAH 23 (Cedar Avenue) & Lakeville Blvd. (October 1, 2019) Start Time Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds 07:00 AM 18 44 35 38 93 33 41 77 10 13 53 13 468 07:15 AM 37 38 41 71 111 42 28 61 9 17 37 16 508 07:30 AM 43 52 26 76 102 36 39 73 10 7 48 16 528 07:45 AM 46 63 24 35 99 52 33 59 12 21 43 28 515 08:00 AM 30 40 20 34 81 38 28 28 9 4 58 43 413 08:15 AM 34 43 24 46 68 32 26 43 9 4 35 15 379 08:30 AM 26 46 33 37 67 24 29 45 8 6 30 9 360 08:45 AM 23 39 21 22 73 32 27 33 3 10 36 19 338 Peak Hour Total 144 197 126 220 405 163 141 270 41 58 181 73 2019 Total CEDAR From North LAKEVILLE From East CEDAR From South LAKEVILLE From West Start Time Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds 04:00 PM 19 50 53 28 60 21 66 85 19 15 96 44 556 04:15 PM 21 40 44 29 65 31 53 54 17 6 101 38 499 04:30 PM 31 51 55 35 66 24 79 99 11 9 116 53 629 04:45 PM 27 70 40 31 72 39 55 60 17 11 68 43 533 05:00 PM 25 51 43 42 86 29 70 54 8 13 108 49 578 05:15 PM 39 57 47 38 61 33 53 65 11 8 63 27 502 05:30 PM 36 43 34 49 65 44 50 31 7 6 75 22 462 05:45 PM 41 48 42 44 62 39 32 34 5 5 79 22 453 Peak Hour Total 122 229 185 146 285 125 257 278 47 41 355 172 2242 Total CEDAR From North LAKEV From East CEDAR From South LAKEV From West Cedar South 160 Traffic Impact Study Lakeville, MN 10/18/2019 35 #0022951.00 CSAH 23 (Cedar Avenue) & 202nd Street W. (from Dakota County TMC Website) Because this intersection was under construction on October 1, 2019, Westwood applied growth factors accounts for strong growth over the past three years (3% annual growth), and then added an adjustment for school traffic. Cedar South 160 Traffic Impact Study Lakeville, MN 10/18/2019 36 #0022951.00 Appendix 3 – Crash Summaries – 2011 through 2015 Intersection Delay and LOS Level of Service Approach Delay (sec) 95th %ile Queue (ft) Intersection Delay and LOS Level of Service Approach Delay (sec) 95th %ile Queue (ft) EB Left A 4.9 17 B 15 7 EB Right A 2.0 17 - WB Left B 10.8 43 B 13.6 39 WB Right A 6.6 43 A 7.2 39 NB Left A 1.3 8 A 5.5 39 NB Thru A 2.0 n.a.A 1.5 n.a. NB Right A 1.9 7 A 1.7 n.a. SB Left A 3.6 37 A 2.3 24 SB Thru A 0.5 n.a.A 0.4 n.a. SB Right A 1.1 n.a.A 1.5 n.a. EB Left C 28.2 105 C 26 102 EB Right A 3.9 37 A 5.0 60 NB Left A 6.4 66 C 34.5 144 NB Thru A 3.5 66 A 3.0 71 SB Thru A 5.6 64 A 7.0 96 SB Right A 1.5 44 A 2.6 58 EB Left B 10.7 35 B 11 24 EB Thru -A 7.6 24 EB Right -A 1.8 24 WB Left B 13.0 47 B 13.6 34 WB Thru C 24.8 47 B 13.2 34 WB Right A 5.3 47 A 3.1 34 NB Left A 0.7 8 A 0.2 n.a. NB Thru A 0.8 n.a.A 0.6 n.a. NB Right -0.0 n.a.A 0.1 n.a. SB Left A 3.0 24 A 5.6 31 SB Thru A 1.9 n.a.A 2.5 n.a. SB Right A 1.8 n.a.A 2.7 n.a. EB Left D 48.0 107 E 58 227 EB Thru C 31.8 176 D 44.5 368 EB Right A 4.5 49 A 6.1 154 WB Left D 45.6 224 E 65.8 149 WB Thru D 40.6 390 D 47.2 302 WB Right A 8.2 73 A 5.9 55 NB Left D 48.0 88 E 68.5 89 NB Thru C 30.7 172 C 32.9 141 NB Right A 4.6 n.a.A 6.5 82 SB Left D 44.2 153 E 57.2 221 SB Thru B 18.0 85 C 24.6 120 SB Right A 2.6 53 A 2.4 41 Lakeville Blvd & Cedar Ave S 27.5 sec/veh = LOS C 35 sec/veh = LOS C Cedar Ave & 205th St W N 1.9 sec/veh = LOS A 1.9 sec/veh = LOS A Cedar Ave & 202nd St W S 5.7 sec/veh = LOS A 8.6 sec/veh = LOS A Cedar Ave & 200th St W N 1.8 sec/veh = LOS A 1.3 sec/veh = LOS A Intersection Lane Assignment Intersection Traffic Control AM PEAK PM PEAK Existing Conditions Cedar South 160 A.M. Existing Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/15/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Studies Page 1 1: Cedar Ave & 200th St W 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 3.5 0.1 3.8 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)4.9 2.0 10.8 6.6 1.3 2.0 1.9 3.6 0.5 1.1 1.8 2: Cedar Ave & 202nd St W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)3.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s)28.2 3.9 6.4 3.5 5.6 1.5 5.7 3: Cedar Ave & Church Driveway/205th St W Performance by movement Movement EBL WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)10.7 13.0 24.8 5.3 0.7 0.8 0.0 3.0 1.9 1.8 1.9 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.7 0.5 3.6 2.9 1.3 3.1 3.2 0.2 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)48.0 31.8 4.5 45.6 40.6 8.2 48.0 30.7 4.6 44.2 18.8 2.6 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.5 Total Del/Veh (s)27.5 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.5 Total Del/Veh (s)1364.4 Cedar South 160 A.M. Existing Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/15/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Studies Page 2 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & 200th St W Movement EB WB NB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR L R L Maximum Queue (ft) 22 63 25 22 50 Average Queue (ft)4 19 1 1 14 95th Queue (ft)17 43 8 7 37 Link Distance (ft)1182 1759 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)270 270 260 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Cedar Ave & 202nd St W Movement EB EB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L R L T T T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 149 47 90 53 74 96 96 53 Average Queue (ft)52 22 35 14 33 36 23 18 95th Queue (ft)105 37 66 46 66 64 55 44 Link Distance (ft)1156 1261 1261 1262 1262 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)260 285 270 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: Cedar Ave & Church Driveway/205th St W Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR L L Maximum Queue (ft) 45 65 24 25 Average Queue (ft)16 26 1 6 95th Queue (ft)35 47 8 24 Link Distance (ft)254 816 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)285 245 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Cedar South 160 A.M. Existing Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/15/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Studies Page 3 Intersection: 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T T L T T Maximum Queue (ft) 115 228 67 410 552 95 115 221 163 156 91 92 Average Queue (ft)56 98 25 110 247 46 41 85 50 89 42 51 95th Queue (ft)107 176 49 224 390 73 88 172 124 153 83 85 Link Distance (ft)1394 1673 1318 1318 696 696 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)220 220 280 280 260 280 Storage Blk Time (%)1 5 Queuing Penalty (veh)1 21 Intersection: 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft) 158 Average Queue (ft)5 95th Queue (ft)53 Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)280 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 22 Cedar South 160 P.M. Existing Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/15/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Studies Page 1 1: Cedar Ave & 200th St W Performance by movement Movement EBL WBL WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.2 3.7 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)15.0 13.6 7.2 5.5 1.5 1.7 2.3 0.4 1.5 1.3 2: Cedar Ave & 202nd St W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)3.6 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s)26.3 5.0 34.5 3.0 7.0 2.6 8.6 3: Cedar Ave & Church Driveway/205th St W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)10.6 7.6 1.8 13.6 13.2 3.1 0.2 0.6 0.1 5.6 2.5 2.7 3: Cedar Ave & Church Driveway/205th St W Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)1.9 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.1 0.8 3.2 3.1 0.9 3.1 3.6 0.3 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)58.0 44.5 6.1 65.8 47.2 5.9 68.5 32.9 6.5 57.2 24.6 2.4 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4 Total Del/Veh (s)35.0 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3 Total Del/Veh (s)990.7 Cedar South 160 P.M. Existing Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/15/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Studies Page 2 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & 200th St W Movement EB WB SB Directions Served LTR LTR L Maximum Queue (ft) 22 45 25 Average Queue (ft)1 17 6 95th Queue (ft)7 39 24 Link Distance (ft)1182 1759 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)260 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Cedar Ave & 202nd St W Movement EB EB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L R L T T T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 145 79 167 75 92 110 93 71 Average Queue (ft)56 35 81 15 29 59 42 28 95th Queue (ft)102 60 144 44 71 96 83 58 Link Distance (ft)1156 1261 1261 1262 1262 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)260 285 270 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: Cedar Ave & Church Driveway/205th St W Movement EB WB SB Directions Served LTR LTR L Maximum Queue (ft) 23 43 30 Average Queue (ft)7 17 10 95th Queue (ft)24 34 31 Link Distance (ft)254 816 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)245 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Cedar South 160 P.M. Existing Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/15/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Studies Page 3 Intersection: 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T T R L T Maximum Queue (ft) 237 393 408 174 330 54 94 157 136 132 274 136 Average Queue (ft)134 242 36 81 183 34 47 85 48 16 133 57 95th Queue (ft)227 368 154 149 302 55 89 141 114 82 221 115 Link Distance (ft)1394 1673 1318 1318 696 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)220 220 280 280 260 260 280 Storage Blk Time (%)1 10 2 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 6 22 6 0 Intersection: 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft) 145 121 Average Queue (ft)65 4 95th Queue (ft)120 41 Link Distance (ft)696 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)280 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 34 Intersection Delay and LOS Level of Service Approach Delay (sec) 95th %ile Queue (ft) Intersection Delay and LOS Level of Service Approach Delay (sec) 95th %ile Queue (ft) EB Left C 17.1 24 - EB Right A 2.7 24 A 2.9 17 WB Left D 27.5 53 C 22.6 53 WB Right A 5.4 53 A 7.5 53 NB Thru A 1.9 n.a.A 2.3 n.a. NB Right A 1.6 n.a.A 1.8 n.a. SB Left A 3.8 37 A 3.4 20 SB Thru A 0.3 n.a.A 0.5 n.a. SB Right A 0.7 n.a.A 1.0 n.a. EB Left C 22.4 102 C 32 133 EB Right A 3.9 50 A 6.9 71 NB Left A 6.8 67 A 10.0 95 NB Thru A 3.4 59 A 4.6 90 SB Thru A 5.0 80 A 7.3 111 SB Right A 1.5 59 A 2.8 64 EB Left C 18.2 36 C 22 26 EB Thru -A 9.8 26 EB Right -A 1.7 26 WB Left B 13.2 51 B 12.1 43 WB Thru -A 5.7 43 WB Right A 6.7 51 A 7.2 43 NB Left A 4.8 22 A 2.0 8 NB Thru A 1.3 n.a.A 0.7 n.a. NB Right A 0.2 n.a.A 0.1 n.a. SB Left A 7.7 29 A 6.3 43 SB Thru A 2.1 n.a.A 2.6 n.a. SB Right A 1.1 n.a.A 2.4 n.a. EB Left D 47.0 102 E 61 239 EB Thru D 37.4 203 D 47.2 394 EB Right A 4.4 51 A 7.3 154 WB Left D 47.4 242 E 62.3 222 WB Thru D 36.1 361 D 45.3 338 WB Right A 9.4 184 A 7.9 70 NB Left E 57.8 74 E 72.5 85 NB Thru C 31.1 163 D 39.9 182 NB Right A 5.2 n.a.A 8.9 142 SB Left D 47.5 177 E 56.5 241 SB Thru C 20.7 104 C 24.5 104 SB Right A 2.3 A 3.2 105 7.8 sec/veh = LOS A 2.1 sec/veh = LOS A 1.7 sec/veh = LOS A AM PEAK PM PEAK 2026 Full Access No-Build Conditions Cedar Ave & 202nd St W S 5.1 sec/veh = LOS A 37 sec/veh = LOS D Intersection Lane Assignment Intersection Traffic Control Cedar Ave & 200th St W N 1.9 sec/veh = LOS A Cedar Ave & 205th St W N 2.5 sec/veh = LOS A Lakeville Blvd & Cedar Ave S 28.2 sec/veh = LOS C Cedar South 160 2026 Full Access No-Build AM Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/15/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Studies Page 1 1: Cedar Ave & 200th St W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.2 2.8 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)17.1 2.7 27.5 5.4 1.9 1.6 3.8 0.3 0.7 1.9 2: Cedar Ave & 202nd St W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)3.8 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s)22.4 3.9 6.8 3.4 5.0 1.5 5.1 3: Cedar Ave & Church Driveway/205th St W Performance by movement Movement EBL WBL WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.1 3.0 0.2 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)18.2 13.2 6.7 4.8 1.3 0.2 7.7 2.1 1.1 2.5 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.8 0.5 3.6 3.1 1.4 3.1 3.6 0.2 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)47.0 37.4 4.4 47.4 36.1 9.4 57.8 31.1 5.2 47.5 20.7 2.3 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4 Total Del/Veh (s)28.2 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.2 Total Del/Veh (s)1280.7 Cedar South 160 2026 Full Access No-Build AM Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/15/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Studies Page 2 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & 200th St W Movement EB WB SB Directions Served LTR LTR L Maximum Queue (ft) 22 65 49 Average Queue (ft)8 24 14 95th Queue (ft)24 53 37 Link Distance (ft)1182 1759 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)260 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Cedar Ave & 202nd St W Movement EB EB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L R L T T T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 131 67 96 53 54 75 75 53 Average Queue (ft)55 27 36 30 22 39 24 24 95th Queue (ft)102 50 67 59 55 80 59 49 Link Distance (ft)1156 1261 1261 1262 1262 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)260 285 270 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: Cedar Ave & Church Driveway/205th St W Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR L L Maximum Queue (ft) 44 72 30 72 Average Queue (ft)15 28 5 5 95th Queue (ft)36 51 22 29 Link Distance (ft)254 816 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)285 245 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Cedar South 160 2026 Full Access No-Build AM Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/15/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Studies Page 3 Intersection: 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T T L T T Maximum Queue (ft) 112 219 53 409 414 410 92 199 176 200 152 92 Average Queue (ft)60 122 23 120 224 67 35 100 61 108 65 42 95th Queue (ft)102 203 51 242 361 184 74 163 134 177 104 80 Link Distance (ft)1394 1673 1318 1318 696 696 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)220 220 280 280 260 280 Storage Blk Time (%)0 4 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 20 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 20 Cedar South 160 2026 Full Access No-Build PM Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/15/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Studies Page 1 1: Cedar Ave & 200th St W Performance by movement Movement EBR WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.2 2.6 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)2.9 22.6 7.5 2.3 1.8 3.4 0.5 1.0 1.7 2: Cedar Ave & 202nd St W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)3.6 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s)32.0 6.9 10.0 4.6 7.3 2.8 7.8 3: Cedar Ave & Church Driveway/205th St W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)22.4 9.8 1.7 12.1 5.7 7.2 2.0 0.7 0.1 6.3 2.6 2.4 3: Cedar Ave & Church Driveway/205th St W Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)2.1 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.1 1.0 3.2 3.0 1.0 3.1 2.7 0.3 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)60.8 47.2 7.3 62.3 45.3 7.9 72.5 39.9 8.9 56.5 24.5 3.2 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4 Total Del/Veh (s)37.0 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4 Total Del/Veh (s)1190.5 Cedar South 160 2026 Full Access No-Build PM Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/15/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Studies Page 2 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & 200th St W Movement EB WB SB Directions Served LTR LTR L Maximum Queue (ft) 21 87 30 Average Queue (ft)4 20 4 95th Queue (ft)17 53 20 Link Distance (ft)1182 1759 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)260 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Cedar Ave & 202nd St W Movement EB EB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L R L T T T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 160 87 141 117 105 136 100 78 Average Queue (ft)68 40 50 27 50 60 41 31 95th Queue (ft)133 71 95 80 90 111 90 64 Link Distance (ft)1156 1261 1261 1262 1262 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)260 285 270 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: Cedar Ave & Church Driveway/205th St W Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR L L Maximum Queue (ft) 23 66 25 64 Average Queue (ft)9 20 1 18 95th Queue (ft)26 43 8 43 Link Distance (ft)254 816 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)285 245 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Cedar South 160 2026 Full Access No-Build PM Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/15/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Studies Page 3 Intersection: 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T T R L T Maximum Queue (ft) 240 461 420 260 394 73 129 177 152 175 306 116 Average Queue (ft)161 269 31 126 219 47 44 126 88 36 153 57 95th Queue (ft)239 394 154 222 338 70 85 182 150 142 241 104 Link Distance (ft)1394 1673 1318 1318 696 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)220 220 280 280 260 260 280 Storage Blk Time (%)3 21 0 3 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 12 53 0 10 2 Intersection: 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft) 113 174 Average Queue (ft)67 24 95th Queue (ft)97 105 Link Distance (ft)696 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)280 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 77 Intersection Delay and LOS Level of Service Approach Delay (sec) 95th %ile Queue (ft) Intersection Delay and LOS Level of Service Approach Delay (sec) 95th %ile Queue (ft) EB Right A 1.9 22 A 4.0 17 WB Right A 4.6 31 A 4.7 21 NB Thru A 1.8 n.a.A 2.3 n.a. NB Right A 0.6 n.a.A 2.0 n.a. SB Left A 3.2 28 A 1.8 23 SB Thru A 0.2 n.a.A 0.3 n.a. SB Right A 0.9 n.a.A 1.1 n.a. EB Left C 30.4 120 C 31 126 EB Right A 4.5 50 A 6.5 74 NB Left A 5.2 56 B 11.2 122 NB Thru A 2.9 65 A 4.7 68 SB Thru A 4.1 64 A 6.4 85 SB Right A 1.6 40 A 2.8 64 WB Right A 4.3 34 A 3.7 29 NB Left A 5.5 17 A 3.3 15 NB Thru A 0.7 n.a.A 0.7 n.a. NB Right A 0.2 n.a. -0.0 n.a. SB Left A 2.3 19 A 5.6 41 SB Thru A 1.7 n.a.A 2.5 n.a. SB Right A 2.5 n.a.A 2.7 n.a. EB Left D 55.0 116 E 60 308 EB Thru C 32.4 163 D 54.0 466 EB Right A 4.9 46 A 7.5 46 WB Left D 44.2 190 E 68.1 230 WB Thru D 37.5 322 D 47.1 255 WB Right A 8.4 72 A 8.1 92 NB Left E 62.5 59 E 68.1 84 NB Thru C 28.5 154 D 38.8 197 NB Right A 5.2 n.a.B 10.4 221 SB Left D 54.9 225 E 59.6 255 SB Thru C 22.0 107 C 25.4 122 SB Right A 2.4 n.a.A 2.4 n.a. Cedar Ave & 200th St W N 1.3 sec/veh = LOS A 1.3 sec/veh = LOS A AM PEAK PM PEAK Intersection Lane Assignment Intersection Traffic Control 2026 3/4 Access No-Build Conditions Cedar Ave & 205th St W N 1.3 sec/veh = LOS A 1.8 sec/veh = LOS A Cedar Ave & 202nd St W S 5.3 sec/veh = LOS A 7.7 sec/veh = LOS A Lakeville Blvd & Cedar Ave S 28.1 sec/veh = LOS C 38.1 sec/veh = LOS D Cedar South 160 2026 3/4 Access No-Build AM Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/15/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Studies Page 1 1: Cedar Ave & 200th St W Performance by movement Movement EBR WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.1 3.7 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)1.9 4.6 1.8 0.6 3.2 0.2 0.9 1.3 2: Cedar Ave & 202nd St W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)3.9 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)30.4 4.5 5.2 2.9 4.1 1.6 5.3 3: Cedar Ave & Church Driveway/205th St W Performance by movement Movement WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)4.3 5.5 0.7 0.2 2.3 1.7 2.5 1.3 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.6 0.7 3.6 2.9 1.4 2.9 3.2 0.2 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)55.0 32.4 4.9 44.2 37.5 8.4 62.5 28.5 5.2 54.9 22.0 2.4 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4 Total Del/Veh (s)28.1 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.5 Total Del/Veh (s)1366.9 Cedar South 160 2026 3/4 Access No-Build AM Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/15/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Studies Page 2 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & 200th St W Movement EB WB SB Directions Served R R L Maximum Queue (ft) 22 45 25 Average Queue (ft)7 12 9 95th Queue (ft)22 31 28 Link Distance (ft)1182 1759 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)260 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Cedar Ave & 202nd St W Movement EB EB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L R L T T T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 169 68 72 98 97 74 74 31 Average Queue (ft)61 27 28 19 24 31 27 22 95th Queue (ft)120 50 56 60 65 60 64 40 Link Distance (ft)1156 1261 1261 1262 1262 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)260 285 270 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: Cedar Ave & Church Driveway/205th St W Movement WB NB SB Directions Served R L L Maximum Queue (ft) 49 26 25 Average Queue (ft)20 3 4 95th Queue (ft)34 17 19 Link Distance (ft)816 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)285 245 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Cedar South 160 2026 3/4 Access No-Build AM Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/15/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Studies Page 3 Intersection: 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T T L T T Maximum Queue (ft) 154 192 73 200 360 87 72 159 177 280 121 134 Average Queue (ft)59 99 24 120 216 44 31 95 56 122 51 60 95th Queue (ft)116 163 46 190 322 72 59 154 116 225 94 107 Link Distance (ft)1394 1673 1318 1318 696 696 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)220 220 280 280 260 280 Storage Blk Time (%)3 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)14 0 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 14 Cedar South 160 2026 3/4 Access No-Build PM Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/15/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Studies Page 1 1: Cedar Ave & 200th St W Performance by movement Movement EBR WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.2 3.2 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)4.0 4.7 2.3 2.0 1.8 0.3 1.1 1.3 2: Cedar Ave & 202nd St W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)3.6 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s)30.9 6.5 11.2 4.7 6.4 2.8 7.7 3: Cedar Ave & Church Driveway/205th St W Performance by movement Movement WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)3.7 3.3 0.7 0.0 5.6 2.5 2.7 1.8 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.2 1.0 3.2 3.2 1.0 3.0 2.9 0.3 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)59.8 54.0 7.5 68.1 47.1 8.1 68.1 38.8 10.4 59.6 25.4 2.4 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4 Total Del/Veh (s)38.1 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4 Total Del/Veh (s)1745.4 Cedar South 160 2026 3/4 Access No-Build PM Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/15/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Studies Page 2 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & 200th St W Movement EB WB SB Directions Served R R L Maximum Queue (ft) 22 44 23 Average Queue (ft)4 4 6 95th Queue (ft)17 21 23 Link Distance (ft)1182 1759 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)260 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Cedar Ave & 202nd St W Movement EB EB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L R L T T T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 133 84 183 114 94 87 112 75 Average Queue (ft)73 45 61 23 40 49 40 33 95th Queue (ft)126 74 122 68 67 83 85 64 Link Distance (ft)1156 1261 1261 1262 1262 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)260 285 270 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: Cedar Ave & Church Driveway/205th St W Movement WB NB SB Directions Served R L L Maximum Queue (ft) 22 25 51 Average Queue (ft)12 3 15 95th Queue (ft)29 15 41 Link Distance (ft)816 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)285 245 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Cedar South 160 2026 3/4 Access No-Build PM Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/15/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Studies Page 3 Intersection: 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T T R L T Maximum Queue (ft) 419 555 52 242 292 119 92 204 184 388 288 132 Average Queue (ft)165 307 22 124 175 54 52 116 90 64 164 62 95th Queue (ft)308 466 46 230 255 92 84 197 179 221 255 107 Link Distance (ft)1394 1673 1318 1318 696 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)220 220 280 280 260 260 280 Storage Blk Time (%)2 25 0 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 8 63 2 2 0 Intersection: 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Movement SB Directions Served T Maximum Queue (ft) 156 Average Queue (ft)81 95th Queue (ft)122 Link Distance (ft)696 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 75 Intersection Delay and LOS Level of Service Approach Delay (sec) 95th %ile Queue (ft) Intersection Delay and LOS Level of Service Approach Delay (sec) 95th %ile Queue (ft) EB Left B 15.0 33 F 64.5 20 EB Thru C 23.4 33 B 14.2 20 EB Right A 6.6 33 B 10.1 20 WB Left C 19.3 61 C 19.9 61 WB Thru D 25.2 61 A 6.2 61 WB Right A 8.5 61 B 10.4 61 NB Left A 5.4 15 A 4.6 n.a. NB Thru A 2.6 n.a.A 3.1 n.a. NB Right A 1.9 n.a.A 2.9 n.a. SB Left A 4.3 36 A 2.9 31 SB Thru A 0.5 n.a.A 0.6 n.a. SB Right A 0.8 n.a.A 1.3 n.a. EB Left B 16.9 58 C 22.0 106 EB Thru C 25.7 15 C 23.9 55 EB Right A 3.5 38 A 6.0 72 WB Left C 22.9 30 C 32.7 20 WB Thru C 23.3 41 C 24.6 40 WB Right A 4.6 36 A 7.0 29 NB Left A 6.3 53 B 12.5 95 NB Thru A 5.1 87 A 8.2 99 NB Right A 2.7 6 A 2.3 17 SB Left A 7.2 22 B 10.9 56 SB Thru A 5.9 66 B 10.8 119 SB Right A 1.8 32 A 2.7 40 EB Left B 15.0 31 A 8.7 29 EB Thru B 13.7 31 B 12.2 29 EB Right -A 6.5 29 WB Left C 17.6 78 C 16.1 40 WB Thru C 16.3 78 A 8.6 40 WB Right B 11.4 78 A 6.1 40 NB Left A 6.0 19 A 3.4 15 NB Thru A 0.9 n.a.A 0.9 n.a. NB Right A 0.3 n.a.A 0.1 7 SB Left A 5.8 19 A 6.9 44 SB Thru A 2.4 n.a.A 3.5 n.a. SB Right A 1.8 n.a.A 3.9 n.a. EB Left D 48.9 123 E 60.8 303 EB Thru C 32.7 208 D 43.3 355 EB Right A 4.1 44 A 6.2 162 WB Left D 49.8 214 E 69.9 232 WB Thru D 38.7 365 D 54.2 408 WB Right A 10.0 97 B 12.3 230 NB Left D 53.5 84 E 66.5 74 NB Thru C 33.3 144 D 42.6 193 NB Right A 5.0 n.a.A 9.6 189 SB Left D 46.2 196 D 53.1 298 SB Thru C 27.6 124 C 24.7 122 SB Right A 2.7 n.a.A 2.4 n.a. EB Left A 2.7 n.a.A 3.3 11 EB Thru A 0.8 n.a.A 1.8 11 EB Right A 0.9 n.a.A 1.1 11 WB Left -A 1.5 n.a. WB Thru A 0.4 n.a.A 0.4 n.a. WB Right -A 0.7 n.a. NB Left A 4.6 39 A 6.8 34 NB Right A 2.2 39 A 2.3 34 SB Left A 4.7 45 A 4.2 33 SB Right A 3.2 45 A 2.6 33 EB Thru A 0.6 n.a.A 0.4 n.a. EB Right A 0.3 n.a.A 0.3 n.a. WB Left A 2.6 n.a.A 3.7 10 WB Thru A 0.3 n.a.A 0.2 10 NB Left A 4.8 47 A 4.3 42 NB Right A 2.2 47 A 3.4 42 1 sec/veh = LOS A 39 sec/veh = LOS D 9.9 sec/veh = LOS A AM PEAK PM PEAK Street B & 200th St W N 1.5 sec/veh = LOS A Street A & 202nd St W N 1.7 sec/veh = LOS A Lakeville Blvd & Cedar Ave S 29 sec/veh = LOS C 2 sec/veh = LOS A Cedar Ave & 205th St W N 2.6 sec/veh = LOS A Cedar Ave & 202nd St W S 6 sec/veh = LOS A 2.6 sec/veh = LOS A Cedar Ave & 200th St W N 2.7 sec/veh = LOS A Intersection Lane Assignment Intersection Traffic Control 2026 Full Access Build Conditions 2.6 sec/veh = LOS A . EB Left A 2.7 n.a.A 2.6 n.a. EB Thru A 0.8 n.a.A 0.6 n.a. EB Right A 0.2 n.a.A 0.4 n.a. WB Left -A 1.8 n.a. WB Thru A 0.4 n.a. - 0.0 n.a. WB Right - - 0.0 n.a. NB Left A 4.6 44 A 4.4 44 NB Right A 2.2 44 A 2.5 44 SB Left A 4.7 44 A 4.2 39 SB Right A 3.2 44 A 2.8 39 EB Thru A 0.6 n.a.A 0.3 n.a. EB Right - 0.0 n.a.A 0.2 n.a. WB Left -A 1.6 n.a. WB Thru - 0.0 n.a.A 0.1 n.a. NB Left A 4.7 40 A 4.3 36 NB Right A 3.7 40 A 2.5 36 EB Left A 1.8 n.a.A 2.1 0 EB Thru A 0.5 n.a.A 0.8 0 EB Right A 0.4 n.a.A 1.0 0 WB Thru A 0.1 n.a. - 0.0 n.a. NB Left A 3.8 30 A 4.3 33 SB Right A 2.8 41 A 2.3 20 0.6 sec/veh = LOS A Steet D & 205th N 0.9 sec/veh = LOS A Street C & 200th St W N 1 sec/veh = LOS A 1.1 sec/veh = LOS A Street B & 202nd St W N 1.7 sec/veh = LOS A 1.8 sec/veh = LOS A Cedar Hills 2026 AM Build Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/15/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Study Page 1 1: Cedar Ave & 200th St W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.2 3.4 Total Del/Veh (s)15.0 23.4 6.6 19.3 25.2 8.5 5.4 2.6 1.9 4.3 0.5 0.8 1: Cedar Ave & 200th St W Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)2.7 2: Cedar Ave & 202nd St W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)4.0 0.6 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)16.9 25.7 3.5 22.9 23.3 4.6 6.3 5.1 2.7 7.2 5.9 1.8 2: Cedar Ave & 202nd St W Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5 Total Del/Veh (s)6.0 3: Cedar Ave & 205th St W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR 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 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)15.0 13.7 17.6 16.3 11.4 6.0 0.9 0.3 5.8 2.4 1.8 2.6 5: Street D & 205th St W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT NBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)1.8 0.5 0.4 0.1 3.8 2.8 0.9 7: Street B & 200th St W Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.6 0.3 2.6 0.3 4.8 2.2 1.5 Cedar Hills 2026 AM Build Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/15/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Study Page 2 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.6 0.6 3.8 2.8 1.3 3.0 3.5 0.2 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)48.9 32.7 4.1 49.8 38.7 10.0 53.5 33.3 5.0 46.2 27.6 2.7 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.5 Total Del/Veh (s)29.0 19: Street A & 202nd St W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT NBL NBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)2.7 0.8 0.9 0.4 4.6 2.2 4.7 3.2 1.7 22: Street B & 202nd St W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT NBL NBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)2.2 0.7 0.2 0.0 4.1 2.5 4.3 2.4 2.4 31: Street C & 200th St W Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.6 0.0 0.0 4.7 3.7 1.0 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.5 Total Del/Veh (s)1186.1 Cedar Hills 2026 AM Build Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/15/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Study Page 3 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & 200th St W Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR L L Maximum Queue (ft) 46 70 26 30 Average Queue (ft)13 35 2 18 95th Queue (ft)33 61 15 36 Link Distance (ft)1182 925 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)270 260 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Cedar Ave & 202nd St W Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T T R L T Maximum Queue (ft) 70 24 46 28 47 46 70 106 108 15 20 67 Average Queue (ft)33 3 22 10 17 14 28 26 41 1 7 31 95th Queue (ft)58 15 38 30 41 36 53 68 87 6 22 66 Link Distance (ft)1153 853 1249 1249 1245 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)260 260 260 260 285 285 270 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Cedar Ave & 202nd St W Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft) 87 58 Average Queue (ft)22 12 95th Queue (ft)56 32 Link Distance (ft)1245 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)270 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Cedar Hills 2026 AM Build Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/15/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Study Page 4 Intersection: 3: Cedar Ave & 205th St W Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR L L Maximum Queue (ft) 23 110 31 52 Average Queue (ft)13 38 4 4 95th Queue (ft)31 78 19 19 Link Distance (ft)254 786 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)285 245 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Street D & 205th St W Movement NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 30 54 Average Queue (ft)8 15 95th Queue (ft)30 41 Link Distance (ft)132 339 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 7: Street B & 200th St W Movement NB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 54 Average Queue (ft)26 95th Queue (ft)47 Link Distance (ft)312 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Cedar Hills 2026 AM Build Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/15/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Study Page 5 Intersection: 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T T L T T Maximum Queue (ft) 157 250 52 248 415 409 109 156 134 223 116 134 Average Queue (ft)67 105 22 125 251 55 40 94 57 126 64 71 95th Queue (ft)123 208 44 214 365 97 84 144 118 196 109 124 Link Distance (ft)1394 1673 1318 1318 696 696 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)220 220 280 280 260 280 Storage Blk Time (%)1 8 Queuing Penalty (veh)1 36 Intersection: 19: Street A & 202nd St W Movement NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 31 54 Average Queue (ft)14 19 95th Queue (ft)39 45 Link Distance (ft)338 319 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 22: Street B & 202nd St W Movement NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 31 31 Average Queue (ft)25 20 95th Queue (ft)44 44 Link Distance (ft)303 297 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Cedar Hills 2026 AM Build Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/15/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Study Page 6 Intersection: 31: Street C & 200th St W Movement NB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 31 Average Queue (ft)16 95th Queue (ft)40 Link Distance (ft)228 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 37 Cedar Hills 2026 PM Build Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/15/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Study Page 1 1: Cedar Ave & 200th St W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.2 1.5 Total Del/Veh (s)64.5 14.2 10.1 19.9 6.2 10.4 4.6 3.1 2.9 2.9 0.6 1.3 1: Cedar Ave & 200th St W Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)2.6 2: Cedar Ave & 202nd St W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.6 0.9 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)22.0 23.9 6.0 32.7 24.6 7.0 12.5 8.2 2.3 10.9 10.8 2.7 2: Cedar Ave & 202nd St W Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6 Total Del/Veh (s)9.9 3: Cedar Ave & 205th St W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)8.7 12.2 6.5 16.1 8.6 6.1 3.4 0.9 0.1 6.9 3.5 3.9 3: Cedar Ave & 205th St W Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)2.6 5: Street D & 205th St W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT NBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)2.1 0.8 1.0 0.0 4.3 2.3 1.1 7: Street B & 200th St W Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.4 0.3 3.7 0.2 4.3 3.4 1.0 Cedar Hills 2026 PM Build Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/15/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Study Page 2 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.2 1.2 3.2 3.3 1.3 3.0 3.3 0.3 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)60.8 43.3 6.2 69.9 54.2 12.3 66.5 42.6 9.6 53.1 24.7 2.4 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.6 Total Del/Veh (s)39.0 19: Street A & 202nd St W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)3.3 1.8 1.1 1.5 0.4 0.7 6.8 2.3 4.2 2.6 2.0 22: Street B & 202nd St W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)2.6 0.6 0.4 1.8 0.0 0.0 4.4 2.5 4.2 2.8 1.8 31: Street C & 200th St W Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.2 1.6 0.1 4.3 2.5 0.6 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.7 Total Del/Veh (s)1123.9 Cedar Hills 2026 PM Build Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/15/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Study Page 3 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & 200th St W Movement EB WB SB Directions Served LTR LTR L Maximum Queue (ft) 22 88 31 Average Queue (ft)5 31 10 95th Queue (ft)20 61 31 Link Distance (ft)1182 925 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)260 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Cedar Ave & 202nd St W Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T T R L T Maximum Queue (ft) 115 88 87 27 66 40 113 135 124 39 92 134 Average Queue (ft)65 20 40 4 12 9 52 42 54 3 24 59 95th Queue (ft)106 55 72 20 40 29 95 98 99 17 56 119 Link Distance (ft)1153 853 1249 1249 1245 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)260 260 260 260 285 285 270 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Cedar Ave & 202nd St W Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft) 114 55 Average Queue (ft)43 17 95th Queue (ft)92 40 Link Distance (ft)1245 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)270 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Cedar Hills 2026 PM Build Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/15/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Study Page 4 Intersection: 3: Cedar Ave & 205th St W Movement EB WB NB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR L R L Maximum Queue (ft) 23 63 27 21 53 Average Queue (ft)11 19 3 1 21 95th Queue (ft)29 40 15 7 44 Link Distance (ft)254 786 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)285 285 245 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Street D & 205th St W Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 28 30 30 Average Queue (ft)0 10 4 95th Queue (ft)0 33 20 Link Distance (ft)786 132 339 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 7: Street B & 200th St W Movement WB NB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue (ft) 31 31 Average Queue (ft)1 17 95th Queue (ft)10 42 Link Distance (ft)1473 312 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Cedar Hills 2026 PM Build Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/15/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Study Page 5 Intersection: 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T T R L T Maximum Queue (ft) 328 456 420 276 464 410 94 219 183 222 289 150 Average Queue (ft)201 241 38 149 263 74 38 133 98 56 180 68 95th Queue (ft)303 355 162 232 408 230 74 193 165 189 298 118 Link Distance (ft)1394 1673 1318 1318 696 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)220 220 280 280 260 260 280 Storage Blk Time (%)9 13 0 10 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 42 35 1 32 1 Intersection: 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Movement SB Directions Served T Maximum Queue (ft) 155 Average Queue (ft)77 95th Queue (ft)122 Link Distance (ft)696 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 19: Street A & 202nd St W Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 31 32 31 Average Queue (ft)1 11 9 95th Queue (ft)11 34 33 Link Distance (ft)853 338 319 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Cedar Hills 2026 PM Build Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/15/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Study Page 6 Intersection: 22: Street B & 202nd St W Movement NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 31 31 Average Queue (ft)20 14 95th Queue (ft)44 39 Link Distance (ft)303 297 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 31: Street C & 200th St W Movement NB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 31 Average Queue (ft)12 95th Queue (ft)36 Link Distance (ft)228 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 111 Intersection Delay and LOS Level of Service Approach Delay (sec) 95th %ile Queue (ft) Intersection Delay and LOS Level of Service Approach Delay (sec) 95th %ile Queue (ft) EB Right A 4.4 16 A 7.9 15 WB Thru -A 0.7 n.a. WB Right A 5.7 41 A 5.9 35 NB Left A 2.9 8 A 5.3 8 NB Thru A 3.3 n.a.A 3.4 n.a. NB Right A 2.8 6 A 2.8 n.a. SB Left A 6.2 42 A 3.2 34 SB Thru A 0.3 n.a.A 0.4 n.a. SB Right A 0.1 n.a.A 0.7 n.a. EB Left C 25.8 96 C 21 112 EB Thru C 28.0 24 B 15.6 34 EB Right A 3.8 40 A 5.7 63 WB Left C 25.8 49 C 28.7 43 WB Thru C 27.8 48 C 32.4 49 WB Right A 7.4 58 A 5.4 29 NB Left C 25.2 113 B 14.5 111 NB Thru A 7.4 108 A 9.8 132 NB Right A 2.2 9 A 2.8 16 SB Left C 32.3 32 A 10.0 42 SB Thru A 8.9 83 B 10.8 117 SB Right A 2.2 31 A 3.0 54 EB Right -A 9.4 7 WB Right A 4.6 40 A 4.4 33 NB Left A 2.9 8 A 0.7 n.a. NB Thru A 0.8 n.a.A 0.9 n.a. NB Right A 0.1 n.a.A 0.3 n.a. SB Left A 8.0 25 A 8.1 49 SB Thru A 2.9 n.a.A 3.2 n.a. SB Right A 2.1 n.a.A 2.7 n.a. EB Left D 52.1 111 E 62 275 EB Thru C 33.8 193 D 45.6 349 EB Right A 4.4 47 A 6.4 43 WB Left D 48.8 209 E 63.6 255 WB Thru C 34.0 350 D 54.0 386 WB Right A 9.9 183 A 9.8 182 NB Left D 49.4 85 E 76.1 103 NB Thru C 32.4 157 D 39.0 182 NB Right A 5.3 n.a.A 8.1 151 SB Left D 49.6 229 E 57.3 281 SB Thru C 23.1 104 C 26.3 139 SB Right A 2.8 45 A 2.4 n.a. EB Left A 2.6 n.a.A 2 15 EB Thru A 1.8 n.a.A 1.5 15 EB Right A 0.9 n.a.A 0.8 15 WB Left -A 2.4 n.a. WB Thru A 0.7 n.a.A 0.6 n.a. WB Right A 0.5 n.a.A 0.3 n.a. NB Left A 3.7 41 A 4.8 38 NB Right A 2.5 41 A 2.7 38 SB Left A 3.8 54 A 4.3 41 SB Right A 2.9 54 A 2.8 41 EB Thru A 0.6 n.a.A 0.5 n.a. EB Right A 0.4 n.a.A 0.3 n.a. WB Left -A 2.1 n.a. WB Thru A 0.1 n.a.A 0.1 n.a. NB Left A 4.5 47 A 4.1 42 NB Right A 2.9 47 A 3.5 42 Cedar Ave & 200th St W N 2.4 sec/veh = LOS A 2 sec/veh = LOS A AM PEAK PM PEAK Intersection Lane Assignment Intersection Traffic Control 2026 3/4 Build Conditions Cedar Ave & 205th St W N 1.9 sec/veh = LOS A 2.3 sec/veh = LOS A Cedar Ave & 202nd St W S 10.1 sec/veh = LOS B 10.5 sec/veh = LOS B Street A & 202nd St W N 2.1 sec/veh = LOS A 1.8 sec/veh = LOS A Lakeville Blvd & Cedar Ave S 27.9 sec/veh = LOS C 38.8 sec/veh = LOS D Street B & 200th St W N 1.3 sec/veh = LOS A 0.9 sec/veh = LOS A EB Left A 2.6 n.a.A 2 n.a. EB Thru A 0.6 n.a.A 0.2 n.a. EB Right A 0.2 n.a.A 0.7 n.a. WB Left -A 2.3 0 WB Thru -0.0 n.a. -0.0 0 WB Right -0.0 n.a. -0.0 0 NB Left A 3.8 49 A 4.2 47 NB Right A 2.8 49 A 2.4 47 SB Left A 4.0 46 A 5.1 38 SB Right A 2.6 46 A 2.7 38 EB Thru A 0.4 n.a.A 0.1 n.a. EB Right A 1.6 n.a.A 0.1 n.a. WB Left -A 2.0 n.a. WB Thru -0.0 n.a. -0.0 n.a. NB Left A 5.4 37 A 3.5 21 NB Right A 2.3 37 A 2.6 21 EB Left -A 2 9 EB Thru A 1.0 n.a.A 0.7 9 EB Right A 0.4 n.a.A 0.5 9 WB Thru A 0.1 n.a. -0.0 n.a. NB Left A 3.7 30 A 3.5 26 SB Right A 2.9 28 A 2.6 17 Street B & 202nd St W N 2.4 sec/veh = LOS A 2 sec/veh = LOS A Street D & 205th St W N 0.9 sec/veh = LOS A 1 sec/veh = LOS A Street C & 200th St W N 0.8 sec/veh = LOS A 0.4 sec/veh = LOS A Cedar Hills 2026 AM Build 3/4 Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/15/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Study Page 1 1: Cedar Ave & 200th St W Performance by movement Movement EBR WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.2 2.6 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)4.4 5.7 2.9 3.3 2.8 6.2 0.3 0.1 2.4 2: Cedar Ave & 202nd St W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.7 0.4 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.5 Total Del/Veh (s)25.8 28.0 3.8 25.8 27.8 7.4 25.2 7.4 2.2 32.3 8.9 2.2 2: Cedar Ave & 202nd St W Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6 Total Del/Veh (s)10.1 3: Cedar Ave & 205th St W Performance by movement Movement WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)4.6 2.9 0.8 0.1 8.0 2.9 2.1 1.9 5: Street D & 205th St W Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT NBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)1.0 0.4 0.1 3.7 2.9 0.9 7: Street B & 200th St W Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.6 0.4 0.1 4.5 2.9 1.3 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.6 0.6 3.6 3.0 1.7 3.2 3.3 0.3 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)52.1 33.8 4.4 48.8 34.0 9.9 49.4 32.4 5.3 49.6 23.1 2.8 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.6 Total Del/Veh (s)27.9 Cedar Hills 2026 AM Build 3/4 Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/15/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Study Page 2 19: Street A & 202nd St W 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 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)2.6 1.8 0.9 0.7 0.5 3.7 2.5 3.8 2.9 2.1 22: Street B & 202nd St W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)2.2 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 3.8 2.8 4.0 2.6 2.4 31: Street C & 200th St W Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.4 1.6 0.0 5.4 2.3 0.8 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.7 Total Del/Veh (s)1397.2 Cedar Hills 2026 AM Build 3/4 Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/15/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Study Page 3 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & 200th St W Movement EB WB NB NB SB Directions Served R R L R L Maximum Queue (ft) 22 44 25 18 69 Average Queue (ft)3 22 1 1 15 95th Queue (ft)16 41 8 6 42 Link Distance (ft)1182 925 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)270 270 260 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Cedar Ave & 202nd St W Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T T R L T Maximum Queue (ft) 110 24 45 49 66 78 153 97 109 15 46 87 Average Queue (ft)52 7 23 19 18 25 59 52 60 2 11 44 95th Queue (ft)96 24 40 49 48 58 113 90 108 9 32 83 Link Distance (ft)1153 853 1249 1249 1245 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)260 260 260 260 285 285 270 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Cedar Ave & 202nd St W Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft) 78 37 Average Queue (ft)30 14 95th Queue (ft)66 31 Link Distance (ft)1245 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)270 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Cedar Hills 2026 AM Build 3/4 Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/15/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Study Page 4 Intersection: 3: Cedar Ave & 205th St W Movement WB NB SB Directions Served R L L Maximum Queue (ft) 48 23 30 Average Queue (ft)22 1 7 95th Queue (ft)40 8 25 Link Distance (ft)786 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)285 245 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Street D & 205th St W Movement NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 30 30 Average Queue (ft)8 7 95th Queue (ft)30 28 Link Distance (ft)128 152 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 7: Street B & 200th St W Movement NB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 55 Average Queue (ft)22 95th Queue (ft)47 Link Distance (ft)207 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Cedar Hills 2026 AM Build 3/4 Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/15/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Study Page 5 Intersection: 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T T L T T Maximum Queue (ft) 130 199 52 279 420 410 94 156 139 288 96 116 Average Queue (ft)64 114 26 119 221 68 37 106 59 132 47 57 95th Queue (ft)111 193 47 209 350 183 85 157 121 229 87 104 Link Distance (ft)1394 1673 1318 1318 696 696 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)220 220 280 280 260 280 Storage Blk Time (%)0 3 1 Queuing Penalty (veh)1 12 1 Intersection: 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft) 135 Average Queue (ft)5 95th Queue (ft)45 Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)280 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 19: Street A & 202nd St W Movement NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 30 79 Average Queue (ft)17 25 95th Queue (ft)41 54 Link Distance (ft)169 213 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Cedar Hills 2026 AM Build 3/4 Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/15/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Study Page 6 Intersection: 22: Street B & 202nd St W Movement NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 54 56 Average Queue (ft)24 20 95th Queue (ft)49 46 Link Distance (ft)146 199 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 31: Street C & 200th St W Movement NB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 30 Average Queue (ft)14 95th Queue (ft)37 Link Distance (ft)145 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 15 Cedar Hills 2026 PM Build 3/4 Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/15/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Study Page 1 1: Cedar Ave & 200th St W Performance by movement Movement EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.2 1.8 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)7.9 0.7 5.9 5.3 3.4 2.8 3.2 0.4 0.7 2.0 2: Cedar Ave & 202nd St W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.6 0.7 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)21.3 15.6 5.7 28.7 32.4 5.4 14.5 9.8 2.8 10.0 10.8 3.0 2: Cedar Ave & 202nd St W Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6 Total Del/Veh (s)10.5 3: Cedar Ave & 205th St W Performance by movement Movement EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)9.4 0.0 4.4 0.7 0.9 0.3 8.1 3.2 2.7 2.3 5: Street D & 205th St W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT NBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)2.4 0.7 0.5 0.0 3.5 2.6 1.0 7: Street B & 200th St W Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.5 0.3 2.1 0.1 4.1 3.5 0.9 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.3 1.1 2.9 3.0 1.1 3.0 3.4 0.3 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)61.9 45.6 6.4 63.6 54.0 9.8 76.1 39.0 8.1 57.3 26.3 2.4 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.5 Total Del/Veh (s)38.8 Cedar Hills 2026 PM Build 3/4 Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/15/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Study Page 2 19: Street A & 202nd St W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)2.4 1.5 0.8 2.4 0.6 0.3 4.8 2.7 4.3 2.8 1.8 22: Street B & 202nd St W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)2.4 0.2 0.7 2.3 0.0 0.0 4.2 2.4 5.1 2.7 2.0 31: Street C & 200th St W Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 2.0 0.0 3.5 2.6 0.4 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.6 Total Del/Veh (s)1183.0 Cedar Hills 2026 PM Build 3/4 Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/15/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Study Page 3 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & 200th St W Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served R R L L Maximum Queue (ft) 22 44 24 30 Average Queue (ft)3 14 1 13 95th Queue (ft)15 35 8 34 Link Distance (ft)1182 925 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)270 260 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Cedar Ave & 202nd St W Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T T R L T Maximum Queue (ft) 115 47 79 50 67 23 133 163 169 19 46 172 Average Queue (ft)68 12 37 18 17 11 65 56 69 4 19 59 95th Queue (ft)112 34 63 43 49 29 111 125 132 16 42 117 Link Distance (ft)1153 853 1249 1249 1245 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)260 260 260 260 285 285 270 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Cedar Ave & 202nd St W Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft) 135 83 Average Queue (ft)48 24 95th Queue (ft)100 54 Link Distance (ft)1245 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)270 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Cedar Hills 2026 PM Build 3/4 Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/15/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Study Page 4 Intersection: 3: Cedar Ave & 205th St W Movement EB WB SB Directions Served R R L Maximum Queue (ft) 22 40 74 Average Queue (ft)1 15 19 95th Queue (ft)7 33 49 Link Distance (ft)254 786 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)245 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Street D & 205th St W Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 28 30 30 Average Queue (ft)1 6 3 95th Queue (ft)9 26 17 Link Distance (ft)786 128 152 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 7: Street B & 200th St W Movement NB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 31 Average Queue (ft)18 95th Queue (ft)42 Link Distance (ft)207 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Cedar Hills 2026 PM Build 3/4 Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/15/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Study Page 5 Intersection: 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T T R L T Maximum Queue (ft) 296 373 51 409 434 409 136 192 172 176 351 111 Average Queue (ft)180 242 20 125 251 66 49 120 81 43 168 66 95th Queue (ft)275 349 43 255 386 182 103 182 156 151 281 113 Link Distance (ft)1394 1673 1318 1318 696 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)220 220 280 280 260 260 280 Storage Blk Time (%)8 14 9 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 36 39 32 3 Intersection: 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Movement SB Directions Served T Maximum Queue (ft) 158 Average Queue (ft)88 95th Queue (ft)139 Link Distance (ft)696 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 19: Street A & 202nd St W Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 31 31 31 Average Queue (ft)2 13 16 95th Queue (ft)15 38 41 Link Distance (ft)853 169 213 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Cedar Hills 2026 PM Build 3/4 Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/15/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Study Page 6 Intersection: 22: Street B & 202nd St W Movement WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 31 54 31 Average Queue (ft)0 24 14 95th Queue (ft)0 47 38 Link Distance (ft)616 146 199 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 31: Street C & 200th St W Movement NB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 30 Average Queue (ft)4 95th Queue (ft)21 Link Distance (ft)145 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 110 Intersection Delay and LOS Level of Service Approach Delay (sec) 95th %ile Queue (ft) Intersection Delay and LOS Level of Service Approach Delay (sec) 95th %ile Queue (ft) EB Right A 4.5 16 A 6.0 17 WB Right A 6.7 37 A 8.7 31 NB Left A 4.2 11 - NB Thru A 4.5 n.a.A 4.0 n.a. NB Right A 4.1 n.a.A 4.0 n.a. SB Left A 6.0 37 A 5.2 26 SB Thru A 0.4 n.a.A 0.6 n.a. SB Right A 0.7 n.a.A 0.4 n.a. EB Left C 21.1 95 C 23 138 EB Thru B 18.1 82 C 21.2 104 EB Right A 5.8 69 B 10.3 123 WB Thru C 29.6 146 C 33.5 131 NB Left B 15.0 83 C 24.5 188 NB Thru B 10.5 187 B 12.7 178 SB Thru B 13.0 112 C 20.2 183 SB Right A 4.8 71 A 7.0 91 EB Right -B 10.2 7 WB Right A 8.2 59 A 8.3 49 NB Left A 1.4 17 C 17.4 9 NB Thru A 1.2 n.a.A 1.3 n.a. NB Right A 0.1 n.a.A 0.3 n.a. SB Left B 10.2 22 A 9.8 43 SB Thru A 3.6 n.a.A 4.7 n.a. SB Right A 3.2 n.a.A 4.9 n.a. EB Left E 61.9 142 E 71 404 EB Thru C 31.3 235 D 50.1 486 EB Right A 5.1 56 B 11.7 264 WB Left D 53.3 396 E 72.8 344 WB Thru D 48.5 601 D 50.7 524 WB Right B 19.1 395 B 14.5 278 NB Left D 52.0 106 E 66.9 116 NB Thru D 44.1 209 E 62.9 273 NB Right A 5.5 37 C 21.1 333 SB Left E 61.6 286 F 85.2 440 SB Thru C 33.1 146 D 35.3 369 SB Right A 5.2 150 A 3.3 44 Cedar Ave & 200th St W N 3.1 sec/veh = LOS A 2.4 sec/veh = LOS A AM PEAK PM PEAK Intersection Lane Assignment Intersection Traffic Control 2040 3/4 Access No-Build Conditions Cedar Ave & 205th St W N 2.6 sec/veh = LOS A 3.3 sec/veh = LOS A Cedar Ave & 202nd St W S 12.3 sec/veh = LOS B 16.8 sec/veh = LOS B Lakeville Blvd & Cedar Ave S 35.7 sec/veh = LOS D 48 sec/veh = LOS D Cedar South 160 2040 3/4 Access No-Build AM Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/17/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Studies Page 1 1: Cedar Ave & 200th St W Performance by movement Movement EBR WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.2 1.7 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)4.5 6.7 4.2 4.5 4.1 6.0 0.4 0.7 3.1 2: Cedar Ave & 202nd St W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)3.6 0.9 3.5 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.5 Total Del/Veh (s)21.1 18.1 5.8 29.6 15.0 10.5 13.0 4.8 12.3 3: Cedar Ave & Church Driveway/205th St W Performance by movement Movement WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)8.2 1.4 1.2 0.1 10.2 3.6 3.2 2.6 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.4 0.7 3.3 3.3 2.3 3.3 2.9 0.3 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)61.9 31.3 5.1 53.3 48.5 19.1 52.0 44.1 5.5 61.6 33.1 5.2 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.7 Total Del/Veh (s)35.7 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.8 Total Del/Veh (s)1796.3 Cedar South 160 2040 3/4 Access No-Build AM Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/17/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Studies Page 2 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & 200th St W Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served R R L L Maximum Queue (ft) 22 64 26 49 Average Queue (ft)3 15 1 17 95th Queue (ft)16 37 11 37 Link Distance (ft)1182 1759 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)270 260 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Cedar Ave & 202nd St W Movement EB EB EB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R T L T T T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 112 107 114 197 110 168 215 125 101 103 Average Queue (ft)54 35 35 77 44 82 95 70 53 30 95th Queue (ft)95 82 69 146 83 160 187 112 94 71 Link Distance (ft)1157 1098 1249 1249 1244 1244 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)260 260 285 270 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: Cedar Ave & Church Driveway/205th St W Movement WB NB SB Directions Served R L L Maximum Queue (ft) 87 25 26 Average Queue (ft)28 3 6 95th Queue (ft)59 17 22 Link Distance (ft)816 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)285 245 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Cedar South 160 2040 3/4 Access No-Build AM Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/17/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Studies Page 3 Intersection: 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T T R L T Maximum Queue (ft) 158 333 56 410 702 410 114 218 204 112 407 157 Average Queue (ft)96 135 28 210 371 154 60 148 111 4 150 80 95th Queue (ft)142 235 56 396 601 395 106 209 195 37 286 136 Link Distance (ft)1394 1673 1318 1318 696 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)220 220 280 280 260 260 280 Storage Blk Time (%)1 19 4 Queuing Penalty (veh)3 117 7 Intersection: 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft) 157 200 Average Queue (ft)96 40 95th Queue (ft)146 150 Link Distance (ft)696 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)280 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 127 Cedar South 160 2040 3/4 Access No-Build PM Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/17/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Studies Page 1 1: Cedar Ave & 200th St W Performance by movement Movement EBR WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.3 2.7 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)6.0 8.7 4.0 4.0 5.2 0.6 0.4 2.4 2: Cedar Ave & 202nd St W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)3.5 1.3 3.3 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 Total Del/Veh (s)23.2 21.2 10.3 33.5 24.5 12.7 20.2 7.0 16.8 3: Cedar Ave & Church Driveway/205th St W Performance by movement Movement EBR WBR 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)10.2 8.3 17.4 1.3 0.3 9.8 4.7 4.9 3.3 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.1 1.4 2.9 3.0 1.4 3.0 2.6 0.4 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)70.7 50.1 11.7 72.8 50.7 14.5 66.9 62.9 21.1 85.2 35.3 3.3 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.5 Total Del/Veh (s)48.0 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.6 Total Del/Veh (s)1518.0 Cedar South 160 2040 3/4 Access No-Build PM Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/17/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Studies Page 2 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & 200th St W Movement EB WB SB Directions Served R R L Maximum Queue (ft) 20 45 30 Average Queue (ft)4 9 8 95th Queue (ft)17 31 26 Link Distance (ft)1182 1759 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)260 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Cedar Ave & 202nd St W Movement EB EB EB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R T L T T T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 169 139 123 138 228 166 191 207 225 142 Average Queue (ft)75 54 72 72 96 87 100 117 102 43 95th Queue (ft)138 104 123 131 188 160 178 175 183 91 Link Distance (ft)1157 902 1249 1249 1244 1244 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)260 260 285 270 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: Cedar Ave & Church Driveway/205th St W Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served R R L L Maximum Queue (ft) 20 66 25 52 Average Queue (ft)1 25 1 18 95th Queue (ft)7 49 9 43 Link Distance (ft)254 816 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)285 245 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Cedar South 160 2040 3/4 Access No-Build PM Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/17/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Studies Page 3 Intersection: 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T T R L T Maximum Queue (ft) 420 555 420 409 775 410 136 288 264 324 410 539 Average Queue (ft)255 342 65 191 297 99 69 189 157 177 307 145 95th Queue (ft)404 486 264 344 524 278 116 273 228 333 440 369 Link Distance (ft)1394 1673 1318 1318 696 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)220 220 280 280 260 260 280 Storage Blk Time (%)16 28 1 14 2 0 5 25 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 102 98 11 61 2 2 11 48 0 Intersection: 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft) 181 130 Average Queue (ft)117 4 95th Queue (ft)161 44 Link Distance (ft)696 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)280 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 335 Intersection Delay and LOS Level of Service Approach Delay (sec) 95th %ile Queue (ft) Intersection Delay and LOS Level of Service Approach Delay (sec) 95th %ile Queue (ft) EB Right A 3.3 17 A 5.7 6 WB Thru - - WB Right A 8.0 44 A 10.0 49 NB Left A 0.7 n.a.B 11.9 8 NB Thru A 4.1 n.a.A 5.3 n.a. NB Right A 4.0 11 A 4.1 7 SB Left A 9.8 52 A 5.6 41 SB Thru A 0.4 n.a.A 0.7 n.a. SB Right -0.0 n.a. -0.0 n.a. EB Left B 18.7 94 C 22 130 EB Thru B 17.5 85 C 22.5 108 EB Right A 5.8 65 B 11.0 130 WB Left C 22.7 59 C 24.6 40 WB Thru C 25.1 129 C 32.8 152 WB Right A 5.3 42 B 10.4 26 NB Left B 17.3 105 C 32.1 194 NB Thru B 11.0 156 C 20.4 251 NB Right A 4.0 8 A 4.7 16 SB Left B 15.6 33 C 23.5 70 SB Thru B 16.1 138 C 25.2 230 SB Right A 5.7 59 A 8.4 100 EB Right -A 3.1 10 WB Left - - WB Thru A 0.5 n.a. - WB Right A 8.7 68 A 6.8 44 NB Left A 5.3 20 C 17.2 17 NB Thru A 1.1 n.a.A 1.3 n.a. NB Right A 0.6 n.a.A 0.3 7 SB Left B 12.0 29 B 14.8 75 SB Thru A 3.8 n.a.A 5.6 n.a. SB Right A 4.0 n.a.A 6.2 n.a. EB Left E 56.1 143 F 81 471 EB Thru C 31.4 208 E 56.5 706 EB Right A 6.3 71 B 15.9 265 WB Left E 78.2 494 E 69.1 347 WB Thru F 82.0 1453 E 61.0 530 WB Right D 46.3 545 B 15.9 311 NB Left D 55.0 97 E 64.3 113 NB Thru D 44.1 219 E 60.0 283 NB Right A 5.8 n.a.C 30.4 410 SB Left E 60.1 255 F 108.7 479 SB Thru C 28.8 135 D 36.4 575 SB Right A 6.4 165 A 3.7 57 EB Left A 4.8 15 A 3 15 EB Thru A 2.4 15 A 2.2 15 EB Right A 1.3 15 A 2.1 15 WB Left A 5.0 n.a.A 2.2 n.a. WB Thru A 0.5 n.a.A 0.3 n.a. WB Right A 1.8 n.a. -0.0 n.a. NB Left A 5.0 43 A 5.1 36 NB Right A 2.7 43 A 2.8 36 SB Left A 4.9 54 A 6.9 47 SB Right A 3.5 54 A 3.5 47 EB Thru A 0.6 n.a.A 0.4 n.a. EB Right A 0.7 n.a.A 0.3 n.a. WB Left -A 2.2 11 WB Thru A 0.2 n.a.A 0.1 11 NB Left A 4.4 47 A 4.1 42 NB Right A 2.9 47 A 2.9 42 Cedar Ave & 200th St W N 3.1 sec/veh = LOS A 3 sec/veh = LOS A AM PEAK PM PEAK Intersection Lane Assignment Intersection Traffic Control 2040 3/4 Build Conditions Cedar Ave & 205th St W N 2.7 sec/veh = LOS A 4 sec/veh = LOS A Cedar Ave & 202nd St W S 13.3 sec/veh = LOS B 21.3 sec/veh = LOS C Street A & 202nd St W N 1.9 sec/veh = LOS A 1.8 sec/veh = LOS A Lakeville Blvd & Cedar Ave S 47.7 sec/veh = LOS D 53.7 sec/veh = LOS D Street B & 200th St W N 1.1 sec/veh = LOS A 0.9 sec/veh = LOS A EB Left A 2.6 n.a.A 3 25 EB Thru A 1.3 n.a.A 1.6 25 EB Right A 0.7 n.a.A 1.4 25 WB Left -A 3.0 15 WB Thru A 0.2 n.a.A 0.2 15 WB Right -0.0 n.a.A 0.1 15 NB Left A 6.3 43 A 4.8 44 NB Right A 2.8 43 A 4.8 44 SB Left A 5.7 52 A 4.6 48 SB Right A 3.8 52 A 3.1 48 EB Thru A 0.4 n.a.A 0.4 n.a. EB Right A 0.6 n.a.A 0.4 n.a. WB Left A 1.7 n.a.A 1.9 n.a. WB Thru A 0.1 n.a. -0.0 n.a. NB Left A 4.9 28 A 3.5 28 NB Right A 2.6 28 A 2.2 28 EB Left A 2.2 9 A 2 n.a. EB Thru A 0.7 9 A 0.7 n.a. EB Right A 0.4 9 A 0.4 n.a. WB Thru A 0.1 n.a.A 0.1 n.a. NB Left A 3.8 34 A 4.3 26 SB Right A 2.9 28 A 2.6 18 Street B & 202nd St W N 1.5 sec/veh = LOS A 1.6 sec/veh = LOS A Street D & 205th St W N 0.9 sec/veh = LOS A 0.8 sec/veh = LOS A Street C & 200th St W N 0.6 sec/veh = LOS A 0.5 sec/veh = LOS A Cedar Hills 2040 AM Build 3/4 Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/17/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Study Page 1 1: Cedar Ave & 200th St W Performance by movement Movement EBR WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.4 2.6 0.2 2.7 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)3.3 8.0 0.7 4.1 4.0 9.8 0.4 0.0 3.1 2: Cedar Ave & 202nd St W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.5 0.8 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s)18.7 17.5 5.8 22.7 25.1 5.3 17.3 11.0 4.0 15.6 16.1 5.7 2: Cedar Ave & 202nd St W Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5 Total Del/Veh (s)13.3 3: Cedar Ave & 205th St W Performance by movement Movement WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.5 8.7 5.3 1.1 0.6 12.0 3.8 4.0 2.7 5: Street D & 205th St W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT NBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)2.2 0.7 0.4 0.1 3.8 2.9 0.9 7: Street B & 200th St W Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.6 0.7 0.2 4.4 2.9 1.1 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.6 1.0 3.4 4.3 3.7 4.3 3.0 0.3 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)56.1 31.4 6.3 78.2 82.0 46.3 55.0 44.1 5.8 60.1 28.8 6.4 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)2.2 Total Del/Veh (s)47.7 Cedar Hills 2040 AM Build 3/4 Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/17/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Study Page 2 19: Street A & 202nd St W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)4.8 2.4 1.3 5.0 0.5 1.8 5.0 2.7 4.9 3.5 1.9 22: Street B & 202nd St W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)2.6 1.3 0.7 0.2 0.0 6.3 2.8 5.7 3.8 1.5 31: Street C & 200th St W Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.4 0.6 1.7 0.1 4.9 2.6 0.6 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)2.1 Total Del/Veh (s)1016.6 Cedar Hills 2040 AM Build 3/4 Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/17/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Study Page 3 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & 200th St W Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served R R R L Maximum Queue (ft) 22 46 22 56 Average Queue (ft)4 24 2 25 95th Queue (ft)17 44 11 52 Link Distance (ft)1182 925 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)270 260 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Cedar Ave & 202nd St W Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T T R L T Maximum Queue (ft) 92 131 67 71 170 46 131 177 211 15 68 150 Average Queue (ft)57 43 37 25 78 17 57 78 90 1 9 83 95th Queue (ft)94 85 65 59 129 42 105 145 156 8 33 138 Link Distance (ft)1153 853 1249 1249 1245 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)260 260 260 260 285 285 270 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Cedar Ave & 202nd St W Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft) 130 81 Average Queue (ft)74 27 95th Queue (ft)132 59 Link Distance (ft)1245 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)270 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Cedar Hills 2040 AM Build 3/4 Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/17/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Study Page 4 Intersection: 3: Cedar Ave & 205th St W Movement WB NB SB Directions Served R L L Maximum Queue (ft) 110 29 52 Average Queue (ft)34 4 8 95th Queue (ft)68 20 29 Link Distance (ft)786 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)285 245 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Street D & 205th St W Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 26 30 30 Average Queue (ft)1 11 7 95th Queue (ft)9 34 28 Link Distance (ft)786 128 152 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 7: Street B & 200th St W Movement NB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 55 Average Queue (ft)21 95th Queue (ft)47 Link Distance (ft)207 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Cedar Hills 2040 AM Build 3/4 Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/17/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Study Page 5 Intersection: 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T T L T T Maximum Queue (ft) 175 221 93 410 1688 410 114 225 217 358 157 156 Average Queue (ft)81 128 37 285 750 289 55 150 119 146 73 86 95th Queue (ft)143 208 71 494 1453 545 97 219 201 255 122 135 Link Distance (ft)1394 1673 1318 1318 696 696 Upstream Blk Time (%)2 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)220 220 280 280 260 280 Storage Blk Time (%)1 1 29 1 Queuing Penalty (veh)2 5 181 1 Intersection: 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft) 220 Average Queue (ft)44 95th Queue (ft)165 Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)280 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 19: Street A & 202nd St W Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 32 31 54 Average Queue (ft)2 19 26 95th Queue (ft)15 43 54 Link Distance (ft)853 169 213 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Cedar Hills 2040 AM Build 3/4 Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/17/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Study Page 6 Intersection: 22: Street B & 202nd St W Movement NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 31 54 Average Queue (ft)23 22 95th Queue (ft)43 52 Link Distance (ft)146 199 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 31: Street C & 200th St W Movement NB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 30 Average Queue (ft)7 95th Queue (ft)28 Link Distance (ft)145 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 189 Cedar Hills 2040 PM Build 3/4 Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/17/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Study Page 1 1: Cedar Ave & 200th St W Performance by movement Movement EBR WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.3 1.5 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)5.7 10.0 11.9 5.3 4.1 5.6 0.7 0.0 3.0 2: Cedar Ave & 202nd St W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.3 1.4 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)22.0 22.5 11.0 24.6 32.8 10.4 32.1 20.4 4.7 23.5 25.2 8.4 2: Cedar Ave & 202nd St W Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6 Total Del/Veh (s)21.3 3: Cedar Ave & 205th St W Performance by movement Movement EBR WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)3.1 6.8 17.2 1.3 0.3 14.8 5.6 6.2 4.0 5: Street D & 205th St W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT NBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)2.2 0.7 0.4 0.1 4.3 2.6 0.8 7: Street B & 200th St W Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.4 0.3 2.2 0.1 4.1 2.9 0.9 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.1 1.5 2.9 3.1 1.3 2.9 2.8 0.4 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)80.6 56.5 15.9 69.1 61.0 15.9 64.3 60.0 30.4 108.7 36.4 3.7 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.5 Total Del/Veh (s)53.7 Cedar Hills 2040 PM Build 3/4 Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/17/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Study Page 2 19: Street A & 202nd St W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)3.4 2.2 2.1 2.2 0.3 0.0 5.1 2.8 6.9 3.5 1.8 22: Street B & 202nd St W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)3.1 1.6 1.4 3.0 0.2 0.1 4.8 4.8 4.6 3.1 1.6 31: Street C & 200th St W Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.4 0.4 1.9 0.0 3.5 2.2 0.5 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.6 Total Del/Veh (s)1894.6 Cedar Hills 2040 PM Build 3/4 Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/17/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Study Page 3 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & 200th St W Movement EB WB NB NB SB Directions Served R R L R L Maximum Queue (ft) 19 84 22 22 52 Average Queue (ft)1 20 1 1 15 95th Queue (ft)6 49 8 7 41 Link Distance (ft)1182 925 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)270 270 260 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Cedar Ave & 202nd St W Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T T R L T Maximum Queue (ft) 155 109 155 49 178 23 241 286 323 16 89 258 Average Queue (ft)84 63 75 14 95 10 106 125 143 5 32 147 95th Queue (ft)130 108 130 40 152 26 194 212 251 16 70 230 Link Distance (ft)1153 853 1249 1249 1245 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)260 260 260 260 285 285 270 Storage Blk Time (%)0 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 0 Intersection: 2: Cedar Ave & 202nd St W Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft) 234 126 Average Queue (ft)134 53 95th Queue (ft)215 100 Link Distance (ft)1245 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)270 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Cedar Hills 2040 PM Build 3/4 Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/17/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Study Page 4 Intersection: 3: Cedar Ave & 205th St W Movement EB WB NB NB SB Directions Served R R L R L Maximum Queue (ft) 22 47 31 21 114 Average Queue (ft)1 23 3 1 35 95th Queue (ft)10 44 17 7 75 Link Distance (ft)254 786 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)285 285 245 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Street D & 205th St W Movement NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 30 30 Average Queue (ft)6 3 95th Queue (ft)26 18 Link Distance (ft)128 152 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 7: Street B & 200th St W Movement WB NB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue (ft) 32 31 Average Queue (ft)1 19 95th Queue (ft)11 42 Link Distance (ft)1473 207 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Cedar Hills 2040 PM Build 3/4 Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/17/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Study Page 5 Intersection: 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T T R L T Maximum Queue (ft) 420 970 420 409 620 410 116 267 352 445 410 624 Average Queue (ft)301 420 64 193 337 109 61 187 172 240 341 268 95th Queue (ft)471 706 265 347 530 311 113 278 283 410 479 575 Link Distance (ft)1394 1673 1318 1318 696 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)220 220 280 280 260 260 280 Storage Blk Time (%)25 31 0 20 1 0 10 38 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 164 114 1 93 1 0 23 70 0 Intersection: 14: Cedar Ave & Lakeville Blvd Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft) 536 171 Average Queue (ft)145 6 95th Queue (ft)281 57 Link Distance (ft)696 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)280 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 19: Street A & 202nd St W Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 31 30 53 Average Queue (ft)2 12 21 95th Queue (ft)15 36 47 Link Distance (ft)853 169 213 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Cedar Hills 2040 PM Build 3/4 Peak Hour Conditions Lakeville, MN 10/17/2019 Westwood Professional Services SimTraffic Report Traffic Impact Study Page 6 Intersection: 22: Street B & 202nd St W Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 32 31 56 55 Average Queue (ft)5 2 16 20 95th Queue (ft)25 15 44 48 Link Distance (ft)963 616 146 199 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 31: Street C & 200th St W Movement NB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 30 Average Queue (ft)7 95th Queue (ft)28 Link Distance (ft)145 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 467