Loading...
3400 Yankee Dr - COMMSERV CORP Environmental Assessment 1982 ' 1 , ~ COMSERV C~RPORATI~N r ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 z y , ~F s~ ys. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ~a ~ A~SESSMENT ;j W~RKSHEET ~ 1 Y. i: I' •i f~• i[k ' f': 6"r l~; ~ ' `~k P;r :T ' ~ri F:` ::~i ' ~ i~ 1 ~ BRAUER AND ASSOCIATES LTD., INC. ~ ..s~:~.~~,-~z~Y ~ t ~~~`~~~h s JANUARY 1982 ~ +~i^i".'~,~"x S e'~3r%~ji f Z t~ ~r° ~r ` ~ Yl ~:~Y.d'~~`11. 5^~~ba ~ i% V~{ - ~ ~ M j~C.yS~;~~~~~ ~ i + y,`~J~~~,'nrA€~,''s ' 4 ~~;+r'~SkSC.~i "!~i~%;~.~"+~`•i`S4 R~`ku~~~i'1'o?r.ai~~~~f~.~Yrt~a~Afi•'i~..K.~".~r.:~.1,Y.'~6`s~:a~. e.~..~'.w.a~3`~' , . MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD ' ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMEi'rT WORKSHEET(EAW) AND NOTICE OF FINDINGS , DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE E.R. # , NOTE: The purpose of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) is to provide ~ information on a project so that one can assess rapidly whether or not the ' project requires an Environmental Impact Statement. Pttach additional pages, charts, maps, etc., as needed to answer these questions. Your answers should be as specific as possible: Indicate which answers are esti- ' mated. 1. SUMMARY , A. ACTIVITY FINDING BY RESPONSIBLE AGENCY (PERSON) 0 Negative Declaration (No. EIS) E] EIS Preparation Notice (EIS Required) 1 B. ACTIVITY IDENTIFICATION ' 1. Project Name or Title Proposed Headquarters facility 2. Project Proposer(s) COMSERV Corporation , Address 1385 Mendota Heights Road, Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 Telephone Number and Area Code 612 452-7770 ' 3. Responsible Agency or Person City of Eagan Address 3795 Pilot Knob Road, Eagan, Minnesota 55122 1 Person in Responsible Agency (Person) to contact for further information ~ on this EAW: Dale Runkle Telephone 454-8100 ' 4. This EAW and other supporting documentation are available for public inspection and/or copying at: Location Eagan City Hall , Telephone 454-8100 Hours 8:00-4:30 5. Reason for EAW Preparation ' % Mandatory Category-cite Q Petition Q Other MEQB Rule number(s) 24B.1.b. ' C. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION SUMMARY ' 1. ProJect Location County Dakota City/Township name Eagan , -1- , 1 1 ' Township number 27N Range number 23W Section number(s) 8 and 17 ' Street address (if in City) or leual description: , A 65.5 acre parcel west of STH 13 (Sibley Memorial Highway) and ( south of Yankee Doodle road (refer to Figures 1 and 2). , 2. Type and scope of proposed project: Project will be a multi-phased development consisting of a new COMSERV corporate headquarters facility, with offices, computer space, class- ' roams, cafeteria and warefiouse space; and a secondary officeiindustrial complex to be developed separately on excess acreage: , A. COMSERV Gross Sq.ft. Gross Sq.Ft. Total Est. Total Completion Office Non-Office Sq.Ft. EmplOyees Year Phase I 145,000 ,000* 191,000 440 1983 ' Phase II 115,000 0 115,000 840 Undetermined Phase III 90,000 4,000** 94,000 1,200 Undetermined *Computer space--10,000; cafeteria--13,000; warehouse/storage-- , 6,OD0; classrooms--8,000; parking--9,000. **Additional cafeteria space. ' Ultimate parking spaces (est.)--1,600. B. Secondary Office/Industrial Complex--350,000 gross sq.ft., 1,550 employees (est.). Completion year undetermined: Parking spaces (est.)--1,800. ' 3. Estimated starting date (month/year) March 1982 (Phase I) , 4. Estimated completion date (month/year) January, 1983 (Phase I) 5. Estimated construction cost $10 million (Phase I) ' 6. List any federal funding involved and known permits or approvals needed from each unit of government and status of each: ' Unit of Government (federal, state, Name or Type of Permit/Approval reqional, local or Federal Funding Status ' City of Eagan Prelim. plat and detailed site Not initiated plan approval Final plat approval and Not initiated ' development agreement w/6ond Landscape plan approval w/bond Not initiated Building permit Not initiated , Excavation permit w/bond May not be required , _p_ ' ' ' 7. If federal permits, funding or approvals are involved, will a federal EIS be prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act? X NO _ YES _ UNKNOWN , Federal permits, funding or approvals are not expected to be involved. No Federal EI5 will be required. , II. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION ~ A. Maps and graphics are included following the EAW. ' B. Present land use. ' i. Briefly describe the present use of the site and lands adjacent to the site. The site is presently owned by Multi-Clean Products Co., but is being used only for cash cropping of corn and soybeans (refer to Figures 3 and 4). , About two acres are used for stormwater ponding (Figure 5). Adjacent land uses are: to northeast--warehousing and vacant land; to southeast--Blue Cross offices; to southwest--industrial and vacant; to northwest--railroad , track, vacant land, and river flood plain. Adjacent land uses are depicted in figures 5 and 6. ' 2. Indicate the approximate acreages of the site that are: a. Urban development 0 acres f. Wetlands (Type III, IV, V) 0 acres ' b. Urban vacant 0 acres g. Shoreland 0 acres c. Rural developed 0 acres h. Floodplain 0 acres , d. Rural vacant 14.4 acres i. Cropland/Pasture land 45.0 acres e. Designated Rec- j. Forested 6.1 acres , reation/Open Space 0 acres ~ ' 3. List names and sizes of lakes, rivers and streams on or near the site, particularly lakes within 1,000 feet and rivers and streams within 300 feet. ' None. The Minnesota River lies 3,200 feet (0.6 mile) to the northwest. C. Activity Description , i. Describe the proposed activity, including staging of development (if any), operational characteristics, and major types of equipment and/or , processes to be used. Include data that would indicate the magnitude of the proposed activity (e.g. rate of production, number of customers, tons of raw materials, etc.). ' Uses proposed are a four-story corporate headquarters (60 ft. max. height) for a company that provides data processing and computing services, com- puter software (program) pre-paration and instruction in canputer use. 1 , -3- ' , This facility will include, ultimately, 400,000 gross square feet of building space, plus an estimated 1,600 parking spaces, to serve an esti- mated 1,200 employees, plus visitors and customers. Site development, ' requiring approximately 40,3 acres, will also include landscaping and planting, strolling-jogging trails, retention of woods as a natural area, stormwater retention, and a scenic water feature. ' A street right-of-way will occupy 2.0 acres. ~ The remaining 23.2 acres of the site is contemplated for development as an ' office/industrial complex and such other uses as are permitted in accor- dance with the industrial zoning district. Floor area will be an esti- mated maximum of 350,000 gross sq.ft., to serve approximately 1,550 employees. There will be an estimated 1,800 parking spaces. t Except for Phase I of the corporate headquarters facility, the timing of the project has not been determined. ' 2. Fill in the following where applicable: ' a. Total project area 65.5 acres h. Vehicular traffic trips 1,100 Ph. I generated per day est. 8,721 ultimate b. Number of housing or units 0 i. Number of employees 440 Ph. I , c. Height of Structures 60 ft. (max.) 2,750 ultimate d. Num6er of parking j. Water supply needed spaces Est. 830 Ph. I Source: municipal 18,300 Ph. I 3,400 ultimate I1 , 83 ultimate gal/da ' e. Amount of dredging 0 cu. yd. k. Solid waste requiring 275 Ph. I disposal 1,718 ultimate tons/yr f. Liquid wastes requir- ing treatment 16,470 Ph. I 1. Commercial, retail or ' 75,000 uTtFi ate gal/da industrial floor space 191,000 Ph. I 750,000 ultimate sq.ft. ~ g. Size of marina and access ' channel (water area) 0 sq.ft. I. ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT A. SOILS AND TOPOGRAPNY ' 1. Will the pro,ject be built in an area with slopes currently exceeding 12%? X NO YES , 2. Are there other geologically unstable areas involved in a project, such as fault zones, shrink-swell soils, peatlands, or sinkholes? X NO YES ' 3. If yes on 1 or 2, describe slope conditions or unstable area and any measures to be used to reduce potential adverse impacts. ' G -4- , ' ' 4. Indicate suitability of site soils for foundations, individual septic systems, and ditching, if these are included in the project. ' A soil investigation conducted in December, 1981 indicates the presence of non-cohesive and compressible soils at varying depths, in several loca- tions. It may be necessary to remove inferior soils and replace with can- ' pacted granular fill to provide sufficient bearing for building footings. I , 5. Estimate the total amount of grading and filling which will be done: 294,700 cu. yd. grading 0 cu. yd. filling What percent of the site will be so altered? Est. 61 % 1 6. What will be the maximum finished slopes? Est. 10 % , 7. What steps will be taken to minimize soil erosion during and after ' construction? Stilling ponds, use of straw bale dikes, seeding and sodding. , B. VEGETATION ' 1. Approximately what percent of the site is in each of the following vegetative types:, Cropland/ , Woodland 9.3 % Pasture 68.7 % Brush or shrubs -T.-5% Marsh 0% Grass or herbaceous 18.5 % Other ' (specify) 0 X , 2. How many acres of forest or woodland will be cleared, if any? 1-2 acres The mixed-species woodlot on site is not of high quality. It consists largely of box elder, Siberian elm and brush, much of which is in poor , condition. ' 3. Are there any rare or endangered plant species or areas of unique botanical or biological siqnificance on or near the site? (See DNR publication The Uncommon Ones.) X NO YES , If yes, list the species or area and indicate any measures to be used to reduce potential adverse impact. ' -5- ' ' , ' C. FISH AND WILDLIFE ' 1. Are there any designated federal, state or local wildlife or fish manage- ment areas or sanctuaries near or adjacent to the site? NO X YES Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge is 0.6 iniles from site. ~ ' 2. Are there any known rare or endangered species of fish and wildlife on or near the site? (See DNR publication The Uncommon Ones.) X NO YES ' 3. Will the project alter or eliminate wildlife or fish habitat? X NO _ YES Wildlife utilization of the site is minimal. , 4. If yes on any of questions 1-3, list the area, species or habitat, and indicate any measures to be used to reduce potential adverse impact on them. ' The distance from the wildlife refuge should in itself minimize adverse impact on wildlife and habitat. ' D. HYDROLOGY i. Will the project include any of the following: ' If yes, describe type of work and mitigative measures to reduce adverse impacts. ' NO YES a. Drainage or alteration of any lake, pond, marsh, lowland or groundwater supply % ' A designated runoff storage area plus additional ponding area will 6e retained in a natural state. ' b. Shore protection works, dams, or dikes l( ~ c. Dredging or filling operations X , d. Channel modifications or diversions X ' e. Appropriation of ground and/or surface water X f. Other changes in the course, current or cross- section of water bodies on or near the site X ' 2. What percent of the area will 6e converted to new impervious surface? 60% ' 3. What measures will be taken to reduce the volume of surface water runoff and/or treat it to reduce pollutants (sediment, oil, gas, ete.)? Runoff storage areas will detain runoff from impervious surfaces and ' allow sedimentation before release to storm sewer system. ' -6- ~ ' 1 ' 4. Will there be encroachment into the regional (100 year) flood- plain by new fill or structures? X NO YES t If yes, does it conform to the local floodplain ordinance? Not applicable. 5. What is the approximate minimum depth to groundwater on the ~ ' site? avg. 14 feet The soil borings encountered groundwater at varying depths, generally , dropping from north to south across the site. The sedge-swale area on site may be seasonally waterlogged, with a depth to water table of one to two feet. ' E. WATER QUALITY 1. Will there be a discharge of process or cooling water, sanitary t sewage or other waste waters to any water body or to groundwater? X NO YES ' If yes, specify the volume, the concentration of pollutants and the water body receiving the effluent. 2. If discharge of waste water to the municipal treatment system is , planned, identify any toxic, corrosive or unusual pollutants in the wastewater. None. ' 3. Will any sludges be generated by the proposed project? X NO YES If yes, specify the expected volume, chemical composition and method of ' disposal. 4. What measures will be used to minimize the volumes or impacts iden- tified in questions 1-3? , None are contemplated. The only source of discharge will be ~ washrooms, janitor sinks and the cafeteria kitchen. ' 5. If the project is or includes a landfill, attach information on soil profile, depth of water table, and prbposed depth of disposal. ' The project does not include a landfill. F. AIR QUALITY AND NOISE ' 1. Will the activity cause the emission of any gases and/or particulates into the atmosphere? NO X YES ' Emissions will result from building heating only. The quantity will depend upon the need for backup heating to supplement the heat reco- vered from computers, which will largely suffice for Phase I develop- ' ment. At ultimate development and peak heating load, stack emissions are estimated as not more than 2.1 lbs/hr of particulates, and not more than 10.3 lbs/hr of 502, based on State regulations. ' 1 ~ -7- , ' 1 ~ 2. Will noise or vibration be generated by construction and/or operation of the project? NO X YES t Earthmoving equipment, cranes and heavy trucks will be the principal I sources of noise during the construction period. Thereafter, noise will be limited to automobile and occasional truck traffic. The nearest significant receptor is the Blue Cross Insurance 6uilding, ' about 400 feet from potential construction activity. The cumulative noise level of three scrapers (88 dBA at 50') and two dozers (80 dBA at 50') at 400 feet is estimated as 69 dBA. The daytime standard for , insurance offices is (NAC-2) Llp = dBA, LSp = 65 dBA. The building envelope should provide sufficient attenuation, about 20 d6A, to mitigate this impact. The nearest residences are about 1/4 mile from ' the site. The cumulative noise level for the same equipment is esti- mated as 59 dBA at that distance. The daytime standard for residen- ces (NCA-1) is Llp = 65 dBA, L50 = 60 dBA. Again, the building envelope should provide additional attenuation (approximately 20 dBA with windows closed) to minimize the impact. Additionally, most of the noise will be masked by traffic on Highway 13. No vibration or ~ impulse sources, such as a piledriver, are expected to be encountered. ' Hours of operation are estimated as 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., weekdays only, for a duration of 30 to 60 days for excavation. Building construction noise is not expected to approach or exceed applicable standards in state regulation NPC 2. ' 3. If yes on 1 or 2, specify whether any areas sensitive to noise or reduced air quality (hospitals, elderly housing, wilderness, wildlife ' areas, residential developments, etc.) are in the affected area and give distance from source. Residential development occurs about 1/4 mile from the site. The ' estimated construction noise level was estimated to be below the L50 I noise standard. A wildlife refuge is 0.6 miles away, at which distance the noise will have attenuated below the background level of ' 55-60 dBA mapped in the Baseline Environmental Inventory, Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. t G. LAND RESOURCE CONSERVATION, ENERGY ' 1. Is any of the site suitable for agricultural or forestry production or currently in such use? NO X YES 2. Are there any known mineral or peat deposits on the site? X NO YES ' 3. Will the project result in an increased energy demand? NO X YES 1 '8' I t ~ ' ' ' Complete the following as applicable: ' a. Energy requirements (oil, electricity, gas, coal, solar, etc.) ~ Estimated Peak Demand ' I Annual (Hourly or Daily) Anticipated Firm Contract or I Type Requirement Summer Winter Su plier Interru tible Basis? ~ Natural 2,193 mcf Ph, 2.5 mcf/dy 110 mcf/dy Minnesota gas 63,116 mcf U1 10.9 mcf/dy 3,155 mcf/d Gas Com an Interrupti6le ' lec- 5.51 mkw Ph. 700 w 80 kw orthern tricity 18.9 mkwh Ult 4,000 kw 5,600 kw States Power Firtn I 2,100 ga. Ph. Any local ' Fuel Oil 12,000 ga. U1 0 600 gpd sup lier Firm i ' b. Estimate the capacity of all proposed on-site fuel storage. 5,000 gallons c. Estimate annual energy distribution for: ' space heating 36 % ventilation 14.5 % processing 0 X ' air conditionin9 22 % lighting 13.5 % hot water 4% d. Specify any major energy conservation systems and/or equipment t incorporated into this project. The facilities will be designed to exceed State energy code requirements by ' at least 50%. The corporate headquarters facility will have an energy management system to control the HVAC for demand and setback. A heat pump will be used in conjunction with a variable-volume air handling system, ~ which has constant air supply and variable return. This provides such advantages as waste heat recovery from in-house camputers and other I electrical equipment, sufficient to meet all but peak requirements, and 'free' cooling from ambient air. , The secondary office/industrial complex will also be computer-managed for maximum heating and cooling efficiency. Both facilities will be heavily ' insulated, to minimize heat losses and gains. e. What secondary energy use effects may result from this project (e.g. more or longer car trips, induced housing or businesses, etc.)? ~ The initial hases of develo ment will p p generate no significant secondary enerqy use impacts, as the existing facility is nearby in Mendota Heights, ' and the bulk of employees live in Apple Ualley, Burnsville, Eagan and St. Paul, within a relatively short commuting distance. During subsequent phases, with expansion of the corporate staff and rental of office space, there will be an increase in commuter trips, although transit and paratran- sit systems may 6e available. There will likely be a generation of housing , demand in the sub-region also. i, t ~ i -9- 1 ' H. OPEN SPACE/RECREATION ' I 1. Are there any designated federal, state, county or locat recreation or I open space areas near the site (including wild and scenic river, trails, ' lake accesses)? NO X YES I If yes, list areas by name and explain how each may be affected by the ' project. Indicate any measures to be used to reduce adverse impacts. I I Part of the Ilinnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge is on the far side of the ' I Minnesota River, 0.6 miles from the site. Fort Snelling State Park is on the near side of the river, 0.7 miles from the site. Portions nearest the site are , undeveloped flood plain, with no nearby public access. Because of distance from ' I~ these areas and the non-disruptive character of the project, the impact on recreation and open space areas is expected to be negligible. The facility will also not intrude unduly on the viewsheds from these areas. , ~I. TRANSPORTATIQN 1. Will the project affect any existing or proposed transportation systems (highway, railroad, water, airport, etc.)? NO X YES A traffic analysis was prepared by 5trgar-Roscoe, Inc., consulting engineers. The conclusion was that Phase I development would result in a change in the level of service from E to F during the P.M. peak hours at the inter- ~ section of Highway 13 and Yankee Doodle Road, which is signalized. There will be a need to add traffic signals at Highway 13 and Black Hawk Road, and extend a street through the site from Blackhawk to Yankee Doodle Roads ~ to compensate for this condition. ' I For the ultimate site development (year 2000), assuming that Highway I-35E is ; in service, no further improvements will be needed. The attached memorandum explains this conclusion. 2. Is mass transit available to the site? X NO YES ~ ' 3. What measures, including transit and paratransit services, are planned to reduce adverse impacts? None currently planned. Such service is being considered, however. J. PLANNING, LAND USE, COMMUNITY SERVICES 1. Is the project consistent with local and/or regional comprehensive plans? NO X YES ' I The project also is consistent with present zoning. ' If a zoning change or special use permit is necessary, indicate existing i zoning and change requested. None required. -10- ~ i ~ ' I I , I I 2. Will the type or height of the project conflict with the character , of the existing neighborhood? X NO YES There is a comparable building in the immediate vicinity, across Highway 13, ~ If yes, explain and describe any measures to be used to reduce conflicts. ' I I , i 3. How many emplo,yees will move into the area to be near the project? How much new housing will be needed? ' i During the first or second phase of development of the COMSERV headquarters h facility, few, possibly no employees will relocate specifically to be near the facility. During later phases, including the construction of the rental office building, the project will become a fairly significant source of em- ' ployment, and possibly 1,000 employees may in-migrate to the region or relo- cate within ten miles of the site. With other considerations, such as two- income families and the actual formation of new households, an exact housing ' demand cannot be ascertained, particularly since the total project timeline is indefinite at this date. It will have a negligible effect on the estimated I regional demand of over 200,000 units needed in the region within the next ' I five years. p ~ p y--either suppart services ~ 4. Will the ro'ect induce develo ment nearb or similar developments? X NO YES I 5. Is there sufficient capacity in the following pu6lic services to handle the project and any associated growth? I ' I Amount required , Public Service for project* Sufficient capacity? ' water 114,583 gal/da yes I wastewater treatment 103,125 gal/da yes sewer 0 feet yes ~ schools 0 pupils es solid waste dis osal 143 ton/mo es streets 0 mil~fety not presently other police, fire, etc. public services are ade uate *Based upon ultimate development. I -11- 1 II If current major public facilities are not adequate, do existing local i plans call for expansion, or is expansion necessary strictly for this one project and its associated impacts? No. 6. Is the project within a proposed or designated Critical Area or part of ~ a Related Actions EIS or other environmentally sensitive plan or program ~ , reviewed by the EQC? X NO YES I If yes, specify which area or plan. 7. Will the project involve the use, transportation, storage, release or : disposal of potentialiy hazardous or toxic liquids, solids or gaseous 'i substances such as pesticides, radioactive wastes, poisons, etc.? , I X NO YES I If yes, please specify the substance and rate of usage and any measures to be taken to minimize adverse environmental impacts from accidents. I , 8. When the project has served its useful life, wi1T retirement of the facility require special measures or plans? X NO YES IK. HISTORIC RESOURCES ~ 1. Are there any structures on the site older than 50 years or on federal 1 or state historical registers? R NO YES 2. Have any arrowheads, pottery or other evidence of prehistoric or early ' 'I settlement been found on the site? X NO YES Might any known archaeologic or palentological sites be affected I by the activity? X NO YES ' I 3. List any site or structure identified in 1 and 2 and explain any impact on them. I There are known camp and burial sites in the vicinity, hence a literature ~ search and field study, including shovel tests, was carried out in November, 1981, by Uernon Helmen, archaeologist. No significant evidence of pre- ~ historic use or occupation was discovered. A copy of his report was forwarded ; to the State Historic Preservation Officer. 1 IL. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS Describe any other major environmental affects which may not have been ~ identified in the previous sections. None to our knowledge. , IV.i OTHER MITIGATIVE MEASURES I ' IBriefly describe mitigative measures proposed to reduce or eliminate lpotential adverse impacts that have not been described before. ' i There are no known adverse impacts in addition to those previously discussed. ' I t I -12- ; , U. FINDINGS I The project is a private ~X ) government " action. The Responsi6le Agency 1 (Person), after consideration of the information in the EAW, and the factors in Minn. Reg. MEQB 25, makes the following findings. i I1. The project is LZ is not ( X) a major action. ( ' j State reasons: ' II I ' 12. The project does " does not ( X) have the potential for significant , environmpntal affects. State reasons: i ' 1i3. (For private actions only.) The project is is not X~ of more than local significance. , j State reasons: I , VI.iCONCLUSI0N5 AND CERTIFICATION ~ ' INOTE: A Negative Declaration or EIS Preparation Noice is not officially filed ' until the date of pu6lication of the notice in the EQB Monitor section. i IA. I, the undersigned, am either the authorized representative of the Responsible ' I Agency or the Responsible Person identified beiow. 8ased on the above findings, the Responsible Agency (Person) makes the following conclusions. (Complete ~ either 1 or 2). , I~1. _ NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE No EIS is needed on this project, because the project is not a ; major action and/or does not have the potential for significiant environmental effects and/or, for private actions oniy, the project is not of more than local significance. ' I ~ -13- t I , I ,I ' t 2. EIS PREPARRTION NOTICE An EIS will be prepared on this project because the project is a , major action and has the potential for significant environmental effects. For private actions, the project is also of more than I local significance. , a. The MEQB Rules provide that physical construction or operation of the ~ projec-c must stop when an EIS is required. In special circumstances, the MEQB can specifically authorize limited construction to begin or ' I continue. If you feel there are special circumstances in this project, specify the extent of progress recommended and the reasons. b. Date Draft EIS will be submitted: month day year (MEQB Rules require that the Draft EIS be submitted ~within 120 ~daY_ s ' of publication of the EIS Preparation Notice in the QB MoE nitor. rf special circumstances prevent compliance with this time limit, a . written request for extension explaining the reasons for the request , must be submitted to the EQB Chairman.) ' c. The Draft EIS will be prepared by (list Responsible Agency(s) or Person(s)]: , ,B. Attach an affidavit certifying the date that copies of this EAW were mailed to all points on the official EQB distribution list, to the city and county directly impacted, and to adjacent counties or municipalities likely to be directly impacted by the proposed action (refer to question III.J.4 on page 9 of the EAW). The affidavit need be attached only to the copy of the EAW which is sent to the EQB Administrator. , [C. Billing procedures for EQB Monitor Publication. ~ ' State agency Attach to the EAW sent to the EQB Administrator a completed OSR 100 form (State Register General Order Form--available , at Central Stores). For instructions, please contact your Agency's Liaison Officer to the State Register or the Office of the State Register--(612 296-8239. ' I hereby certify that the information contained in this document is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. ' SIGNATURE , TITLE DATE -14- ' , ' ' Twin Cities Metropolitan Area ~ ~xoo ~ w ~ 3 I I ~ r' .wnswN" m • '?I ENN'RNI fl1M3 ~ >7 • . ; - -r ~ i - ~ -I ` i ~ CMVEF ~ ~l, 2. ~ i. si ` . " ' ~ ~ ~ i V p . econ - " " _ ~o.aou . . . L- ' w ...x, , -I C ~ = L ' ~ SITE LQCATION FIG. 1 COMSERV CORPORATION ' PROPOSEQ CORPORATE HEADOUARTERS FACILITY Q EAGAN, MINNESOTA NO SCALE ' - ~ - ~ - - - _l . ' 8 N~~wsat~ rn RR \ ? MULTI-CI.EAN a \ PRODUCTS s 24.35 ac. ~ 010-18 0 0 m ~ O x ti ° MULTI-CLEAN yF PRODUCTS 41.71 ac. 010-25 1 i 1 GOVT. LOT 1 I ' ' i 40~ ~470- ' ~~m Ni9Away ; , 79 i ' Blue Cross Additlon i ' • ~ i 1 PROPERTY F'IG. 2 • COMSERV CORPORATION I PROPOSED CORPOFiATE HEADQUARTERS FACILITY .EAGAN, 1AINNESOTA (SQURCE: PLAT HQQIU. _-1c-300- ' ' ::~=Y~.~~~~,•. ~ j~ ~ • . . . . ' . . ~z^~_ - ~...s I' t t ' . ~ '4ia . ¢ ' . ' . . _ .wi ? ~i'}f`Q~i '`t-. ?va ~ ~ ~a r . ~ ^/9/ s'.. 'Y* -~7 , ~ r '~Ir• ~ . ' , • . ~ r~`.i~~ z7o . w:~. '~~\~T g~pp - 11YIMAl OIIIII[ >tl > 4a „ : ~ a l~T~'`~ i.l;' '-•4~ ~ .i. . ik = 3s~"' ~x , T~~ c 4a . o 1va'~' ' ~:.a. 1 7. ' i~ ~ I ' j w W ,p Y t ~ .r ~ ~iV t t' °a' 1 2 . ~Ap' `~.i ± ~ M~y •a~ ~.~1` ~}n b ~ ~ \S," ~ ~ir ' -Illor",~,,.',-...°i. ~ AIR PHOTO FIG. 3 ~ ' COMSERV CORPORATION IQ PROPOSED CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS FACILITY EAGAN, MINNESOTA , 1' : 300° ' Northw~st~ - ro qq ~ ' % % ~ ~ ~ m ~ FIELD Q ' WOODS o 1S SEDGE ' I I FIELD ~ ~ i ~ ?H9hwar 13 , 81us Cross Addltfon ~ SKETCH MAP FIG. 4` ' COMSERV CORPORATION IQ PROPOSED CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS FACILITY EAGAN, MINNESOTA 1' : soo' ' ' ~ . ~ ~ ~ ! • ' uQ ~ ~ • . • - ~ • i • ~F ' ~ • MEADO R. L:.~ ~JOHN ' • i /Ist Q' ADD. , • i ~ ' , ~ S~ ~ / • ' ~ ~ • SI m / . ^ . . ~ ~ • `+u oW ~ ~ • - RIVERGATE N U TA m. ov • VILLA d7S uw,. V / ° ;,,k - . ~~,r' , ~ Q F~, • TowN ' ~ _ ' I O % • < HOUSE Dig ; Fox I • - Q • ,t • RIDGE ~ - ~ , • HILI4P ~ ~ J LNm ~StTE ~ enkse Do la Roa aJ ri il~-°~y~~~,~ ~ ~ / ? f o r;Y B4 C ~ PO~ I KS I _ 'DG CE INDU TAL A LO i j / ~ • ,n, ~tp~ 0 C, t ' G • C_ J . 17 • W qf~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ • •i~ ~`Y'~~~'I'~`l~ • • ~ , I \ KENOP • ~2' • • ~ ~ Q ~ •'_w • • ~ eL K I TIO_N • ~ ~ . • • • ~ • F ~~ctc ' O \ ~ I • \ • ~R~!S A} F r--- ' - ~ ~ . ~ IL L1 • ~ e . _ 13 F L L ~ ~ % ` • (.EN ' EASYSTR ~ GANE RO CE A M TE ~ q ~ --y- t~r--I, - - 17 ~ILVER ~ LAND USE FIGe S ~ ' C4MSERV CORPORATION Q PROPOSED CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS FACILITY EAGAN, MINNESOTA (SOURCE: CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) NO SCALE 1 ~ti ~ ~ • 0 ~ I ~ ~ ' • 5, 694 ~ ~ i ~I I i~ ~l , ~ ) I~ , : ' ~ ' ( ~ ~ - . ` • ' I i~= ' , ii ~ ~ •I ~f ; j , ~ ~ ~~I ~ ~ f_~-~, ~ ~ - • . ~ , 41- . 1 tss' i~,y i I.:-~ _ . ' _ • : . . . . 1, ~ ~ ~ ~ l-~ f~ ~ 9re • ~ V. J.:'= , ~t~ ~ - . - ~i ~ ~ ; ~ o ~ ' i ' / ~ : - ~ ~ ~ Gravel Pits z~ , „~at¢r TenF I -:l. ~ 7 g ~ ~Z 9,~ J a I • ~ I ~ ~ I i . r ~ ? , ~ ~~.d ~ ~ ~ ~ i A r ~ , _ , ~ ! s' ¦ \ 847~~ . \ YANKEE •_D7 ~ 1_... Q =C<1 ]i_ ' ~ _ ~ ~~Q. 1't~__~~ 1 , • _ ~ ~1: P?~ f'. • ~ ? . , ~ ~ ~ .-3a,~ i~~ ~ . . - ( ' • k ~17~ V 875 16 ' - ' ~ . . _ ! ' ~ • ~~~\~i , ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~ • x,cols pPGO ~';i / Jl / 1 j ` \ ` i 'I ~ i~ J~``t~ ~ _ ° ~•~~~J~ `~Blaekhawk Lake ~ _ > - . i--~(''~ ..n~ ~ -~l- ~ • I~yl 1 l,~ . . L ~ _ ' i Fi Gjevel-Pits . O,? ~ J ` '>w ~ J ' ti T~ 1 ' ~ ? i~\ ~ 1 I ' ,F ~ J^\_~ ~ . ~oo el Pit. B60 In ~ `ti~• 1~ : i L~ ~ ~ll~ • ~ j'~ ! ~ ~ ~ JI ~ ; ~ . i ~ i ~ Y ° . sm .J• ~ ~j~ j S ~c'" ~ ~ . .w n .J ~ COMSERV CORPORATION FIG. 6 ~ PROPOSED CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS FACILITY , EAGAN, MINNESOTA MAP : USGS ST. PAUL SW QUADRANGLE, 1:24,000 1 ~ - STRGAR-RO5COE, INC. CONSULTIVG ENGItiF.ERS ¦ LA1D SCRVEYORS ' 630 Twelve Oaks Center, 15500 Wayzata Boulevard Wayzata, Minnesota 55391-1485 ' 161 21 475-001 0 . ( Refer To File: December 12, 1981 1 MEMOR,4NDUM ' ' T0: Fred Hoisington Brauer and Associates Ltd., Inc. 7901 Flying Cloud Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 ' FROM: James A. Benshoof ~ A Allan S. Klugman Jl, ~ ' SUBJECT: Traffic Analysis for Proposed Comserv Headquarters ' INTRODUCTION ' 7he purpose of this memorandum is to summarize our findings on the traffic analysis for the proposed Comserv Headquarters to be located west of T.H. 13 and Yankee Doodle Road in Eagan. The analysis conducted included input from ' the Minnesota Deoartment of Transportation, the Metropoli*_an Council, Dakota County and the City of Eagan. Analyses were performed for two test cases. One case is the year 1983 at which time Phase 1 of the Comserv development ~ would be open but I-35E would not yet be open through the City of Eagan. ' The second case is the year 2000 at which time the full Comserve site will be developed and I-35E will be in operation. Detailed analysis was performed for the T.H. 13 and Yankee Doodle Road intersection. From this intersection, ' Comserv traffic would disperse to several routes and would not be expected to cause any negative impacts on those roadways. The remainder of this memoran- dum is organized into the following sections: ' • Existing Conditions at T.H. 13 and Yankee Doodle Road ' o Traffic Forecasts • Traffic Analyses ' • Conclusions , ' 1 ' ' -Z- EXISTING CONDITIONS ~ ' ' ' On the City Thoroughfare Plan, bot.h T.H. 13 and Yankee Doodle Road are classified as minor arterials. Current traffic counts at the intersection of these two roads show that 26,000 vehicles use the intersection daily. ' Truck traffic constitutes 8.5 percent of the total volume on T.H. 13. The four approaches to the intersection all have 3 lanes: a separate left turn lane, a through lane and a separate right turn lane. The posted speed limits in the vicinity of the intersection are 50 m.p.h. on T.H. 13 and 50 m.p.h. on ' Yankee Doodle Road east of T.H. 13. Over the past 4 years the accident rate at this intersection has been 1.4 accidents per mil?ion vehicles entering the intersection. This is slightly below the average accident rate of 1.5 acci- ' dents per million vehicles for intersections of a similar type in the District 9 area. ' Capacity ana'yses were performed at this intersection to determine the exist- ing level of service for both the a.m. peak hour and the o.m. peak hour. Traffic levels of service are graded by lettcr from A to F, ranging from free flow conditions (level .4) to severely congestee. conditions (level F). The ' typical design standard for an intersection such as T.H. 13 and Yankee Doodle Road is level D. Currently the T.H. :3 and Vankee Doodle Road inter- section operates at level D in tne a.m. peak hour and level E in the p.m. ' peak hour. I TRAfFiC FORECASTS ~ ' To perform tne traffic analyses it was first necessary to project the volumes of both Comserv development traffic and all other traffic which will 6e presen± at the T.H. 13 and Yankee Doodle Road intersection in the years 1983 and 2000. ' Standard trip generation rates were used as a basis for Predic*ing the volume of Comserv Headquarters and spec office traffic that would be oresent in the a.m. peak hour. ?he rates used for the Comserv Headquarters were reduced by ' 17': froM standard rates to reflect the pattern of staqgered work hours at Comserv. Table i presents the traffic forecast volumes for the complete Corrserv development. These peak hour voiumes were used in the year 2000 ana'.y- sis. For the 1983 analysis, the trip generaticn wouid be due just to tfie Phase , 1 Comserv development, which would amount to 1,E98 total daily trips, with a total of 266 trips in the a.m. peak hour and 253 trips in the p.m. peak hour. ' The next step in the forecasting of development traffic is the determination of origin and destination patterns for develeement trips. The source used for this analysis was a survey of the residential locations of Comserv employees. 1 1 ' ' ' -3- ' TABLE 1 I. , FULL DEVELOPMENT i'lET TRIP GE"lERhTIOP! ' ' Comserv Spec Headquarters Office Total ' Daily 4,416 4,305 8,721 , A.M. In 583 682 1,265 A.M. Ou* 110 130 240 ' A.M. Total 693 812 1,505 P.M. In 107 12E 233 ~ P.M. Out 551 644 1,195 P.M. Totai 658 770 1,4281 ' ' , 1 ' ' ' ' ' ' -4- ' After completion of the trip generation and trip distribution steps, devel- ' opment traffic was assigned to the nost direct and convenient routes to and from the site. Tabulations of development traffic movements were made at ' the T.H. 13 and Yankee Doodle Road intersection. For 1983 traffic, the inplace roadway system was used. For the year 2000 analysis, it was assumed that I-35E would be open through the City of Eagan. ' In addition to the development traffic at T.H. 13 and Yankee Doodle Road, the volumes of all other traffic at the intersection must be considered. For the 1983 analysis, current traffic counts and information on their ' recent growth rates were used to oroject other traffic volumes. For the year 2000 analysis the Metrc:,olitan Council year 2000 traffic projections were considered. These projections show a dramatic decrease in volumes , along T.H. 13 in the year 2000, presumably due to the construction of I-35E through Eagan. I-35E will run parallel to T.H. 13 and likely divert a large number of trips currently using T.H. 13. ' ' TRArFIC ANALYSES ' The first analysis case examines 1983 conditions when Phase 1 of the Comserv Headquarters would be open, but I-35E would not yet be in ooeration. for ±his analysis condition, with no improvements to the roadway system, the T.H. 13 and Yankee Doodle Rcad intersection wouid be expected to operate at , a level of service D in the a.m. peak hour, and a level of service F in the p.m. peak hour. To meet the normal design standard (i.e. level of service ~ D) during both peak periods, the following two improvements (shown in Figure ' 1) would be needed: • Installation of traffic signals at the T.H. 13 and Blackhawk ' Road intersection and widening of T.H. 13 at Blackhawk Road to include left turn lanes • Construction of a local roadway connec*_ion, through the ' Comserv site, 6etween Blackhawk P.oad and Yankee Docdie Road , These improvements would divert some traffic from Yankee Doodle Road to 61ack- hawk Road (e.g. to/`rom Comserv site and 61ue Cross and Blue Shield), achiev- ing an acceptable level of service at both intersections. ' The second analysis case considered year 2000 traffic conditions. By year 2000, the entire Comserv Headquarters and spec office would be completed and I-35r would be in ooeration. For the initial year 2000 analysis, Metropolitan , . ' ~ v w ~DOODLE ROAD Construction of local street between Blackhawk Road and 0 Goo 1200 Yankee Doodle Road in con- ~ P Q junction with Phase 1 ]CALE 1N fEET G y If volumes on T.H. 13 do not decline as per Metropolitan Council projections, T.H. 13 may need to be widened by year 0 2000 to include two through BLACK lanes in each direction hetweeii south of Blackhawk Road and S'y north of Yankee Doodle Road G eF, Up9radin9 of inter- ~~4P0 section to signalized intersection with left turn lanes on T.H. 13 in conjunction with Phase 1 ~ STAGAR-A08C10E, INC. ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED TO 0011WLTIMOENOINSYS •~..~NowRVKran MAINIAIN ADEQUATE TRAfFIC OPERATION FIfURE ] IN Cf1N,IIINCTIOM W1TI1 COMSERV DEVEI.OPM[NT , , -6- ' ' Council year 2000 traffic forecasts were used to predict non-development 1 traffic. Under this scenario, and with the improvements at Blackhawk Road shown in Ficure 1, the T.H. 13 and Yankee Doodle Road intersection would , provide level of service A in the a.m. peak hour and also level of service A in the p.m. peak hour. ' 7he Metropolitan Council year 2000 traffic projections show an approximate 60`*' reduction in traffic volumes along T.H. 13. As other development pro- ceeds in Eaean, such large reductions may not be possible, even with I-35E , construction. Therefore, an additional year 2000 analysis was performed. In this anal,vsis, a"worst case" condition, non-development traffic volumes were taken to be equal to current volume levels at the intersection. The capacity analysis for this situation indicates that level of service F would ' occur durine both the a.m, and p.m. peak hours at T.H. 13 and Yankee Ooodle Road, even with the Blackhawk Road improvements. To provide level of service D under this volume condition, an additional throuah lane would be required , on T.-:. 13 in each direction from south of Blackhawk Road to north of Yankee Doodle Road ('see figure 1). ' CONCLUSI0N5 ' 'o provide »'equate traffic operation in conjunction with Phase 1 of the Coc~serv Heaequarters development, a need would exist to upgrade the T.H. 13 ' and 3,ackha::k Road intersection to provide a tra`fic signal installation with le't `:rn lanes on T.H. 13. Another roadwa:e improvement needed would ~ be a loca; ^oadway connec'ion through the Comserv site from Blackhawk Road ' to vsnkee --codle Road. These improvements would allow the T.H. 13 and Yankee Doodle Road intersection to provide an adequate level of service prior Lo the opening of I-35E. After cons*_ruction of I-35E, if volume levels alen= r.:l. =3 decrease in accordance with Metropolitan Council projections, ' then *ull C:,rserv Headquarters and spec office development could proceed, with no fir`ner roadway improvements required. However, if the traffic volo°e> ~l.ni T.H. 13 do rot decrease as per Metrooolitan Council forecasts, ' the^ ^_ddi:i_nal roadway improvements, such as widening of T.H. 13, may be- come nec=ssz.ry as development proceeds. 1 1 1 '