DISTRICT HEATING & COOLING

DISTRICT SYSTEMSDISTRICT HEATING & COOLING

Prospect Park September, 2013

MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA

- Future Buildings

riVer rd e

UniVersitY aVe se

oaK

st s

e

es

eV

a ht

72

interCaMPUs transitwaY

es

ts

oir

at

no

es

ts

eir

e

esseX st se

orlin aVe se

ts

dl

ar

eM

e

FUlton st se

arthUr aVe se

4th st se

delaware st se

Yale aVeMalColM aVe se e

s e

Va r

Uo

MY

es

25th

aV

e se

MelBoUrne aVe se

es

eV

a h

t92

Barton aV

e se

ClarenC

e aVe se

sain

t Mar

Ys

aVe

26th

aV

e se

es

ts

dr

oF

de

B

23rd

aV

e se

sidneY Pl

es

ts n

ot

nr

oh

t

30th

aV

e se

Mal

Col

M a

Ve

se

BeaCon s t se

dartMoUth Pl

ProsPeCt ter

saint MarYs Pl

ar thUr Pl se

4th st se

5th st se

es

eV

a h

t72

27th

aV

e se

delaware st se

es

eV

a Ml

oCl

aM

es

ts

dr

oF

de

B

LRT

LRT

scale: 1” = 300’

Minneapolis st. Paul

Boiler

Waste heat recovery

Chiller

Combined heat and power plant

Solar thermal

Biogas

Thermal storage

Snow melt

Steam service pipe

Energy transfer station

Prospect Park September, 2013

MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA

- Future Buildings

riVer rd e

UniVersitY aVe se

oaK

st s

e

es

eV

a h

t72


es

ts

oir

at

no

es

ts

eir

e

esseX st se

orlin aVe se

ts

dl

ar

eM

e

FUlton st se

arthUr aVe se

4th st se

delaware st se

Yale aVeMalColM aVe se e

s e

Va r

Uo

MY

es

25th

aV

e se

MelBoUrne aVe se

es

eV

a h

t92

Barton aV

e se

ClarenC

e aVe se

sain

t Mar

Ys

aVe

26th

aV

e se

es

ts

dr

oF

de

B

23rd

aV

e se

sidneY Pl

es

ts n

ot

nr

oh

t

30th

aV

e se

Mal

Col

M a

Ve

se

BeaCon s t se

dartMoUth Pl

ProsPeCt ter

saint MarYs Pl

arthUr P

l se

4th st se

5th st se

es

eV

a h

t72

27th

aV

e se

delaware st se

es

eV

a Ml

oCl

aM

es

ts

dr

oF

de

B

LRT

LRT

scale: 1” = 300’

Minneapolis st. Paul

Boiler

Waste heat recovery

Chiller

Combined heat and power plant

Solar thermal

Biogas

Thermal storage

Snow melt

Steam service pipe

Energy transfer station

P

Source: Ever-Green Energy

An evaluation of district heating and cooling options was provided by Evergreen Energy and included the following:

Summary diagram of potential district heating and cooling system components provided by Evergreen Energy.

▫ Connecting to the University of Minnesota’s existing district energy system.

▫ A localized energy production facility – possibly at or near the future Surley site.

▫ Utilization of current production assets in the district.

▪ Analysis of the load that could be served in the Area in the next five years, as well as over the next twenty-five years, including a broad review of existing buildings currently in the Area, and expected new building construction over the next twenty-five years. Ever-Green distributed a building survey to existing building owners in the Area which helped facilitate data collection for existing building data.

▪ Quantified current and future building energy needs, as well as identifying if any of the buildings have or will have energy production assets that may be integrated into a district energy system.

▪ Cost and technical feasibility of serving the district energy system’s energy production needs through the following mechanisms:

P. 22 District Systems & Green Fourth Concepts

DISTRICT SYSTEMS

PDistrict energy systems produce steam, hot water or chilled water at a central plant. This energy is then piped underground to individual buildings for space heating, domestic hot water heating, and air conditioning. As a result, individual buildings served by a district energy system do not need their own boilers, furnaces, chillers, or air conditioners. Buildings connected to a district heating network receive a reliable heating service with stable rates due to the increased fuel flexibility and efficiencies. Other valuable benefits:

▪ Improved energy efficiency

▪ Enhanced environmental protection

▪ Fuel flexibility between fossil and alternative fuel options

▪ Ease of operation and maintenance

▪ Stable energy rates

▪ Reliability

▪ Comfort and convenience for customers

▪ Decreased life-cycle costs

▪ Decreased building capital costs

▪ Improved architectural design flexibility

Hot water district energy systems typically consist of a centralized production facility, distribution network consisting of supply and return piping, and consumers of thermal energy.

INTEGRATION OF DISTRICT HEATING SYSTEMSBACKGROUND

Combined heat and power (CHP) is a very efficient process in which waste heat from power generation is captured and used for heating.

COMBINED HEAT AND POWER (U OF M)

STEAM TO HW ENERGY TRANSFER STATIONSimilar to integration with the CHP plant, incorporating an energy transfer station with the University of Minnesota’s existing steam distribution network can provide another source of hot water to the network.

BIOGAS

As an alternative to fossil fuels, biogas could be generated through anaerobic digestion of spent grain from the Surly Brewery and other biodegradable material.

In cold climates, snowmelt systems can be added to sidewalks, walkways, and streets to eliminate snow and ice build-up. By utilizing low-grade heat for a snowmelt system, snowplowing and snow melt chemicals can be reduced or eliminated.

Along with boilers installed at a central plant, satellite and supplemental boilers can be incorporated. These can be dispatched during peak or low load periods and provide greater system redundancy.

SUPPLEMENTAL OR SATELLITE BOILERS

SNOWMELT

Combined Heat & Power (CHP) is one approach to capturing waste heat. This unused energy can also be captured from industrial processes or boilers and utilized to supply a district heating network.

WASTE HEAT

Solar thermal panels can be installed on building roofs, existing silos, and open areas to capture the sun’s energy and use it to supplement the needs of domestic hot water and building space heat.

SOLAR THERMAL AND CHP

THERMAL STORAGE

Incorporation of thermal storage offers a unique opportunity to repurpose existing grain silos to store hot water.

District cooling is the process of distributing chilled water from a central generation source for cooling and air-conditioning.

DISTRICT COOLING POSSIBILITIES

An electric driven chiller utilizes electric energy to generate chilled water for cooling purposes.

ELECTRIC CENTRIFUNGAL CHILLERS

Installing a chiller with a “free cooling” function allows the chiller to operate without running its compressor during certain times of the year.

FREE COOLING

Absorption units can be driven by waste heat and low-grade heat, such as solar energy.

ABSORPTION AND ADSORPTION CHILLERS

THERMAL STORAGEChilled water storage allows chilled water to be generated and stored during non-peak electricity periods.

Integrated community energy systems utilize multiple energy sources and technologies to effectively meet current and future energy needs. They offer a mix of fossil fuels and renewables and rely on an effective district heating and cooling infrastructure

District Systems & Green Fourth Concepts P. 23

DISTRICT SYSTEMS

The Prospect Park area of Minneapolis is on the verge of undergoing a transformation, driven in part by the upcoming start of Green Line light rail transit. This area has been identified as a potential cutting edge community that could represent an integrated approach to all four key attributes of a healthy, thriving sustainable community (research and innovation, culture of creativity and learning, environmental resilience and sustainability, and an active, lively public realm).

The vision for the Prospect Park community energy system is for it to become an integrated energy system, utilizing renewable fuels, multiple energy sources, and innovative technologies to reliably meet the community’s energy needs and provide resilience for the market volatility of fossil fuels fuels. This integrated energy approach evaluates all sources of energy within a community and optimizes the system efficiency by reducing waste and serving the needs of the community with local resources.

In Prospect Park, it has been identified that the district heating system could integrate combined heat and power, waste heat recover, biogas, hot water storage, solar thermal and snowmelt systems, along with traditional gas-fired boilers to meet the needs of the area. With regard to district cooling, the vision for Prospect Park includes the integration of chilled water storage with adsorption or absorption cooling, free cooling, solar cooling and traditional electric driven chillers. The Prospect Park Vision Map (page 08) provides a visual representation of how Prospect Park’s integrated energy system could operate. Phase I of Implementation

Through the first phase of major development, the area is expected to add 3.6 million square feet of mixed use development. Prospect Park community leaders have identified the first phase of development to occur primarily along Fourth Street SE and University Avenue, in between Malcolm Avenue and 27th Avenue SE. This

development is expected to occur over the next seven to ten years. The purpose of this document is to identify a model for serving Phase I customers while establishing an integrated energy foundation to eventually achieve the vision for the Prospect Park community.

The energy usage for each building was estimated under the proposed Phase 1 scenario. Table 1 provides the building type, square footage, and estimated heating and cooling loads of prospective Phase I buildings. These individual loads were used to estimate the expected load of the district energy system, along with the distribution system sizing and initial capital costs for the district energy system.

Trench Feet Projected Cost

Main Lines 4,000 $ 3,200,000

Service Lines 750 $ 800,000

Grand Total 4,750 $ 4,000,000


Main Lines 4,000 $2,700,000


Grand Total 4,750 $ 3,300,000

Square Footage Heating Cooling

MMBtu MMBtu/hr Tons Ton-hrs

Commercial/Retail 150,000 5,535 3.26 180 162,000

Office 150,000 5,760 3.39 345 310,500

Residential 160,000 5,360 3.15 160 144,000

Residential 160,000 5,360 3.15 160 144,000

Residential 80,000 2,680 1.58 80 72,000

Residential 80,000 2,680 1.58 80 72,000

Arts Center 50,000 2,120 1.25 60 54,000

Residential 120,000 4,020 2.36 120 108,000

Residential 120,000 4,020 2.36 120 108,000

Residential 160,000 5,360 3.15 160 144,000

Residential 160,000 5,360 3.15 160 144,000

Residential 160,000 5,360 3.15 160 144,000

Residential 160,000 5,360 3.15 160 144,000

Research 250,000 10,600 6.24 575 517,500

Residential 160,000 5,360 3.15 160 144,000

Total 2,120,000 74,935 44 2,680 2,412,000

HEATING COOLING

snowmelt $1,500,000

distribution (heating) $4,000,000 distribution (Cooling) $3,300,000

Production (heating) $1,600,000 Production (Cooling) $2,600,000

Heating Subtotal $7,100,000 Cooling Subtotal $5,900,000

engineering (10%) $700,000 engineering (10%) $600,000

general Conditions (15%) $1,100,000 general Conditions (15%) $900,000

Contingency (25%) $1,800,000 Contingency (25%) $1,500,000

Total $10,700,000 Total $8,900,000

Heating and Cooling Total $19,600,000

Land Use Average Daily Demand (GPD)

Peak Daily Demand (CFS)

surly destination Brewery 137,000 0.424

Mn innovation Park (office and Manufacture)

10,830 0.034

Mn innovative Park (research 1) 112,190 0.347


Mixed Use 1 361,760 1.679

Mixed Use 2 373,570 1.734

Mixed Use residential 82,200 0.509

Total 1,092,650 4.773

Table 1: Projected Phase I Buildings and Loads

The total estimated Phase I annual heating and cooling loads are 75,000 MMBtu and 2.4 million ton-hours, respectively. The anticipated peak loads, based on 1,700 heating full load hours and 900 cooling full load hours are 44 MMBtu/hr and 2,700 tons. These numbers will be utilized to estimate the size and cost of the initial central plant.

In addition to providing comfort to buildings, Phase I could also include the installation of a snowmelt system for the community. The building to building snowmelt system would create a unique experience on 4th Street SE and eliminate the need for snow removal, snow plows, and the introduction of salt or other chemicals along that corridor. Snowmelt systems provide communities around the world with a mechanism to maintain a thriving central district throughout the winter, regardless of weather conditions.In Prospect Park, the snowmelt system could extend from building to building along 4th street. The width of the snowmelt system was assumed to be 80 feet and it is projected to extend a length of 1,700 feet from 27th Avenue SE to Malcolm

Avenue SE. The estimated cost for the snowmelt is $1.5 million.

The Phase I hot water and chilled water distribution systems include approximately 5,000 trench feet of service and main piping for each system. The hot water pipe sizes range from 3 to 8 inches in diameter and the chilled water ranges from 4 to 12 inches in diameter. The projected cost for the hot water distribution network is $4 million and chilled water is $3.3 million, as reflected in Tables 2 and 3. Coordination of this work with other development in the area can offer an opportunity to reduce installation costs by as much as 35%.Figure 1 provides one possible route for the initial distribution system, although actual routing will be developed once a more detailed development plan is established.

Figure 1: Proposed Phase I Distribution Route, clouded areas run along the Central Corridor Light Rail. Actual routing is to be determined in the next phase of development.

P

DISTRICT HEATING AND COOLING

INTRODUCTION

SYSTEM VISION

ENERGY USAGE

SNOWMELT SYSTEM

DISTRIBUTION


DISTRICT SYSTEMS


Main Lines 4,000 $ 3,200,000


Grand Total 4,750 $ 4,000,000


Main Lines 4,000 $2,700,000


Grand Total 4,750 $ 3,300,000




Office 150,000 5,760 3.39 345 310,500

Residential 160,000 5,360 3.15 160 144,000

Residential 160,000 5,360 3.15 160 144,000

Residential 80,000 2,680 1.58 80 72,000

Residential 80,000 2,680 1.58 80 72,000

Arts Center 50,000 2,120 1.25 60 54,000

Residential 120,000 4,020 2.36 120 108,000

Residential 120,000 4,020 2.36 120 108,000

Residential 160,000 5,360 3.15 160 144,000

Residential 160,000 5,360 3.15 160 144,000

Residential 160,000 5,360 3.15 160 144,000

Residential 160,000 5,360 3.15 160 144,000

Research 250,000 10,600 6.24 575 517,500

Residential 160,000 5,360 3.15 160 144,000

Total 2,120,000 74,935 44 2,680 2,412,000

HEATING COOLING

snowmelt $1,500,000







Total $10,700,000 Total $8,900,000






10,830 0.034



Mixed Use 1 361,760 1.679

Mixed Use 2 373,570 1.734


Total 1,092,650 4.773


Main Lines 4,000 $ 3,200,000


Grand Total 4,750 $ 4,000,000


Main Lines 4,000 $2,700,000


Grand Total 4,750 $ 3,300,000




Office 150,000 5,760 3.39 345 310,500

Residential 160,000 5,360 3.15 160 144,000

Residential 160,000 5,360 3.15 160 144,000

Residential 80,000 2,680 1.58 80 72,000

Residential 80,000 2,680 1.58 80 72,000

Arts Center 50,000 2,120 1.25 60 54,000

Residential 120,000 4,020 2.36 120 108,000

Residential 120,000 4,020 2.36 120 108,000

Residential 160,000 5,360 3.15 160 144,000

Residential 160,000 5,360 3.15 160 144,000

Residential 160,000 5,360 3.15 160 144,000

Residential 160,000 5,360 3.15 160 144,000

Research 250,000 10,600 6.24 575 517,500

Residential 160,000 5,360 3.15 160 144,000

Total 2,120,000 74,935 44 2,680 2,412,000

HEATING COOLING

snowmelt $1,500,000







Total $10,700,000 Total $8,900,000






10,830 0.034



Mixed Use 1 361,760 1.679

Mixed Use 2 373,570 1.734


Total 1,092,650 4.773


Main Lines 4,000 $ 3,200,000


Grand Total 4,750 $ 4,000,000


Main Lines 4,000 $2,700,000


Grand Total 4,750 $ 3,300,000




Office 150,000 5,760 3.39 345 310,500

Residential 160,000 5,360 3.15 160 144,000

Residential 160,000 5,360 3.15 160 144,000

Residential 80,000 2,680 1.58 80 72,000

Residential 80,000 2,680 1.58 80 72,000

Arts Center 50,000 2,120 1.25 60 54,000

Residential 120,000 4,020 2.36 120 108,000

Residential 120,000 4,020 2.36 120 108,000

Residential 160,000 5,360 3.15 160 144,000

Residential 160,000 5,360 3.15 160 144,000

Residential 160,000 5,360 3.15 160 144,000

Residential 160,000 5,360 3.15 160 144,000

Research 250,000 10,600 6.24 575 517,500

Residential 160,000 5,360 3.15 160 144,000

Total 2,120,000 74,935 44 2,680 2,412,000

HEATING COOLING

snowmelt $1,500,000







Total $10,700,000 Total $8,900,000






10,830 0.034



Mixed Use 1 361,760 1.679

Mixed Use 2 373,570 1.734


Total 1,092,650 4.773

Table 2: Hot water distribution probable cost

Table 3: Chilled water distribution probable cost

The Phase I hot water system is projected to include three (3) 19 MMBtu/hr (5.5 MW) boilers, distribution pumps, and miscellaneous related equipment. The system will require approximately 3,400 square feet and has estimated projected cost of $1.6 million, not including the cost of the building. The Phase I chilled water system is projected to include three (3) 1,200 chillers, chiller and distribution pumps, cooling towers, and miscellaneous equipment. The chilled water system will require approximately 5,700 square feet and has a projected cost of $2.6 million, not including the building.

Figure 2: General plant layoutThe total expected size of the central plant is estimated at 9,100 square feet.

The total projected capital cost for the initial Phase 1 development is shown in table 4. The projected costs are based upon Ever-Green Energy’s past experience in constructing similar systems as well as working with the local construction companies. The opinion of probable cost accounts for the central plant equipment, distribution system, and snowmelt system. It does not account for the cost of each customer building interface and HVAC system or the actual building.

Table 4: Opinion of Probable Cost for the Phase I District Energy SystemThe heating and cooling systems have been priced out separately and in actuality may share some of the installation costs reducing the overall capital costs.

Implementation of Phase I of the Prospect Park district energy system will require significant focus across multiple components. To reach the overall vision, the next stage of development should include finalization of a business plan for the system, along with finalization of other various elements of the system’s structure. In order to gain project financing, the following areas will all require more significant focus: Additional detail is provided in the schedule diagram on Page 7.Business Structure, Operating Model and Business Plan: The organizational structure of the business will need to be decided upon and established. Governance of the business and how it will be operated and managed will also need to be established. A business plan establishing the strategic direction of the business should also be established.Financing Strategy: The financing plan for the business needs to be established so that development period activities may be geared toward the needs of the financing entities.Plant Location: The location of the initial energy center will need to be determined, preferably somewhere near the Phase I customer buildings and within another structure (such as a parking ramp).Customer Contracts: The structure of the energy

PPRODUCTION

OPINION OF PROBABLE COST

IMPLEMENTATIONrate and the term of the agreements will need to be set. The energy service agreements will also need to be drafted.Customers Signed: Customer proposals need to be developed based upon the newly established contracts. The Phase I load will also need to be signed to the contracts to support project financing.System Expansion Plan: The Prospect Park stakeholders and the business should determine what a prudent growth strategy for the system beyond Phase I of implementation might be. Design: Design of the system will need to be completed enough to support the securing of permits, easements and lump-sum construction prices.Franchise or Easements: The business will require approvals to route the distribution lines through public right of ways and across private properties.Construction Contracts: Contracts for all equipment and construction will need to be signed prior to project financing being secured.Community Outreach: The business should develop a strong relationship with the local community and advance an outreach program that maintains the community stakeholders as partners in the system development and management.The amount of time required to finalize plans for each of these components will be dependent upon a number of factors, both internal and external.


DISTRICT SYSTEMS

P

PUBLIC UTILITIESWATER NETWORK WATER NETWORK

Water line

Minneapolis Water provides domestic and fire protection water service in the project area.

• A new 16” water main was constructed in University Avenue SE from 29th Avenue SE to the east to the City limit with the CCLRT Project.

• There is existing 16” water main from 29th Avenue SE to a 48” transmission water main in Oak Street to the west.

• There is an existing 16” water main in Malcolm Avenue SE from University Avenue SE to the Transit Way.

• There is existing 16” water main in 4th Street SE from Malcolm Avenue SE to the west eventually connecting to the 48” transmission water main in Oak Street SE. This water main was modified as a part of the CCLRT Project.

There is generally adequate water main infrastructure in the project area. The future extension of 27th Avenue SE to the north may allow for extension of trunk water main north of the Transit Way looping back to Malcolm Avenue SE.

There are no planned improvements in the project area. Minneapolis Water is doing mostly rehabilitation work on water main, including cement lining. The rehabilitation work is generally coordinated with CIP roadway projects, like Green Fourth. There is adequate domestic water supply to the project area and the proposed development. Minneapolis Water feels that fire demand may be a limiting factor for development. Confirmation of fire flow is the responsibility of the developer.

Minneapolis Water likes to see one hydrant at each intersection with spacing not to exceed 600 feet. Each new building generally requires one domestic and one fire service. Combined services are allowed, with the domestic service size not exceeding a quarter of the combined service size. Separate services are preferred because they generally provide for better water quality.

SANITARY SEWER NETWORK

SEWER PIPE NETWORK

Sanitary sewer

Storm sewer

The City of Minneapolis Public Works Surface Water and Sewers Department provides sanitary sewer service in the project area. There is a large trunk sanitary sewer system in University Avenue SE that drains west to a 96” MCES sanitary sewer interceptor in Oak Street SE. The trunk sanitary sewer is 33” brick from Malcolm Avenue SE to 29th Avenue SE, 39” concrete pipe from 29th Avenue SE to 25th Avenue SE, and 45” concrete pipe to Huron Boulevard. This trunk sanitary sewer system is generally serving the project area, with 15” clay to 24” clay lateral trunk sanitary sewers. These laterals are sized to accommodate growth over the current land use.

Surface Waters & Sewers does not have any capital projects planned in the project area. They are doing lining projects and manhole reconstructs, usually coordinated with other CIP roadway projects, like Green Fourth. Surface Waters & Sewers confirmed that there are no condition assessments or known sanitary sewer issues in the project area. The Rain Leader Disconnect Program looks at illegal roof rain leader connections to sanitary sewer system and requires disconnecting of illegal connections. It is not clear the status of rain leader disconnects in the project area, but demolition and redevelopment generally accomplishes these disconnects.

Sanitary sewer is typically designed at the centerline of the roadway, with water main typically 10 feet off centerline. Private (dry) utilities are located within the right-of-way and are typically placed within a zone behind the curb. Joint trenches – combination of gas, electric, communications utilities - are not typical in the City of Minneapolis.

A water and sewer demand analysis was done for the project area to compare to the capacity of existing sanitary system.

The capacity of the smallest lateral trunk sanitary sewer system in the project area is a 15”, which as a capacity of approximately 4.8 CFS. The capacity of the 39” concrete trunk sanitary sewer in University Avenue SE at 25th Avenue SE is approximately 19.5 CFS. The trunk sanitary sewer system in the project area has the capacity to accommodate

Note: Water network information provided in this section is for a purpose of discussion only. It requires further work and review with Minneapolis Public Works.


DISTRICT SYSTEMS

STORMWATER

WATERSHED1867 HISTORIC WATER BODY

MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION (MWMO) BOUNDARY BRIDAL VEIL PIPESHED

P

Our study examined possible development scenarios along Green 4th that can reduce rates and volume of stormwater directly entering into conventional stormwater pipe system while allowing maxim ground water recharge and improving water quality.

The impact to the Bridal Veil Creek (BVC) watershed was assessed with Floodplain / stormwater modeling of existing and proposed redeveloped conditions. Barr performed modeling of the 100-year flooding associated with proposed conditions in the BVC watershed for proposed changes to Green 4th Street and the identified private parcels for redevelopment, incorporating water quality treatment in four proposed scenarios:

Green 4th, which which sits in the Bridal Veil Creek pipeshed (BVC), is a part of Mississippi River Watershed that once was filled with large wetlands, prairie, and a creek that ran through the site and cascaded down to Mississippi River via the Bridal Veil Waterfall.

The 1867 Survey map from Metropolitan Design Center’s study shows how the Green 4th site sits within a larger network of wetlands and BVC. As the area developed into a rail yard and an agricultural distribution center, along with the expansion of street car communities like Prosepct Park and University of Minnesota, the wetland was drained into underground stormwater pipe which replaced the Bridal Veil Creek.

Responding to concerns about climate change, conservation of quality ground water resources, as well as urban ecology, many studies suggest incorporation of Low Impact Development (LID) strategies as a guide to enhance quality of life in American cities.

We explore how much of an impact design alternatives explored in Green 4th development scenario can have for the health of the surrounding environment and the hydrologic system.

▪ 1A. Minimum Treatment Standard (0.4 inches) applied to BOTH Private Property and Green 4th

▪ 1B. Minimum Treatment Standard (0.4 inches) applied to ONLY Private Property

▪ 2A. Maximum Treatment Standard (1.1 inches) applied to BOTH Private Property and Green 4th

▪ 2B. Maximum Treatment Standard (1.1 inches) applied to ONLY Private Property

Barr then compared the changes to existing conditions flooding throughout the entire BVC watershed. The proposed redevelopment and water quality practices generally result in decreased flooding in the BVC watershed, most significantly in the stormsewer network adjacent to Green 4th Street. Scenario 2A, Maximum Treatment Standard (1.1 inches) applied to BOTH Private Property and Green 4th, results in thegreatest flooding decrease in the most locations. Results are shown in the attached figures for allscenarios.

!(

!(!(

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

!

!!!

!!

!!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

(

(((

((

((

(

( (

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

((

(

(

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

((

(

(

(

(

(Minneapolis saint Paul

280

45675

456736

456737

4567122

456734

4th st se

oak

st

se

ont

ario

st s

e

27th

ave

se

essex st se

erie

st

se

Mal

colm

ave

se

25th

ave

se

intercampus transitway

delaware st se

23rd

ave

se

Fulton st se

arthur ave se

wes

tgat

e d

r

huron st

5th st se

University ave se

29th

ave

se

will

iam

s av

e se

w territorial rd

Ber

y st

26th

ave

se

orlin ave se

e r iver rd

robbin

s st

sidney Pl

30th

ave

se

saint Marys ave se

Cla

rence ave seseymour ave se

washington ave se

Bedfo

rd st se

hur

on s

t se

Beacon st se

territorial rd

inter Campus transit way

dartmouth ave se

Barto

n ave se

Prospect ter se

washington ave se

5th st se

hur

on s

t se

Ba

rr F

oo

ter:

arc

gis

10

.2, 2

01

3-11

-22

16

:44

File

: \\

bar

r.co

m\g

is\P

roje

cts\

23\

27

\13

13

\Ma

ps\r

ep

ort

s\F

igu

re 3

_1

Pro

pos

ed

1b

Co

ndi

tion

Cha

ng

es.m

xd U

ser:

KJM

Figure 3.1

Change in node 100 Year Flooding dePth0.4 in of infiltration (Minimum treatment) in Private only

green 4th street, Minneapolis, Minnesota

Existing Condition Node Flood Depth!( 0 Ft. - 0.5 Ft. (101 total)

!( 0.5 Ft. - 1.0 Ft. (113 total)

!( greater than 1 Ft. (54 total)

Proposed Condition Node Flooding Decrease!( 0 Ft. – 0.1 Ft. (130 total)!( 0.1 Ft. – 0.25 Ft. (0 total)!( 0.25 Ft. – 0.5 Ft. (0 total)!( greater than 0.5 Ft. (1 total)

!(locations whereFlooding is eliminatedBridal Veil CreektunnelshedProposed development4th street Project areaMunicipal Boundaries

Minneapolis

saint Paul

roseville

Falcon heights

§̈¦94

§̈¦35w

§̈¦94280

51

55

65

!;N

0 800400

Feet


Apendix

RATE CONTROL

The City’s stormwater rate control standards for redevelopment are that the rate of runoff generated in proposed conditions for up to the 100-year, 24-hour event must not be greater than the existing conditions, unless the area has been identified as a problematic flooding area by the City. While the BVC watershed does have some flooding problems and the BVC tunnel system is overcapacity in the 100-year event, discussions with City Public Works staff revealed that this is not a high priority flooding area, and thus would likely be subject to the City’s standard rate control rules.

Due to the fact that the BVC watershed is already highly developed and imperviousness quite high within proposed Green 4th and the nearby proposed development, it is unlikely that rate control will be a significant concern in new development in this area. The City’s current zoning requires new development to retain 20% of the development for green space (pervious), and due to the highly-impervious nature of the existing conditions, it was determined that likely only a few private parcels would need rate control to ensure that proposed runoff rates would not exceed existing conditions. In these locations, the existing pervious cover is greater than 20%, meaning that redevelopment could result in greater stormwater runoff. The model incorporates rate control at these locations.

VOLUME CONTROL

The City’s water quality rules require that proposed private development reduce total suspended solids (TSS) from the development by 70% on an annual basis. MWMO has determined through previous work that this City requirement approximates the treatment provided by infiltration/filtration practices that capture 0.4 inches of runoff from the tributary impervious surfaces. This treatment requirement does not apply to City roads (i.e., a reconstructed Green 4th). The 0.4-inch standard is hereafter referred to as the “minimum treatment standard”.

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has developed a higher treatment standard that

P

STORMWATER

approximates native hydrology. The proposed standard developed by MPCA provides volume control treatment of 1.1 inches of runoff over the tributary impervious surfaces. The 1.1-inch standard is hereafter referred to as the “maximum treatment standard”.

QUALITY

Stormwater – Modeling and ResultsBarr performed modeling of the 100-year flooding associated with proposed conditions in the BVC watershed for proposed changes to Green 4th Street and the identified private parcels for redevelopment, incorporating water quality treatment in eight (8) proposed scenarios:

1A. Minimum Treatment Standard (0.4 inches) applied to BOTH Private Property and Green 4th1B. Minimum Treatment Standard (0.4 inches) applied to ONLY Private Property 2A. Maximum Treatment Standard (1.1 inches) applied to BOTH Private Property and Green 4th2B. Maximum Treatment Standard (1.1 inches) applied to ONLY Private Property

Barr then compared the changes to existing conditions flooding throughout the entire BVC watershed. The proposed redevelopment and water quality practices generally result in decreased flooding in the BVC watershed, most significantly in the stormsewer network adjacent to Green 4th Street. Scenario 2A, Maximum Treatment Standard (1.1 inches) applied to BOTH Private Property and Green 4th, results in the greatest flooding decrease in the most locations.

Stormwater – Separate or Shared Systems

Cost Estimate 107410.9231

Item

Treatment Volume

(CF)

Impervious Surface

Treated (SF)

Estimated Construction Cost per CF Treatment

Estimated Construction

CostsEstimated

Design CostsLifespan

(Years, n)

Annual O&M Costs (i=4%)

O&M Present Value

Total Present Value

Annualized Capital

Costs, i=4%

Total Annual

Cost (2012$) Assumptions

Private Treatment Enhanced Iron CostRainwater Garden 100 $16.18 $1,618 $243 10 $125 $1,014 $2,875 $229.46 $354 CF Fe (tons) Tons/1cf $2K/ton6 Overflow Structures @$10K each 60,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 50 $3,072.31 $3,072 Marion RWGs 4122 4.5 0.001092 2.183406Roof liner $18,918.89 $1,891.9 25 $1,332.14 $1,332 Green Roof 17027 SF Liner $/SY $10 Quote for poly linerPublicPermeable Pavement 27,000.00$ 2,700.00$ 25 88.20$ $1,901.16 $1,989 Pavers 1800 SF $/SF 15.00$ O&M/SF 0.049$ Tree Trenches 139,408.00$ 13,940.80$ 40 900.00$ $7,747.72 $8,648 Tree Trench 1600 cf $/cf 87.13 O&M/SF 0.50$

Design Construction Capital CostAnnualized Capital Cost

Annual Operations and Maintenance Total Annual Cost Unit Quantity

SEPARATE TREATMENTRooftop Rain Gardens $14,400 $122,100 $136,500 $10,500 $3,300 $13,900 80% 70% 82%RWG $6,481 $43,208 $49,689 $6,126 $3,337 $9,463 CF 2,670 1,867 2,800liner $1,891.9 $18,918.89 $20,811 $1,332 $1,332structures 6000 60000 $66,000 $3,072 $3,072Public Treatment $5,800 $51,700 $57,500 $4,400 $1,200 $5,500 80% 70.3% 81.6%

Permeable Pavers-30th 2700 27000 $29,700 $1,901 88.2 $1,989

(75% to 4th, 25% to 30th) CF - North 543 380 570

Tree Trenches-30th 1182.321 11823.206 $13,006 $657 76.3290872 $733 CF - South 390 273 410RWG on 4th $1,936 $12,906 $14,842 $1,830 $997 $2,827TOTAL $20,200 $173,800 $194,000 $14,900 $4,500 $19,400

COMBINED TREATMENT $12,300 $94,800 $107,100 $10,500 $4,500 $15,000 80% 70.2% 81.6%Permeable Pavers-30th 2700 27000 29700 1901.155295 88.2 1989.355 3,204 2,240 3,360Tree Trenches-30th 1182.321 11823.206 13005.5266 657.0845838 76.3290872 733.4137 391 273 410RWG on 4th $8,397 $55,977 $64,374 $7,937 $4,324 $12,260 CF


Item

Treatment Volume

(CF)

Impervious Surface

Treated (SF)



CostsEstimated


(Years, n)


O&M Present Value

Total Present Value

Annualized Capital

Costs, i=4%

Total Annual











Item

Treatment Volume

(CF)

Impervious Surface

Treated (SF)



CostsEstimated


(Years, n)


O&M Present Value

Total Present Value

Annualized Capital

Costs, i=4%

Total Annual











DISTRICT SYSTEMS

P

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT OPTIONSPrivate Public R.O.W

Private Public R.O.W

1. CONVENTIONAL - SEPARATE SYSTEMS

2. CONVENTIONAL PLUS - SEPARATE SYSTEMS

In conventional stormwater conveyance systems, the water is treated in the realm in which it falls. If rain falls on private property, that property is responsible for treating it, the same holds true for public property. There should be no crossover between realms, treatment must remain separate. This is the standard for many cities across the globe. It offers redundancy and ensures there is no grey area of responsibility.

Similar to the first system discussed, rainwater is treated in the realm in which it falls. The unique difference in the ‘conventional plus’ system is that some small low-impact development (LID) techniques have been instituted in the public ROW.LID’s such as rain gardens that take water from the sidewalk and/or the street and treat it before allowing infiltration to occur.Again, responsibility remains squarely the onus of each entity .


DISTRICT SYSTEMS



3. SHARED SYSTEM - PRIVATE STORMWATER TREATMENT INSTALLED IN PUBLIC R.O.W

4. SHARED SYSTEM BEST PRACTICES - RESTORATIVE APPROACH

Building off the ‘convential plus’ system, the shared system begins to blur the lines between the responsible party and infers that we are all responsible. Creating LID’s such as rain gardens near the edges of properties allows for a portion of the water from the public realm to be treated in the private realm. The private realm often has less utilities in place than the public ROW, which may allow for greater depth of planting and better infiltration

The ‘restorative’ approach would showcase the best LID practices and techniques available. Different curb types to allow water to flow through from the street, rain gardens and infiltration strips, pervious pavement, bioswales, and plant choices that thrive on the disruption caused by rain events and possible standing water that will accompany them.The line between public and private treatment is nearly erased in this example and responsibility is shared between the city and the private entities.


DISTRICT SYSTEMS

P

STORMWATER INSTALLATIONS FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY AND PUBLIC R.O.W

POTENTIAL SHARED SYSTEM APPROACHThis vignette depicts a potential shared system where the private realm would capture some stormwater via infiltrating planters and pervious walkways. The public realm would also capture and infiltrate stormwater via pervious paving, curb inlets, and both shallow and deep raingardens. All of these LID’s would infiltrate water and direct the remnant overflow to the public system. This approach takes much strain off of the public system due to the amount of infiltration that is planned.


DISTRICT SYSTEMS

As the mandate to create great places for people (not just parks or streets or individual buildings) takes center stage, innovative but tested approaches bring needed focus to effectively bridge vision to implementation. We have a greater responsibility than ever to address issues of the day, whether related to development, energy, sustainability, social justice, environmental protection, or economics (all related to sound city-building).

The reconstruction of existing 4th Street – the profound metamorphosis into GREEN FOURTH – presents a unique opportunity within the Prospect North District to demonstrate our ability to thoughtfully integrate physical design features with district infrastructure. How to successfully blend a signature design aesthetic with 21st Century functional efficiencies.

The adjacent chart serves to illustrate (in the simplest terms) baseline project components and City project budget – plus – additional funding provided by the Metropolitan Council and potential project enhancements – plus – a fully integrated systems approach, potential project enhancements and costs.

Note: additional cost evaluation and other financial information has been prepared by Prospect Park 2020, SRF Consulting Group, Christina Smitten and other sources.

TYPICAL STREET SECTION

CONVENTIONAL

BUDGET: $1.4 MIL.(BASELINE

PUBLIC WORKS)

CONVENTIONALPLUS

BUDGET :ADD $500 K

(METCOUNCILGRANT)

INTEGRATED SYSTEMS

BUDGET :ADD $3 MIL.

(PRIVATE / PUBLICFUNDING)

STORMWATERMANAGEMENT

STACKED SOLUTIONS...CLOSED LOOP SYSTEMS

GREEN FOURTH


SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS

+ PLUS

+ PLUS

DISTRICT SYSTEMS

green wall

Boutique hotel solar

powerPark

stormwater

harvesting & use

stormwater

harvesting & use

Community garden

roof deck

energy productionfrom vibration

adaptive reuse

Park &recreation

iconicBldg.

event Center

stormwater infiltration for groundwater recharge

district cooling& heating

downtown MPls & river View

29th. lrt station Plaza

RESTORATIVE CLOSED-LOOP DISTRICT INFR

ASTR

UC

TU

RE

SY

ST

EM

PARKINGCOMMERCIAL

RESIDENTIAL

PARKINGCOMMERCIALOFFICERESIDENTIAL

Pavegen: Paving system that

generates electricity

innowattech: Parasitic energy harvesting

P

The Prospect North District is uniquely positioned to become an innovative model for sustainable redevelopment due to its scale and the adopted vision for its physical transformation. Much as the public realm should be conceived in toto, district-wide systems to manage water and waste, harvest renewable energy sources and promote health and wellness through design should also be seamlessly developed in conjunction with physical design of both the public and private realms.

Closed-loop systems at a district scale are gaining momentum globally due to significant advances towards ‘regenerative’ solutions, transcending sustainability benchmarks in favor of restorative outcomes and thriving cities. There are now numerous successful examples, allowing us to directly study new communities that are not only beautiful places to be, but also progressive and responsible developments designed in direct response to the challenges of our time.We strongly believe that Prospect North should advance these concepts, with a willingness to innovate . . . to become a district that demonstrates new development concepts, provides measureable outcomes that encourage others, and still meets financial feasibility targets to deliver successful projects.

DISTRICT SYSTEMS

Urban Living, Western Harbour, Malmö Sweden Solar array parking Cincinnati Zoo & Botanical Garden Urban agriculture in Cleveland OH


APPENDIX



WORKSHEETS, MAPS & DIAGRAMS

Apendix

P

SURFACE FLOW & 100 YEAR FLOOD

Surface water flow

Water volume low >0.5 ft

Water volume medium <0.5 ft, >1 ft

Water volume high <1 ft

2 ft contour line

Potential Developments

Pipeshed boundary


Apendix

PStormwater pipe

Water volume low >0.5 ft

Water volume medium <0.5 ft, >1 ft

Water volume high <1 ft

2 ft contour line

Potential Developments

Pipeshed boundary


Apendix

0.4 INCH RAINFALL VOLUME REDUCTION --- PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT ONLY

!(

!(!(

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

!

!!!

!!

!!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

(

(((

((

((

(

( (

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

((

(

(

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

((

(

(

(

(

(Minneapolis saint Paul

280

45675

456736

456737

4567122

456734

4th st se

oak

st

se

ont

ario

st s

e

27th

ave

se

essex st se

erie

st

se

Mal

colm

ave

se

25th

ave

se


delaware st se

23rd

ave

se

Fulton st se

arthur ave se

wes

tgat

e d

r

huron st

5th st se

University ave se

29th

ave

se

will

iam

s av

e se

w territorial rd

Ber

y st

26th

ave

se

orlin ave se

e r iver rd

robbin

s st

sidney Pl

30th

ave

se

saint Marys ave se

Cla


washington ave se

Bedfo

rd st se

hur

on s

t se

Beacon st se

territorial rd


dartmouth ave se

Barto

n ave se

Prospect ter se

washington ave se

5th st se

hur

on s

t se

Ba

rr F

oo

ter:

arc

gis

10

.2, 2

01

3-11

-22

16

:44

File

: \\

bar

r.co

m\g

is\P

roje

cts\

23\

27

\13

13

\Ma

ps\r

ep

ort

s\F

igu

re 3

_1

Pro

pos

ed

1b

Co

ndi

tion

Cha

ng

es.m

xd U

ser:

KJM

Figure 3.1

Change in node 100 Year Flooding dePth0.4 in of infiltration (Minimum treatment) in Private only



!( 0.5 Ft. - 1.0 Ft. (113 total)




Minneapolis

saint Paul

roseville

Falcon heights

§̈¦94

§̈¦35w

§̈¦94280

51

55

65

!;N

0 800400

Feet

P

Minneapolis saint Paul

280

45675

456736

456737

4567122

456734

4th st se

oak

st

se

ont

ario

st s

e

27th

ave

se

essex st se

erie

st

se

Mal

colm

ave

se

25th

ave

se


delaware st se

23rd

ave

se

Fulton st se

arthur ave se

wes

tgat

e d

r

huron st

5th st se

University ave se

29th

ave

se

will

iam

s av

e se

w territorial rd

Ber

y st

26th

ave

se

orlin ave se

e r iver rd

robbin

s st

sidney Pl

30th

ave

se

saint Marys ave se

Cla


washington ave se

Bedfo

rd st se

hur

on s

t se

Beacon st se

territorial rd


dartmouth ave se

Barto

n ave se

Prospect ter se

washington ave se

5th st se

hur

on s

t se

Ba

rr F

oo

ter:

arc

gis

10

.2, 2

01

3-11

-22

16

:44

File

: \\

bar

r.co

m\g

is\P

roje

cts\

23\

27

\13

13

\Ma

ps\r

ep

ort

s\F

igu

re 1

_1

Pro

pos

ed

1a

Co

ndi

tion

Cha

ng

es.m

xd U

ser:

KJM

Figure 1.1

Change in node 100 Year Flooding dePth0.4 in of infiltration (Minimum treatment) in both Private

and green 4th street



!( 0.5 Ft. - 1.0 Ft. (113 total)




Minneapolis

saint Paul

roseville

Falcon heights

§̈¦94

§̈¦35w

§̈¦94280

51

55

65

!;N

0 800400

Feet

Source: Barr Engineering


Apendix


0.4 INCH RAINFALL VOLUME REDUCTION --- PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT + GREEN 4TH.

P


280

45675

456736

456737

4567122

456734

4th st se

oak

st

se

ont

ario

st s

e

27th

ave

se

essex st se

erie

st

se

Mal

colm

ave

se

25th

ave

se


delaware st se

23rd

ave

se

Fulton st se

arthur ave se

wes

tgat

e d

r

huron st

5th st se

University ave se

29th

ave

se

will

iam

s av

e se

w territorial rd

Ber

y st

26th

ave

se

orlin ave se

e r iver rd

robbin

s st

sidney Pl

30th

ave

se

saint Marys ave se

Cla


washington ave se

Bedfo

rd st se

hur

on s

t se

Beacon st se

territorial rd


dartmouth ave se

Barto

n ave se

Prospect ter se

washington ave se

5th st se

hur

on s

t se

Ba

rr F

oo

ter:

arc

gis

10

.2, 2

01

3-11

-22

16

:58

File

: \\

bar

r.co

m\g

is\P

roje

cts\

23\

27

\13

13

\Ma

ps\r

ep

ort

s\F

igu

re 4

_1

Pro

pos

ed

2b

Co

ndi

tion

Cha

ng

es.m

xd U

ser:

KJM

Figure 4.1

Change in node 100 Year Flooding dePth1.1 in of infiltration (Maximum treatment) in Private only



!( 0.5 Ft. - 1.0 Ft. (113 total)




Minneapolis

saint Paul

roseville

Falcon heights

§̈¦94

§̈¦35w

§̈¦94280

51

55

65

!;N

0 800400

Feet


280

45675

456736

456737

4567122

456734

4th st se

oak

st

se

ont

ario

st s

e

27th

ave

se

essex st se

erie

st

se

Mal

colm

ave

se

25th

ave

se


delaware st se

23rd

ave

se

Fulton st se

arthur ave se

wes

tgat

e d

r

huron st

5th st se

University ave se

29th

ave

se

will

iam

s av

e se

w territorial rd

Ber

y st

26th

ave

se

orlin ave se

e r iver rd

robbin

s st

sidney Pl

30th

ave

se

saint Marys ave se

Cla


washington ave se

Bedfo

rd st se

hur

on s

t se

Beacon st se

territorial rd


dartmouth ave se

Barto

n ave se

Prospect ter se

washington ave se

5th st se

hur

on s

t se

Ba

rr F

oo

ter:

arc

gis

10

.2, 2

01

3-11

-26

07

:28

File

: \\

bar

r.co

m\g

is\P

roje

cts\

23\

27

\13

13

\Ma

ps\r

ep

ort

s\F

igu

re 2

_1

Pro

pos

ed

2a

Co

ndi

tion

Cha

ng

es.m

xd U

ser:

KJM

Figure 2.1

Change in node 100 Year Flooding dePth1.1 in of infiltration (Maximum treatment) in both Private

and green 4th


Existing Condition Node Flood Depth( 0 Ft. - 0.5 Ft. (101 total)

!( 0.5 Ft. - 1.0 Ft. (113 total)




Minneapolis

saint Paul

roseville

Falcon heights

§̈¦94

§̈¦35w

§̈¦94280

51

55

65

!;N

0 800400

Feet


Apendix


TRAFFIC & PARKING PMAP1: PHASE 1. LAND USE ASSUMPTION

MAP2: FULL BUILD-OUT


6

5

5

4

3

2

1

riVer rd e

UniVersitY aVe se

oaK

st s

e

27th

aV

e se


onta

rio s

t se

erie

st s

e

esseX st se

orlin aVe se

eMer

ald

st

FUlton st se

arthUr aVe se

4th st se

delaware st se

Yale aVeMalColM aVe se

seY

MoU

r aV

e se

25th

aV

e se

MelBoUrne aVe se

29th

aV

e se

Barton aV

e se

ClarenC

e aVe se

sain

t Mar

Ys

aVe

26th

aV

e se

Bed

For

d st

se

23rd

aV

e se

sidneY Pl

thor

nton

st s

e

30th

aV

e se

Mal

Col

M a

Ve

se

BeaCon st se

dartMoUth Pl

ProsPeCt ter

Brid

al V

eil C

ir

saint MarYs Pl

arthUr P

l se

4th st se

5th st se

27th

aV

e se

27th

aV

e se

delaware st se

Mal

Col

M a

Ve

se

Bed

For

d st

se

LRT

LRT

6

55

5 3

2

2

2

1

1

1

2

2

22

riVer rd e

UniVersitY aVe se

oaK

st s

e

27th

aV

e se


onta

rio s

t se

erie

st s

e

esseX st se

orlin aVe se

eMer

ald

st

FUlton st se

arthUr aVe se

4th st se

delaware st se

Yale aVeMalColM aVe se

seY

MoU

r aV

e se

25th

aV

e se

MelBoUrne aVe se

29th

aV

e se

Barton aV

e se

ClarenC

e aVe se

sain

t Mar

Ys

aVe

26th

aV

e se

Bed

For

d st

se

23rd

aV

e se

sidneY Pl

thor

nton

st s

e

30th

aV

e se

Mal

Col

M a

Ve

se

BeaCon st se

dartMoUth Pl

ProsPeCt ter

Brid

al V

eil C

irsaint MarYs Pl

arthUr P

l se

4th st se

5th st se

27th

aV

e se

27th

aV

e se

delaware st seM

alC

olM

aV

e se

Bed

For

d st

se

LRT

LRT

6

5 4

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

22

1

4

Apendix

*All data related to traffic has not been approved by City of Minneapolis Public Works. Before moving forward this will need formalization, validation, and approval.

P


Documents

DISTRICT HEATING & COOLING